The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
Brooklyn
Posts: 10292
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:16 am
Location: St Paul, Minnesota

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by Brooklyn »

Why are American men losing their sense of purpose?

Silliest thing I've read in my life. No surprise that its sordid ideas are made by a conservative who write for National Review.

Does that clown honestly think that the only way for a man to have a fulfilled life is to be in the military and to fight in a war? (Funny how that never was a standard for wealthy elites like Donald Trump. ) Did he forget that this is a nation of professing Christians who claim to worship the Prince of Peace? Does he realize that Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and to be at peace with ALL men rather than to fight in wars??? The writer claims that the military helps men to bond. Well, what the heck does a church do? It bonds people even closer together.

I'm all for people voluntarily enlisting and fighting (if they must) on a voluntary basis. But to say that, somehow, this is a rite of passage necessary for all men as he appears to be suggesting (that is, those who are not from privileged elite classes) is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.

Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 15858
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by youthathletics »

The mere fact that this discussion is taking place, is proof that there is an issue and is being sensed by young men everywhere. Even Obama and others are actively talking about it. There is a cancer actively working its way throughout.

A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy


“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by seacoaster »

Any chance we could move the discussion of manhood, sexuality, and other such stuff off the SCOTUS page to another, more closely related thread?
User avatar
Brooklyn
Posts: 10292
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:16 am
Location: St Paul, Minnesota

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by Brooklyn »

youthathletics wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:21 am The mere fact that this discussion is taking place, is proof that there is an issue and is being sensed by young men everywhere. Even Obama and others are actively talking about it. There is a cancer actively working its way throughout.
Bah, don't buy any of that.

As for Obama's view on twerking, he knows fully well that Madonna, J Lo, Rihanna, Beyonce and others who twerk have FAR more female than male fans. In fact, if you googled twerking you would find that many of those photos feature much girl-on-girl contact. Thus, if he is going to criticize that form of entertainment, he needs to direct his criticism towards women, not men.
Last edited by Brooklyn on Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.

Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
User avatar
Brooklyn
Posts: 10292
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:16 am
Location: St Paul, Minnesota

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by Brooklyn »

seacoaster wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:26 am Any chance we could move the discussion of manhood, sexuality, and other such stuff off the SCOTUS page to another, more closely related thread?

Actually, it was the USSC that brought up the laughable subject in its ruling. Thus, it is relevant to the thread.
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.

Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by seacoaster »

Actually, no. It was a single federal district judge in Houston who made the decision that I think fired up this culture war. So talk about the decision, and not just throw around trash talk and faux national review faux editorials about manhood, rights of passage, transgender bathrooms or transgender athletes. But the thread is yours, too, to do with what you please.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by old salt »

Brooklyn wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 1:00 am
Why are American men losing their sense of purpose?

Silliest thing I've read in my life. No surprise that its sordid ideas are made by a conservative who write for National Review.

Does that clown honestly think that the only way for a man to have a fulfilled life is to be in the military and to fight in a war? (Funny how that never was a standard for wealthy elites like Donald Trump. ) Did he forget that this is a nation of professing Christians who claim to worship the Prince of Peace? Does he realize that Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and to be at peace with ALL men rather than to fight in wars??? The writer claims that the military helps men to bond. Well, what the heck does a church do? It bonds people even closer together.

I'm all for people voluntarily enlisting and fighting (if they must) on a voluntary basis. But to say that, somehow, this is a rite of passage necessary for all men as he appears to be suggesting (that is, those who are not from privileged elite classes) is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
That's not what he said. He said nothing about fighting in a war being a prerequisite. He's talking about voluntary service. Did you bother to read the article ?

He's making the point that voluntary military service is an option that many young men no longer consider, but might benefit some if they did. He cites the sentiments of those who did serve.

