The problem you run into is that none of your references, assuming that the several I read are representative, actually demonstrates anything even remotely like what you keep claiming. If there is a nugget of gold in that heap of dross that you keep linking up, please locate it. I've already wasted plenty of time searching for what you claim is there. So far I haven't even located a person, other than you, hinting that it might be there.
I see lots of references to interpreting amendments as they were understood at the time they were ratified. I see zero references to interpreting the amendments as if they hadn't been written because they conflict with an older understanding of the law, or, as it was put earlier "... to the point of indifference to anything else, even further Amendments."
So, I repeat:
Nope, originalism refers to relying entirely on the Founding Fathers to the point of indifference to anything else, even further Amendments.
Find me some supreme court decisions that disregarded amendments in favor of what the Founders thought. Or appeals court decisions. Or circuit court. Or traffic court.
In light of your subsequent whining, I will also accept dissents.
And no, I don't give a fuck who you are. I just didn't want to accuse you of ignoring your own words, in case you weren't the same guy.
Just change all of the listings slightly. "Perfect for piracy" becomes "Perfect for not piracy". "Never pay for cable again" becomes "Never not not pay for not cable again"
Seriously though, the Kodi developers despise these guys, and I think have been actively seeking to get amazon, ebay, etc to crack down. The scammers make big promises and tell the customers to post on the developer mailing list or forums for support, even though the end user almost never has problems with Kodi, but with some third party add-ons or websites.
Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable?
Not all scholarly works are "science". Science is a method for testing ideas to determine which ones are good and which ones are bad. Very few studies report on testing beyond made up assumptions, aka the author's opinions.
I have no way of knowing if you are the same AC that I was talking to before, but either way, you've missed some context.
Nope, originalism refers to relying entirely on the Founding Fathers to the point of indifference to anything else, even further Amendments.
Find me some supreme court decisions that disregarded amendments in favor of what the Founders thought.
Effectively, you are claiming that a man invented a carburetor in the 70s that got 400 miles per gallon, and as proof, you send me a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carburetor, as if the existence of carburetors in general were sufficient to prove the existence of an extraordinary magical carb.
Find me an example of originalism being applied, by a court, as described in the context claimed.
Ok, if it is a known practice, cite it. Find me some supreme court decisions that disregarded amendments in favor of what the Founders thought. Or appeals court decisions. Or circuit court. Or traffic court.
Google has convinced a large fraction of all websites to install web bugs that funnel data back to google. The ISPs have a list of IP addresses that you make encrypted connections to.
But yeah, we totally need to keep ignoring the giant vacuum cleaner and crack down on the guys that can't see shit.
You've devised a theory that says that even though you lost, you were perfect and don't need to change a thing. How original! Can't wait to see how that works out for you.
I believe the actual motivation behind this move is the same one that is behind making it more difficult for poor and disenfranchised people to vote - even though there is no evidence of significant voting fraud in the USA: Poor folks and minorities might vote Democratic. Suppression of the Black vote has historically been an important part of Republican strategy, this [washingtonpost.com] is just one of many reports on that issue. Having gerrymandered them into the most odd-shaped electoral districts, it becomes time to make sure they can't get news online or participate in democratic discourse.
According to Bruce, anyone who supports Voter ID laws (like I do) is doing so out of racism. And the same people (me again) are also trying to silence black people and keep them from being able to participate in politics.
If you are talking about anything in post 54140891, I had a lengthy reply written that I nuked in favor of what I wrote because I do not give a fuck who decided Roe vs. Wade, but I did very much want to mock Bruce and make sure everyone else reading this conversation saw his desperate and feeble attempt to change the subject for what it was: fear.
Go up to comment 54140063 and read on -1 if you want. You'll see that I've been more than willing to address anything that even looks a little bit like it might be "a point" that he is trying to make.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The turnout would not be the same with different rules.
If we want to know what would happen in reality under different rules, we need to change the rules and find out. Anything else is speculation, which, and I'm repeating myself yet again, tells us more about your assumptions than it does about reality.
Elections are not won in the mythical middle. Elections are won by "get out the vote". Feel free to consult some exit-polling data if you don't understand this.
In your imaginary universe where everyone decides in advice whether or not they are going to vote, but not for who, you might have a case that different rules wouldn't change the outcome.
