hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Feb 12, 2016 2:46:19 GMT
Anyone below the age of 70 is a member of the younger generation.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Feb 12, 2016 2:45:03 GMT
I'm 35...which generation am I in? I'm 39....I think we're technically the bottom-half of Generation X We're squeezed in-between the horrible Baby Boomers and obnoxious Millennials Amen brother. I'm 37.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Feb 3, 2016 0:10:05 GMT
Trump loses
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jan 28, 2016 19:43:43 GMT
Hillary is as crooked as can be. I don't know if she will be indicted. She SHOULD, but that doesn't mean she will. I think she's the most qualified candidate, but she's as establishment as it gets. It's too bad she's so crooked.
Bernie Sanders is a nut. But he appears to be an honest nut. His economic beliefs are way out there, but I actually find that refreshing. Not that I agree with him, but at least he's willing to own up to what he believes.
At first I thought Ted Cruz was an idiot. As time has gone by I have changed my opinion. He's not an idiot, but he is as cut-throat a political opportunist as we've seen in a long time. He does what is in the best interest of getting himself more TV time, not for what is in the best interest of the country. Half his party hates him.
Trump is a self-important blowhard. The ego that walks like a man. He knows the media, and he knows how to get attention. He's an old fashioned Huey Long cult-of-personality politician. That is very dangerous.
There are no good choices here. In the end, I think Bernie Sanders is the least offensive to me. He's too liberal to actually get anything done. If we are gonna have a crazy person in the White House, let's have it be THEIR crazy person, and the one who can do the least damage.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jan 19, 2016 18:57:16 GMT
I don't like Cruz. He's a partisan bulldog and brings with him way too much ill will. I don't like his chances in the general election and I think he won't be able to get anything through Congress. Too many enemies.
Hillary is a sociopath. She will say or do anything to win.
Trump is a self-obsessed narcissist blowhard.
Bernie Sanders actually seems like a real person. I don't agree with a lot of his economic policies, but I think he is what he appears to be. He's like a crazy old college professor.
None of the Republicans I like have a hope in hell of getting the nomination.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jan 19, 2016 16:52:51 GMT
The "eye test" is an attempt to judge between "best team" and "best season".
The fact is that college football doesn't play enough games to really tell how strong conferences are versus each other, or what teams will do on any given Saturday. Too many teams, not enough games versus each other. Until we've got a 16 team playoff with auto bids for every conference champ, or we kick a bunch of teams out of Div 1a, that won't change.
So what we are left with is the same thing we had with the BCS -- trying to achieve a consensus on which teams should make the cut. But consensus is hard to achieve because people value different things and don't always agree.
Everybody "knew" that Iowa wasn't that good, being the beneficiary of a very soft schedule and being unimpressive in their wins. They were "proven right" in the bowl game, when Stanford pulverized them. But the truth is, with a few lucky breaks, Iowa could have won the national championship. I don't think they were the best team, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have made it through the playoff.
If you judge teams purely on talent, then just give Alabama or Ohio State the title every year. If you judge teams based upon how good their season was, then you're going to leave out the super talented teams for a Sun Belt team that went 12-0. And the trick of it is, you won't even know how good their season was until the whole thing is over with.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jan 19, 2016 16:37:18 GMT
God bless you and your family, doc.
I don't have kids yet, but I imagine it is tough to see them leave.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jan 16, 2016 0:46:42 GMT
Oklahoma State might be able to get a landing spot in the SEC. If that's the case, OU would be free to leave.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Jan 15, 2016 23:42:25 GMT
Speculation amongst Sooner fans is that he's laying the groundwork for OU to bolt at the earliest opportunity. Argue for a plan that you know the rest of the conference won't agree to, and then you can say "well, we tried".
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Oct 21, 2015 0:44:54 GMT
Oh, and congrats to your friend. I'm just confuzzled.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Oct 20, 2015 23:58:54 GMT
I may have gone to public schools, but huh?
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Sept 22, 2015 15:11:08 GMT
I'm not sure we want the pendulum to "swing the other way". Some of you guys are seeing the world as though the pendulum has been on the far left, and now it is going to come back to the right. Other people see it as being on the far right, and they can't wait for it to come back to the left.
--
Of course no one wants a Muslim president. Hillary Clinton doesn't want a Muslim president. You're free to practice your own religion, and I will respect your right to make that decision for yourself, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your decision or support it. And I sure as hell am not comfortable with voting for someone of that religion to run my country. Ben Carson should have been smarter than to answer that question, but the reason it hasn't gained any traction against him is because everyone kind of agrees.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Sept 22, 2015 14:59:04 GMT
Pretty clear. Government is completely removed from religion, unless it is to preserve public order, or said religion infringes on the rights of others. I do not understand how you interpret this as government can pick and choose which religions are legit, and decide whether you are sincere in your belief. That is well outside the scope and intention of the first amendment. Madison might laugh at my football religion, but wouldn't interpret it as something that would disrupt public order or infringe on others rights. And if he knew the role of government was to decide if my belief in football religion was sincere, decide if it was a legit religion, and then decide whether government should give me special treatment, he would cringe. This is not government abstinence. My point is that we've interpreted the first amendment well beyond the scope of the founder's intentions. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. But the idea that we must strictly adhere to the presumed intentions of the founders is ridiculous and impractical. You would be very free to adhere to your football religion, without interference from the government. It wouldn't become an issue at all, until your employer fired you for not coming to work. If you tried to sue, claiming a religious exemption, the court would laugh at you and throw your case out. That would be preserving public order.