He's also commenting on the societal changes from a population with a decreasing % of veterans since WW-ll, Korea, Viernam & the end of the draft.
We have a smaller, more lethal military, with a lower % of the population who have benefited from the experience of military service.
Trinity
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:14 am

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by Trinity »

If what Cohen says is provable, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are fruits of the poisoned tree.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
runrussellrun
Posts: 7583
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by runrussellrun »

youthathletics wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:21 am The mere fact that this discussion is taking place, is proof that there is an issue and is being sensed by young men everywhere. Even Obama and others are actively talking about it. There is a cancer actively working its way throughout.

WHy is Obama's every quip & example about rap references? Wouldn't living in a giant house, way more than you could evah use, qualify as not being comfortable with your manhood? Or, did Michelle call that "purchase" ?

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisu ... se-photos/

Roughly 3.000 sq. feet per resident. :roll:
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
User avatar
Brooklyn
Posts: 10292
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:16 am
Location: St Paul, Minnesota

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by Brooklyn »

old salt wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:11 pm
That's not what he said. He said nothing about fighting in a war being a prerequisite. He's talking about voluntary service. Did you bother to read the article ?

He's making the point that voluntary military service is an option that many young men no longer consider, but might benefit some if they did. He cites the sentiments of those who did serve.

He's also commenting on the societal changes from a population with a decreasing % of veterans since WW-ll, Korea, Viernam & the end of the draft.
We have a smaller, more lethal military, with a lower % of the population who have benefited from the experience of military service.


Wait a sec, buddy. Did YOU read the article?

The writer talks about "sacrifice" and decries the idea of using military life as a form of social enrichment. Quote he, "If you alter or expand the fundamental mission of the military — larding it up for a social and not military purpose — you will lose the essence of the experience."

He mentions "sacrifice"- an obvious reference to combat and its consequences or any other consideration. Again, " the positive transformation of young men is a side effect of achieving the military’s primary role, the defense of the American nation. Members of the military achieve such tight bonds and feel a sense of purpose because the mission they train for is very real .. and the necessity of personal risk. Remove that necessity, and you remove the purpose ... [which is] the experience of a shared bond of sacrifice with men who train to risk their lives to defend the nations."


Had you read the article you would have seen these clear references to war which, in the twisted minds of so many delusionals of the far right, constitute wholesome and life enriching experiences.
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.

Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by old salt »

Brooklyn wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:45 pm
old salt wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:11 pm
That's not what he said. He said nothing about fighting in a war being a prerequisite. He's talking about voluntary service. Did you bother to read the article ?

He's making the point that voluntary military service is an option that many young men no longer consider, but might benefit some if they did. He cites the sentiments of those who did serve.

He's also commenting on the societal changes from a population with a decreasing % of veterans since WW-ll, Korea, Viernam & the end of the draft.
We have a smaller, more lethal military, with a lower % of the population who have benefited from the experience of military service.


Wait a sec, buddy. Did YOU read the article?

The writer talks about "sacrifice" and decries the idea of using military life as a form of social enrichment. Quote he, "If you alter or expand the fundamental mission of the military — larding it up for a social and not military purpose — you will lose the essence of the experience."

He mentions "sacrifice"- an obvious reference to combat and its consequences or any other consideration. Again, " the positive transformation of young men is a side effect of achieving the military’s primary role, the defense of the American nation. Members of the military achieve such tight bonds and feel a sense of purpose because the mission they train for is very real .. and the necessity of personal risk. Remove that necessity, and you remove the purpose ... [which is] the experience of a shared bond of sacrifice with men who train to risk their lives to defend the nations."


Had you read the article you would have seen these clear references to war which, in the twisted minds of so many delusionals of the far right, constitute wholesome and life enriching experiences.
The author decries using the military population as lab specimens for social engineering.

Most service members never see combat. That does not mean they do not sacrifice, in terms of enduring lengthy deployments or dying in training or operational accidents. They all share a common ethos of mission accomplshment, which was the point of the article

Navy personnel shortages leave 6,2000 sea going billets vacant, leading to the cancellation of deployments of 2 ships
User avatar
Brooklyn
Posts: 10292
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:16 am
Location: St Paul, Minnesota

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by Brooklyn »

:roll:
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.

Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34180
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

Brooklyn wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:27 pm:roll:
+1000
“I wish you would!”
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by seacoaster »

Court heard the Bladensburg Cross case today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 6aecaf6289

"A majority of the Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed to be searching for a way — a narrow way, most likely — to allow a historic cross commemorating World War I dead to remain where it has stood for nearly 100 years.

Two of the court’s four liberals suggested the unique history of the Peace Cross in the Washington suburb of Bladensburg, Md., may provide a way to accommodate its position on public land in a highway median.

But more than an hour of oral arguments showed the difficulty the court faces when it must decide whether government’s involvement with a religious symbol has an allowable sectarian purpose or is an unconstitutional embrace of religion.

The Bladensburg Peace Cross, made of granite and cement, was built in 1925 and paid for by local families, businesses and the American Legion. But the 40-foot cross sits on land owned since 1961 by a state commission that pays for its maintenance and upkeep.

The legal challenge began with the American Humanist Association, a nonprofit atheist organization that has filed similar lawsuits throughout the country.

For decades, the Supreme Court — whose marshal opens proceedings with a plea that “God save the United States and this honorable court” — has struggled to come up with a clear test on which actions or displays violate the Constitution’s prohibition against government establishment of religion.

The cross carries “an independent secular meaning,” that makes it constitutional, Neal K. Katyal, a Washington lawyer representing the commission, told the justices. Besides being a symbol that is uniquely associated with World War I, the cross is situated among other monuments to veterans, he said.

...

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to think there was no way to disconnect the preeminent symbol of Christianity from its religious roots. Christians wear the cross as a symbol of their devotion, Ginsburg said.

And Sotomayor said the size of the cross “dwarfs buildings, it dwarfs people.”

Miller said the monument did not have to come down, but could be moved to another spot or the land on which it sits could be returned to a private organization such as the American Legion, which was involve in its construction.

But the way it towers over a busy intersection used by thousands of commuters each day sends an unconstitutional message that government favors one religion over another.

The monument’s defenders say a Maryland district court judge got it right when she noted that the cross had stood for decades without controversy and that it met the court’s test of having a secular purpose, that its “primary effect” was religious neutrality and that there was not excessive entanglement of government and religion."
runrussellrun
Posts: 7583
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by runrussellrun »

Brooklyn wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:45 pm
old salt wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:11 pm
That's not what he said. He said nothing about fighting in a war being a prerequisite. He's talking about voluntary service. Did you bother to read the article ?

He's making the point that voluntary military service is an option that many young men no longer consider, but might benefit some if they did. He cites the sentiments of those who did serve.

He's also commenting on the societal changes from a population with a decreasing % of veterans since WW-ll, Korea, Viernam & the end of the draft.
We have a smaller, more lethal military, with a lower % of the population who have benefited from the experience of military service.


Wait a sec, buddy. Did YOU read the article?

The writer talks about "sacrifice" and decries the idea of using military life as a form of social enrichment. Quote he, "If you alter or expand the fundamental mission of the military — larding it up for a social and not military purpose — you will lose the essence of the experience."

He mentions "sacrifice"- an obvious reference to combat and its consequences or any other consideration. Again, " the positive transformation of young men is a side effect of achieving the military’s primary role, the defense of the American nation. Members of the military achieve such tight bonds and feel a sense of purpose because the mission they train for is very real .. and the necessity of personal risk. Remove that necessity, and you remove the purpose ... [which is] the experience of a shared bond of sacrifice with men who train to risk their lives to defend the nations."


Had you read the article you would have seen these clear references to war which, in the twisted minds of so many delusionals of the far right, constitute wholesome and life enriching experiences.
The vast majority of uniformed personnel will never, hopefully, see ANY combat. So, what "sacrifice" are YOU talking of?

