Adults use normal spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.
What is your problem?
#295. I don’t know how you missed it. You even quoted and replied to it.
And I am still curious as to what you think the problem with my caps lock is.
Post #295 is not a cite. Your opinion is not a cite.
As far as the caps lock thing, the names of people and countries are capitalized.
I gather for some the answer is “arguably” and for some others, “arguagly not.”
Using the caps lock to capitalize initial letters is inefficient, assuming the typist is not limited in some fashion to using a single finger at a time. I gather you meant to suggest a problem with the shift keys.
You appear to have Great Debates confused with General Questions.
Again, you appear to have Great Debates confused with General Questions. In GD, we present factual evidence to substantiate opinions and conclusions on matters in which interpretations of facts and opinions may differ. We stand or fall based on the strength of the evidence we bring forward. k9bfriender has presented, in post #295 and elsewhere, substantial evidence in support of his argument. Instead of addressing the argument you’ve deflected to a nonsensical demand for an impossible “cite” to the conclusion itself. You’re evading debate instead of engaging in it and you’re certainly not arguing in good faith. You’ve presented lots of one-liners and snark, but no actual argument, and your position here is therefore worthless.
Post #295 didn’t provide any evidence at all, merely opinion.
You are confused, I think, between stopping someone from introducing legislation or moving it to a vote – which, indeed, the Speaker and Senate presiding officer can go – and merely stopping someone from literally speaking, which they generally cannot, at least to the extent of saying a list of names.
So what you think you see happening is not sufficient for stopping a list of names being read.
I’d be happy to cite specific House and/or Senate rules if you like.
Hey, that’s mine, too!
But I suspect you’d say the government “prevents” someone from voting when they require a photo ID before a vote may be cast. I don’t say that.
Wait, what? In the Pit, you call Voter ID laws “preventing a vote,” but here you don’t? That can’t be accurate. Please help me unravel my confusion.
True. Just as a felony conviction imposes a loss of freedom, a loss of Second Amendment rights, and numerous other collateral consequences, so too does it impinge on the right to vote. You’re right: that doesn’t bother me. But I concede that it’s very fair to call this group disenfranchised: they cannot legally vote.
I admit there are many conservatives who are results-driven, but I certainly genuinely believe the liberals amongst us are far more so. Liberals have embraced the judicial philosophy of a “living, breathing Constitution;” conservatives more typically embrace a textualist approach.
Sure. But (a) I see no catastrophe, and (b) even then I’d seek to change the rules by following the rules – that is, at the ballot box, not the judge’s bench.
Yes, I certainly would. And that’s an example of something that would flout long-standing Constitutional protections derived FROM THE TEXT.
Now, let’s imagine that those enlightened and noble conservatives garnered enough clout to amend the Constitution to accomplish that end.
I’d still fight to change it - but not by asking the courts to scuttle it.
No.
No more so than if the government moves a polling place one block east, and someone says, “Fuck that, I’m not driving an extra block.” That’s not disenfranchisement – the barrier has to be an unreasonable one. The people without a picture ID can get a free one. That’s not disenfranchisement.
Yes. Which was not violative any rules. I focus on the rules.
Right. And all black people had to do to vote was pass a literacy test. With a white election official deciding what constituted passing.
I predict the same principle will apply with the new voting laws. Some people will find their new picture ID’s arrive on time and some people will find their new picture ID’s will somehow get delayed in the mail for a couple of weeks and arrive the day after the election.
The purpose of these laws isn’t to eliminate voter fraud. Voter fraud barely exists in this country. These laws exist to make it possible for election officials to selectively place obstacles in the path of some people who are attempted to vote.
That’s not the entirety of my argument: I argue Voter ID laws are valid because they were passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, AND upheld by the courts.
No. You don’t have the power to declare what is a betrayal of our country, unless there is some objective standard – like aiding an enemy in time of war.
IN YOUR OPINION, these are betrayals of what YOU’D LIKE TO THINK the ideals of our country are. Yes?
Or do you offer some source that I agree with for a baseline of US interests and some source for a scale I accept that produces results of weighing those interests against other interests?
And that was unacceptable, so we passed a law forbidding it. We didn’t eliminate literacy tests based on a declaration that the democratic process could not be trusted.
Literacy tests were established by laws. They were signed by governors. And they were upheld by courts. According to the argument you’ve presented in this thread, that means the final word had been said on them and everyone should have just accepted them.
Fortunately, most people don’t accept your narrow legalistic definition of what’s right and wrong.
I think he is more amoral than immoral.
And there is one party that is hell bent on dismantling that law bit by bit in order to maintain their illegitimate grip on power.
Just like it’s not a violation of the rules for congress to refuse to seat any Supreme Court judge, sign any legislation, or extend the debt ceiling until the president wears a banana costume and farts the national anthem.
If all you care about is what’s technically allowed… Well, I’ll kick your ass in Mario Kart by unplugging your controller. And more to the point, if all you focus on is “the rules”, we can write the American experiment off as failed, because our government’s rules are fundamentally broken if abused - like a Smash Bros tournament that allows Hyrule Temple. If you want to take it to its extremes, I’m sure it’s entirely possible to create an American single-party dictatorship without breaking a single rule.
There’s a reason we care about norms. I wonder why you don’t.
Because winning is everything regardless of how it is accomplished. As I’ve quoted before, “It’s hard to play chess when your opponent just belted you in the mouth.”
No. I studied his past history and read his book, and the man is immoral. He deliberately sets out ahead of time to cheat those he deals with.