Here on planet Earth though, almost everyone knows who they would vote for, but not if they will vote at all. Without electoral weighting, lots of people who don't bother to vote now because it is pointless (like in my state) would be up at the crack of dawn, in line at the polling places, waiting their turn to cancel out the votes of bicoastal pricks or flyover hicks.
Hmm, the founders provided a mechanism for changing The Constitution, and that mechanism was used. How do you interpret that to mean anything other than that they intended for that to happen? Is my copy defective? Did the printer leave off "Just kidding" from the text of Article 5 in my copy?
And the answer to your question about who raped slaves and kept women at home is "Democrats". Democrats fought to keep slavery, and they fought to prevent women from voting.
Yeah. Because "assistance" has such a great track record. 50 years and $22 trillion dollars later, and what progress have we made towards reducing poverty? None. About all we've managed to do is destroy the black family - a structure that survived slavery and Jim Crow, nearly wiped out by 50 years of "assistance".
Are you trying to say that the decision might have been conclusive for Trump except that a lot of presumptive Trump supporters did not vote because they knew their vote would not count?
We have no idea what would have happened if the election had been done by different rules. A scientist would tell you that "we didn't run that experiment", so speculation about "what if?" tells you only about yourself.
What I'm saying is that if you want to pretend that your side would have won if the rules had been different, then so can I. Except that I don't need to, because reality and stuff.
Hmm. My copy of The Constitution says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the originalist view of that sentence is that women can vote in states that have elections (currently all of them). I would absolutely love to hear the non-originalist reading of that passage, and maybe some citations of court cases supporting the theory that this alternative sense (whatever it is) is operating as law somewhere.
The theory that the Constitution means what it says is an absolute necessity for women's suffrage or racial equality. If the 10th doesn't reserve "everything not listed" to the states or people, then why do the 14th, 15th and 19th mean what they say? Are you aware of this gaping hole in your reasoning? Does it bother you?
You start by calling me a racist and think that my reply was meant to engage you in a political argument? Sheesh, and you think that I'm the kid here.
Here's what ESR (you've heard of him, no?) had to say about the election:
So, what can you do?
The most obvious thing is that you have to stop contemptuously dismissing the largest single demographic segment of the American electorate. Because believe me, they noticed. So did their wives and children.
This has larger implications than you may yet understand. It's not just that you need to take any Democrat who uses the phrase "angry white men" out to the woodshed and beat him or her with a strap until he/she wises up. The whole apparatus of racial and ethnic identity politics is turning in your hand, reversing (like your old-media dominance) from an asset to a liability.
(Just to drive the point home, the gender card doesn't work any more either. Trump is a feminist's worst nightmare. He won anyway. He came close enough to winning the entire female vote to trigger bitter post-election denunciations of American women in general by feminists - which pretty much epitomizes the sort of reaction that isn't going to help you.)
Your best plausible case is that the minority groups you counted on passively fail to add up to a winning coalition in the future, as they did this cycle. Your worst - and increasingly likely - case is that white people now begin voting as something like an ethnic bloc. This is, after all, how you've been teaching other ethnic groups to play the game since the 1960s.
You will not prevent this development by screaming "racism!". Here's a hot tip: people you dismiss as retrograde scum will not, in general, vote for you. In fact, one of the things you Democrats most urgently need to do is banish "racism" and "sexism" from your political vocabulary.
And what lesson did you learn from this election?
I believe the actual motivation behind this move is the same one that is behind making it more difficult for poor and disenfranchised people to vote - even though there is no evidence of significant voting fraud in the USA: Poor folks and minorities might vote Democratic.
"I need to accuse more people of racism"
Suppression of the Black vote has historically been an important part of Republican strategy, this [washingtonpost.com] is just one of many reports on that issue.
"The party that formed specifically to abolish slavery, that gave their very lives by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves from their Democrat masters, and that passed something like a dozen civil rights acts over the objections of Democrats, has always been racist."
Having gerrymandered them into the most odd-shaped electoral districts, it becomes time to make sure they can't get news online or participate in democratic discourse.
The rules for the election were known hundreds of years in advance. How many people in deep red states didn't vote because their vote wouldn't have mattered? How about in deep blue states?