The first, and most important sacrifice, it losing legal rights as a US Citizen......and losing "me " time. As platoon scribe, then leader......only did firewatch when I wanted to. And, it was only when I wanted "me" time. (so, in reality, I would have it 3-4 times a week) Tough to have "me" time in the bunk barracks, but it's all quite and alone in the showers at 2am. ;)

One night, the company Captain was roaming about.......I had just finished up "me" time and failed to salute b/c I was in that state of mind....relaxed. Wouldn't you know it.......I was doing mountain climbers , once again, before chow.

And remember, COMBAT veterans are superior to logistics, nurses, mechanics, cooks, bakers, control tower, AI, etc. ....and only THEY are allowed to chest thump, fly flags and put down others.
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
jhu72
Posts: 14462
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by jhu72 »

seacoaster wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:01 pm Court heard the Bladensburg Cross case today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 6aecaf6289

"A majority of the Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed to be searching for a way — a narrow way, most likely — to allow a historic cross commemorating World War I dead to remain where it has stood for nearly 100 years.

Two of the court’s four liberals suggested the unique history of the Peace Cross in the Washington suburb of Bladensburg, Md., may provide a way to accommodate its position on public land in a highway median.

But more than an hour of oral arguments showed the difficulty the court faces when it must decide whether government’s involvement with a religious symbol has an allowable sectarian purpose or is an unconstitutional embrace of religion.

The Bladensburg Peace Cross, made of granite and cement, was built in 1925 and paid for by local families, businesses and the American Legion. But the 40-foot cross sits on land owned since 1961 by a state commission that pays for its maintenance and upkeep.

The legal challenge began with the American Humanist Association, a nonprofit atheist organization that has filed similar lawsuits throughout the country.

For decades, the Supreme Court — whose marshal opens proceedings with a plea that “God save the United States and this honorable court” — has struggled to come up with a clear test on which actions or displays violate the Constitution’s prohibition against government establishment of religion.

The cross carries “an independent secular meaning,” that makes it constitutional, Neal K. Katyal, a Washington lawyer representing the commission, told the justices. Besides being a symbol that is uniquely associated with World War I, the cross is situated among other monuments to veterans, he said.

...

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to think there was no way to disconnect the preeminent symbol of Christianity from its religious roots. Christians wear the cross as a symbol of their devotion, Ginsburg said.

And Sotomayor said the size of the cross “dwarfs buildings, it dwarfs people.”

Miller said the monument did not have to come down, but could be moved to another spot or the land on which it sits could be returned to a private organization such as the American Legion, which was involve in its construction.

But the way it towers over a busy intersection used by thousands of commuters each day sends an unconstitutional message that government favors one religion over another.

The monument’s defenders say a Maryland district court judge got it right when she noted that the cross had stood for decades without controversy and that it met the court’s test of having a secular purpose, that its “primary effect” was religious neutrality and that there was not excessive entanglement of government and religion."

It is a tough question. Even as an atheist I don't really see the harm as it currently stands, but under the law and SCOTUS rulings as they now stand, it needs to go. It clerarly is a symbol of one and only one religion and it shows governmental support of that one religion to the exclusion of all others. Either government is neutral or it is not.
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
User avatar
Brooklyn
Posts: 10292
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:16 am
Location: St Paul, Minnesota

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by Brooklyn »

runrussellrun wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:15 pm
The vast majority of uniformed personnel will never, hopefully, see ANY combat. So, what "sacrifice" are YOU talking of?
Uh, you missed the fact that it was about a "sacrifice" written of by the writer, not by me.
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.

Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by old salt »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:48 pm
Brooklyn wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:27 pm:roll:
+1000
Training kills more troops than war
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34180
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

old salt wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:54 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:48 pm
Brooklyn wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:27 pm:roll:
+1000
Training kills more troops than war
You have 0 credibility.
“I wish you would!”
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18867
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: SCOTUS and the Judiciary

Post by old salt »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:56 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:54 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:48 pm
Brooklyn wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:27 pm:roll:
+1000
Training kills more troops than war
You have 0 credibility.
You have 0 knowledge of the subject matter.
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”