More red state Idiocy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So why do the majority of the stats show that the states historically run by D admins. rank higher than the majority of the states run by R admins? Just a coincidence or is it a philosophy the 2 parties have? Studies based on 350M people is a pretty credible group and the stats show the Ds states rank better than the R states.

This has been asked and answered many times. Democrats, on average, are wealthier than Republicans. That's correlation, not causation. There's nothing in conservative ideology that leads to poverty. But todays brand of liberalism is more attractive to people who are already wealthy, than todays brand of conservatism.

This is another example of "everything is OK when democrats do it", because not long ago Wall Street leaned right, and liberals never stopped attacking the GOP for catering to the super rich. Today the rich lean left, and - voila! - all of a sudden it's not a bad thing when your side caters to the wealthy.

You asked, I tried to answer. Is there any chance you can show me the same courtesy? What services to I get from the state of CT thanks to my taxes, which I would lose if I moved to NH thanks to their not having state taxes?

If I moved to NH, I'd still work hard, I'd still like to read, I'd still watch my kids like a hawk and make sure they were doing their homework, I'd make sure I limited their screen time and got them into healthy activities. I'd still exercise and eat right. The state government of NH would not force me to give up my healthy habits.

It's got nothing to do with the state government. In my case, I'd have a ton more money to spend on my kids, better private schools, nicer vacations together, I could afford better colleges for them.

Paul, it's probably at least $15k a year in my pocket (more like 20k a year now that my wife is working) that I'd save. I don't get anywhere near that from the state of CT that I wouldn't get in a nice suburb of NH.

Please tell me what I'm getting for that money, that I wouldn't get in NH. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over an entire career. And what do I get for it? A bill that the state of CT will hand me, for promises they made on my behalf to labor unions, which couldn't be funded even with the stupid taxes we currently pay. That's what I'll get. UCONN is very expensive (cheaper to pay out of state for public university in FL, and that is fact), our roads suck, our cities suck, our electric bills just went up 50% if you have Eversource, gas is expensive, we pay local car taxes annually that moost states don't charge...it goes on and on and on.

[wdmso]

A US court in Texas has struck down a 30-year-old law that barred people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns.
The court, as part of the ruling, dismissed charges against a Texas man found guilty of harassing and stalking his girlfriend and also in possession of arms despite a ban.
The decision follows a Supreme Court ruling in June expanding gun rights.
The US justice department is expected to appeal against the order.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said that Congress had determined the law "nearly 30 years ago".


Red states once again putting gun owners before victims and common sense

[wdmso]

GOP Rep. Clyde hands out assault-rifle lapel pins to House colleagues

Yep another example where changing the Gun culture has failed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by wdmso

GOP Rep. Clyde hands out assault-rifle lapel pins to House colleagues

Yep another example where changing the Gun culture has failed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It really has been a cultural change. Read Ryan Busse’s book Gunfight. He was a gun manufacturer ceo who has an interesting perspective in the change to the ‘couch commandoes’ types in the last few years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

It really has been a cultural change. Read Ryan Busse’s book Gunfight. He was a gun manufacturer ceo who has an interesting perspective in the change to the ‘couch commandoes’ types in the last few years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

couch commandoes’

I like that term. I love to see these people when the decide to get off the couch then they play Dress up for effect

[wdmso]

Another example how simplistic originalism endanger Americans

Zackey Rahimi was, one presumes, not the kind of upstanding citizen the justices had in mind.
Over a six-week stretch from December 2020 to January 2021, Rahimi took part in five shootings around Arlington, Tex. He fired an AR-15 into the home of a man to whom he had sold Percocet. The next day, after a car accident, he pulled out a handgun, shot at the other driver and sped off — only to return, fire a different gun and flee again. Rahimi shot at a police car. When a friend’s credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant, he fired several rounds into the air.


Or, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put it in vacating Rahimi’s conviction for illegal gun possession, “Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.”


So now we’re back to assessing the constitutionality of laws. Only if you can find the hunt down obscure, colonial-era statutes to determine if there are counterparts to modern rules

Makes no sense

[wdmso]

George Washington NEVER said or wrote any of the following quotes cited by gun nuts, Republicans and even judges:

1. When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern.”

The quote seems to originate from an online publication: The American Wisdom Series presents Pamphlet #230, "President George Washington's Thoughts on Firearms." The author provides no citation for the quotations used.

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.


2. “When a nation mistrusts its citizens with guns it is it sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans.”

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.

3. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence.”

This quotation does not show up in any of Washington's writings, nor does any closely related quote.