I wish you'd be more serious about this. The courts do treat religious claims seriously.... for the most part. But, they don't give carte blanche to any whacko claim.
I don't agree with your belief that we've exceeded the intent of the first amendment. Except, perhaps in the current attempt to eliminate any and all signs of religion from our government. Our founders started every session of Congress with a prayer. I don't think they saw any problem with that. For constitutional issues, I do believe the original intent, in as much as it is known, SHOULD be followed. Otherwise, the law can be changed wildly on the whim a handful of judges. That's the directions we're heading now, and it's NOT healthy. There are mechanisms provided to amend the constitution. Contrary to popular opinion, it's NOT impossible. But, it does require a fairly significant consensus.
I don't think there's any way to know exactly what the Founders would have thought. In some of these cases, we're projecting our own ideas 200 years back in time and assigning beliefs to men who would have had no concept of what we are dealing with today. George Washington never had to deal with Scientology. The best we can do is to try to follow the principles set forth in the Constitution, as we understand them today. Even if someone is being perfectly honest, trying to interpret what the Founders would have thought on an issue, it's still just that person's ideas of who those men were. There's no guarantee that they are correct in their beliefs. Thomas Jefferson probably wouldn't have been cool with gay marriage, but hell maybe he'd have given it a thumbs up. The law can be changed wildly on the whims of judges, and I do not particularly like that. I disagree with a lot of the things that the Supreme Court has done over the years, particularly in regards to the 4th Amendment. But having judges just mouth some sort of respect for the Framers and say "this is what they would have wanted" doesn't make it any more legitimate.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Sept 22, 2015 14:43:01 GMT
The Supreme Court is the final decision maker as far as the law goes. I think being critical of their decisions is a healthy thing for our republic.
There are some things that even the Supreme Court cannot dictate to people of faith.
In this country, we have always tried to allow a happy medium between State and Religious edicts. This one, is EASY to fix, and I'm sure it will be.
That said, from a legal standpoint. I don't really understand: What happens when a law is struck down as unconstitutional? Is the entire law not invalid? How do they pick one clause or another out of a larger body of piece of legislation. From the beginning, Davis refused to issues ANY marriage licenses... not just licenses to gay couples. What Ky statute gave her the legal authority to issue ANY, if the law giving her the authority was declared invalid? It does seem to be unclear... at least, to the non-lawyer lay person.
Sorry, I kind of dropped out of this thread and didn't respond. The truth is, a lot of this is unclear even to lawyers. This stuff will be determined on a case by case basis. Sometimes the entire law is struck down, sometimes a portion. Depends on the judges' ruling. In this instance, it appears that the Supreme Court has established an affirmative right of gay marriage. Now they're not going to go through, line by line, the laws of every state and alter them. That's going to be left to other people. In this instance, it looks like Kentucky law didn't provide any mechanism for gay marriage. It was clearly written with the assumption that the people getting married would be a man and a woman. Now obviously no magical Supreme Court Fairy is going to come along and sprinkle fairy dust (huh huh, fairy, gay marriage) on the statutes and change everything. My guess is that that language is simply going to be treated as though it were gender neutral. Kentucky wasn't a part of Obergefell v. Hodges, the gay marriage decision. That was a case out of Ohio, I believe. Now the decision still affects Kentucky, obviously. And federal courts aren't going to just wait around for states to create gay marriage friendly laws. Suppose the Kentucky Legislature never got around to changing those laws. Kim Davis says in 2015, "oh I can't issue these marriage licenses because the language isn't gender neutral, the legislature will have to fix that when they reconvene next year." And then in 2016 they don't fix it. And then she just keeps doing the same thing. Now, where we are now isn't a good position for anyone to be in. I think Kim Davis had a rational argument for not issuing marriage licenses. It wasn't gonna win, but arguing that the statute says you've got to apply for the license in the woman's county of residence makes things uncertain in cases where there isn't a woman, or there are two women, that's a rational argument. Now she didn't actually make that argument until she was in jail -- she was really clear from the beginning that this was about her religious objection to gay marriage and that's it. She's not gonna get a do-over, the judge isn't required to pretend that her last minute argument was why she was really doing this. But obviously the statutes need to be rewritten so that all the mundane, normal details of marriage can be resolved.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Sept 10, 2015 14:50:29 GMT
No, she can still freely exercise her religion. Case closed.
Being forced, by your government to affix your personal name to a document certifying a perversion that is opposed by your religion, is NOT "free exercise".
Yes... it's her job. But, she was elected. And, the rules were changed AFTER she was elected. There are ways to accommodate her deeply held religious beliefs. The fixes don't place any great burden on the state, or any affected party. It should be fixed ASAP.
I agree it should be fixed. I expect a lot of states are going to amend their laws in the next legislative session to remove the requirement of someone's signature from marriage licenses. I don't want this woman to have to compromise her religious beliefs -- that's not what this country is supposed to be about. On the other hand I don't think a government official can pick and choose who they serve. If the fire department gets a call that the local gay sports bar "The Tight End" is on fire, they can't refuse to go out and save it because "they're just a bunch of homos". A compromise could likely have been reached in this case, but Kim Davis was all full of righteous indignation. She and her lawyers weren't looking for a compromise. Her deputy clerks are signing the licenses right now, they could have done that before.
|
|