Trump won the election that happened. If you want to talk about elections that didn't happen, why stop at Hillary Clinton? Why not imagine President Cookie Monster? He won just as many imaginary elections as Hillary did.
prevent? Who is doing this alleged preventing? Are they following these poor people around, physically blocking them from being able to walk into not only libraries, but also businesses of all sorts that provide free wifi?
I don't know about society, but I'd say that you personally are extraordinarily fucked up if you equate a halt in the expansion of a program that provides free internet access with preventing people from getting on the internet.
Oh, but he does. In fact, the entire "argument" for the left is that you are a racist if you don't agree with them. They have no logic, no reason, nothing but insults. Because that insult worked great. For decades. So their other skills atrophied with disuse.
Now they are facing a new right - an alt-right - one that, if polite, responds to accusations of racism by saying "Yup, I'm racist." in that special tone of voice normally reserved for responding to your 4-year old nephew when he calls you a doodie-head. (The less polite ones know that the correct response is "Fuck you".) And now that their one gun is shooting blanks, they are in a total blind panic, striking out in random directions, some new, like Russiaphobia, and some old, like riots and sedition. What a glorious time to be alive - my ancestors couldn't buy entertainment like this for all the tea in China.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem you run into is that none of your references, assuming that the several I read are representative, actually demonstrates anything even remotely like what you keep claiming. If there is a nugget of gold in that heap of dross that you keep linking up, please locate it. I've already wasted plenty of time searching for what you claim is there. So far I haven't even located a person, other than you, hinting that it might be there.
I see lots of references to interpreting amendments as they were understood at the time they were ratified. I see zero references to interpreting the amendments as if they hadn't been written because they conflict with an older understanding of the law, or, as it was put earlier "... to the point of indifference to anything else, even further Amendments."
So, I repeat:
In light of your subsequent whining, I will also accept dissents.
And no, I don't give a fuck who you are. I just didn't want to accuse you of ignoring your own words, in case you weren't the same guy.
Just change all of the listings slightly. "Perfect for piracy" becomes "Perfect for not piracy". "Never pay for cable again" becomes "Never not not pay for not cable again"
Seriously though, the Kodi developers despise these guys, and I think have been actively seeking to get amazon, ebay, etc to crack down. The scammers make big promises and tell the customers to post on the developer mailing list or forums for support, even though the end user almost never has problems with Kodi, but with some third party add-ons or websites.
Not all scholarly works are "science". Science is a method for testing ideas to determine which ones are good and which ones are bad. Very few studies report on testing beyond made up assumptions, aka the author's opinions.
I have no way of knowing if you are the same AC that I was talking to before, but either way, you've missed some context.
Effectively, you are claiming that a man invented a carburetor in the 70s that got 400 miles per gallon, and as proof, you send me a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carburetor, as if the existence of carburetors in general were sufficient to prove the existence of an extraordinary magical carb.
Find me an example of originalism being applied, by a court, as described in the context claimed.
Motte and Bailey.
paper
more
argumentum ad hominem. Is that you, mdsolar?
Ok, if it is a known practice, cite it. Find me some supreme court decisions that disregarded amendments in favor of what the Founders thought. Or appeals court decisions. Or circuit court. Or traffic court.
Google has convinced a large fraction of all websites to install web bugs that funnel data back to google. The ISPs have a list of IP addresses that you make encrypted connections to.
But yeah, we totally need to keep ignoring the giant vacuum cleaner and crack down on the guys that can't see shit.
You've devised a theory that says that even though you lost, you were perfect and don't need to change a thing. How original! Can't wait to see how that works out for you.
LOL.
Sure. It is right here:
According to Bruce, anyone who supports Voter ID laws (like I do) is doing so out of racism. And the same people (me again) are also trying to silence black people and keep them from being able to participate in politics.
What claims did I miss?
If you are talking about anything in post 54140891, I had a lengthy reply written that I nuked in favor of what I wrote because I do not give a fuck who decided Roe vs. Wade, but I did very much want to mock Bruce and make sure everyone else reading this conversation saw his desperate and feeble attempt to change the subject for what it was: fear.
Go up to comment 54140063 and read on -1 if you want. You'll see that I've been more than willing to address anything that even looks a little bit like it might be "a point" that he is trying to make.
Good job.
What? A Trump is interested in programming? I hate programming now.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The turnout would not be the same with different rules.