4. “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech:


A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."



Source:
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/...us-quotations/

Not my research on the topic but a great example of how those who cite and support originalism . Quote things that were never said and make their own interpretations to someone written words

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

George Washington NEVER said or wrote any of the following quotes cited by gun nuts, Republicans and even judges:

1. When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern.”

The quote seems to originate from an online publication: The American Wisdom Series presents Pamphlet #230, "President George Washington's Thoughts on Firearms." The author provides no citation for the quotations used.

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.


2. “When a nation mistrusts its citizens with guns it is it sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans.”

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.

3. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence.”

This quotation does not show up in any of Washington's writings, nor does any closely related quote.

4. “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech:


A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."



Source:
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/...us-quotations/

Not my research on the topic but a great example of how those who cite and support originalism . Quote things that were never said and make their own interpretations to someone written words

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s stupid to reference british judges. all he had to do is say “the idea that protection against illegal search and seizure was designed to allow for infanticide, is stupid, and obviously not what’s in the constitution.”.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

although he was apparently responding to a comment from the solicitor general. doesn’t matter if abortion is a crime or not, that’s not what the supreme court decided. overturning roe did not make abortion illegal. it returned the question to the states where it belongs. The supreme court didn’t say that states cannot outlaw abortion. your side doesn’t seem to grasp that. the supreme court decided, correctly, that it’s not a federal issue. The constitution specifies the things that are federal issues, and says everything else goes to the states.

At the state level, have the argument about whether or not it should be legal.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

Jim you complete missed the point of the article. These quotes that never existed were used by Originalist to defend their views on Gun ownership and the 2A ..

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim you complete missed the point of the article. These quotes that never existed were used by Originalist to defend their views on Gun ownership and the 2A ..

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text

who used those fake quotes?

No i didn’t miss the point of your post, which was to attack the gop for using bogus facts to win a political argument. my point, is that you don’t care when democrats say the police killed michael brown when he said hands up don’t shoot which he never said, you don’t care when your side says pro lifers motive is to
enslave women, when they said rittenhouse carried the rifle illegally across state lines. etc…. you have no principles. zip.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text

The 2A does not mention or specify muskets. An originalist would not interpret that the Constitution is stuck on muskets. That would not be originalist logic.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A does not mention or specify muskets. An originalist would not interpret that the Constitution is stuck on muskets. That would not be originalist logic.

Then their not very original are they
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit

I quoted their exact words "keep and bear". Keep (own) and "bear" (carry)--own arms that can be carried. I didn't make those words up. Either those words mean something, or they're superfluous, meaning nothing. Unless a Progressive interprets them to mean something other than what they mean.

You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position


1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]

When a judge interprets the constitutional text to mean something other than what it means, he/she is not acting as an "originalist" no matter what label is applied to him/her. If they claim to be an "originalist," but they interpret law as a Progressive at times, or always, then they are hypocrites, not originalists--at least in those times when they interpret outside the bounds of originalism.

2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]

If a judge invokes "intent," it has to be backed up by the framers' written intent. If it is merely the judge's opinion, that is not original interpretation. No matter how convenient it may be, it is Progressive in nature, not originalist.

3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]

It is meant to be a "difficult, time consuming task," otherwise it is subject to the same facile means of duping the people into a really good sounding quick fix, rather than the difficult, time consuming task of debate, presentation of evidence and facts, determining the intents, objectives, and possible outcomes. Hammering out a constitution was a difficult, time consuming task. Amending it should not be greatly less so. Otherwise, it is the more so subject to being as bad as the "bad law" that needs amending.

4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]

No, it is a binding contract whether the citizens agree or not. Just as any legal contract, it binds those under it whether they agree or not. If enough citizens wish to nullify the contract there is that difficult time consuming method described in number three.

5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]

If they make bad laws, they most likely are not applying originalism. And leaving it up to the courts to amend is bad law. The citizens must amend, not the courts. When the courts amend, they are acting as Progressives, not originalists.

The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”

It is difficult trending to impossible to get two or more different people to view events from the same perspective, and having the same information. In structured societies, the people must simply come to some agreement, then abide by it.

Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well if the law, the Constitution, the Second Amendment, places a limitation, such as "bear," then the arms that cannot be abridged must be capable of being carried by a human being.

[The Dad Fisherman]

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You should have been called on for your knowledge of how to successfully take down a high altitude spy ballon and insure it drops into the shallows, that’s so funny. Navy is recovery debris, as opposed to the three ballon’s Trump let fly freely over US during his watch. Biden unlike Trump let the experts dictate when and where to take it down, to insure its in our waters and not burning up on land or killing civilians. We all thank you for your expertise

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Dad another arm chair general. Meanwhile I bet you agree with Republicans now say we’re doing “too much” for Ukraine.

an NBC News poll last week showed 63 percent of Republicans opposed “providing more funding and weapons to Ukraine,

And perhaps most notably, it features an emerging willingness to give Russia some of the Ukrainian territory it seeks.

Typical conservatives more upset over a Chinese balloon that wasn’t shot down quickly enough for them more upset at their President. Then the Chinese who sent it .. and their love for Putin , and who can forget their willingness to re elect Trump who actually tried to overthrow the Government…. Cowards

FYI the the waters not that deep and you people can’t even produce a factual meme LOL

[The Dad Fisherman]

Look at these two bozos get triggered over a meme….priceless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Look at these two bozos get triggered over a meme….priceless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you ever post about anything other than ukraine, did you know that means you’re rooting for putin?

i

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you ever post about anything other than ukraine, did you know that means you’re rooting for putin?

i

Ukraine is sooooo thankful Trump didn’t win or he would have done everything in his power to slow, stop or vastly reduce any aid in his distain for Ukraine and nato.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Ukraine is sooooo thankful Trump didn’t win or he would have done everything in his power to slow, stop or vastly reduce any aid in his distain for Ukraine and nato.

everything is about Trump.

I be can’t help but notice that Putin move while Trump was in power. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, and maybe it’s not.

I kept hearing how much more stable things would be with Biden in there. Are China and Russia being better neighbors now? If so, I’m sorry I don’t see it. One night argue that they’re taking advantage of the overwhelming weakness projected by our frail Alzheimer’s patient we have now. You have to give Biden sincere kudos for low unemployment. But on the global front, i’m not sure he’s striking fear in the heart of our adversaries.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

everything is about Trump.

I be can’t help but notice that Putin move while Trump was in power. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, and maybe it’s not.

I kept hearing how much more stable things would be with Biden in there. Are China and Russia being better neighbors now? If so, I’m sorry I don’t see it. One night argue that they’re taking advantage of the overwhelming weakness projected by our frail Alzheimer’s patient we have now. You have to give Biden sincere kudos for low unemployment. But on the global front, i’m not sure he’s striking fear in the heart of our adversaries.

You are a funny man, is it your expert opinion that suddenly under Biden relationships with Russia and China have changed for the worse? Short term memory loss Jim is a sign, you better go get checked out. You forgetting Russia and China have been bad actors forever?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

everything is about Trump.

I be can’t help but notice that Putin move while Trump was in power. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, and maybe it’s not.

I kept hearing how much more stable things would be with Biden in there. Are China and Russia being better neighbors now? If so, I’m sorry I don’t see it. One night argue that they’re taking advantage of the overwhelming weakness projected by our frail Alzheimer’s patient we have now. You have to give Biden sincere kudos for low unemployment. But on the global front, i’m not sure he’s striking fear in the heart of our adversaries.

If Trump were in office, the West likely would have splintered instead of unifying to isolate Russia, making Putin’s aggression far less costly.

Our ability to control things in this world is and should be dependent on our allies.

A twittering lying blowhard for a leader didn’t work, most Americans saw that.

As it is for a relatively small investment, matched by our allies, Russia has decimated much of their military muscle and their economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Look at these two bozos get triggered over a meme….priceless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who triggered just calling you out for what for what you represent .

The king of the drive by unwilling to take a position . No one’s surprised
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The king of the drive by unwilling to take a position . No one’s surprised
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why bother, you misinterpret anything I say and TELL me what my position is anyways, along with a sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy added. Just look at your response above.

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer

Nothing Unhinged about that response

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Why bother, you misinterpret anything I say and TELL me what my position is anyways, along with a. Just look at your response above.

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer

Nothing Unhinged about that response

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy

That fits your post to a T .

You should change your name to the Vagueness Dad

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer

Just like Jim you think this song is about you…. Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy

That fits your post to a T .

You should change your name to the Vagueness Dad

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer

Just like Jim you think this song is about you…. Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who were we supposed to think it was about? you responded to his post about the balloon, you actually quoted his post, and somehow changed course to russia and ukraine and gop bashing.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Why bother, you misinterpret anything I say and TELL me what my position is anyways, along with a sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy added. Just look at your response above.

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer

Nothing Unhinged about that response

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I’d agree with you on that point, because when you don’t say anything, it’s hard to interpret what you meant. But since that meme spoke to you and triggered you to want to post it, Wayne figured it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, well you know the meming.