If we want to know what would happen in reality under different rules, we need to change the rules and find out. Anything else is speculation, which, and I'm repeating myself yet again, tells us more about your assumptions than it does about reality.
Ahh, yes, The Great Switcheroo of 1964-1969.
I set it to start at the graphic, but please replay so you can watch the whole clip. And feel free to run down his sources.
Elections are not won in the mythical middle. Elections are won by "get out the vote". Feel free to consult some exit-polling data if you don't understand this.
In your imaginary universe where everyone decides in advice whether or not they are going to vote, but not for who, you might have a case that different rules wouldn't change the outcome.
Here on planet Earth though, almost everyone knows who they would vote for, but not if they will vote at all. Without electoral weighting, lots of people who don't bother to vote now because it is pointless (like in my state) would be up at the crack of dawn, in line at the polling places, waiting their turn to cancel out the votes of bicoastal pricks or flyover hicks.
Hmm, the founders provided a mechanism for changing The Constitution, and that mechanism was used. How do you interpret that to mean anything other than that they intended for that to happen? Is my copy defective? Did the printer leave off "Just kidding" from the text of Article 5 in my copy?
And the answer to your question about who raped slaves and kept women at home is "Democrats". Democrats fought to keep slavery, and they fought to prevent women from voting.
Oh, I'm sorry, did you lose the argument so badly that you lost consciousness and forgot what we were talking about?
Yeah. Because "assistance" has such a great track record. 50 years and $22 trillion dollars later, and what progress have we made towards reducing poverty? None. About all we've managed to do is destroy the black family - a structure that survived slavery and Jim Crow, nearly wiped out by 50 years of "assistance".
We have no idea what would have happened if the election had been done by different rules. A scientist would tell you that "we didn't run that experiment", so speculation about "what if?" tells you only about yourself.
What I'm saying is that if you want to pretend that your side would have won if the rules had been different, then so can I. Except that I don't need to, because reality and stuff.
Hmm. My copy of The Constitution says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the originalist view of that sentence is that women can vote in states that have elections (currently all of them). I would absolutely love to hear the non-originalist reading of that passage, and maybe some citations of court cases supporting the theory that this alternative sense (whatever it is) is operating as law somewhere.
The theory that the Constitution means what it says is an absolute necessity for women's suffrage or racial equality. If the 10th doesn't reserve "everything not listed" to the states or people, then why do the 14th, 15th and 19th mean what they say? Are you aware of this gaping hole in your reasoning? Does it bother you?
You start by calling me a racist and think that my reply was meant to engage you in a political argument? Sheesh, and you think that I'm the kid here.
Here's what ESR (you've heard of him, no?) had to say about the election:
And what lesson did you learn from this election?
"I need to accuse more people of racism"
"The party that formed specifically to abolish slavery, that gave their very lives by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves from their Democrat masters, and that passed something like a dozen civil rights acts over the objections of Democrats, has always been racist."
"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
The rules for the election were known hundreds of years in advance. How many people in deep red states didn't vote because their vote wouldn't have mattered? How about in deep blue states?
Trump won the election that happened. If you want to talk about elections that didn't happen, why stop at Hillary Clinton? Why not imagine President Cookie Monster? He won just as many imaginary elections as Hillary did.
prevent? Who is doing this alleged preventing? Are they following these poor people around, physically blocking them from being able to walk into not only libraries, but also businesses of all sorts that provide free wifi?
I don't know about society, but I'd say that you personally are extraordinarily fucked up if you equate a halt in the expansion of a program that provides free internet access with preventing people from getting on the internet.
Oh, but he does. In fact, the entire "argument" for the left is that you are a racist if you don't agree with them. They have no logic, no reason, nothing but insults. Because that insult worked great. For decades. So their other skills atrophied with disuse.
Now they are facing a new right - an alt-right - one that, if polite, responds to accusations of racism by saying "Yup, I'm racist." in that special tone of voice normally reserved for responding to your 4-year old nephew when he calls you a doodie-head. (The less polite ones know that the correct response is "Fuck you".) And now that their one gun is shooting blanks, they are in a total blind panic, striking out in random directions, some new, like Russiaphobia, and some old, like riots and sedition. What a glorious time to be alive - my ancestors couldn't buy entertainment like this for all the tea in China.
Oh, and for Bruce: Fuck You.