Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 17:57:17 GMT -5
That all sounds logically consistent. It's just interesting wanting to help administer redistribution programs you don't believe should exist and voting for politicians that want to cut your pay and benefits. Guess it's not that abnormal, plenty of Americans vote against their economic interest. It's almost like a pacifist joining the military.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 18:00:24 GMT -5
People's interests are too numerous and varied, and their values too different, for another person to know whether a vote is against someone's interests under the totality of the circumstances. Also, not every "conservative" believes nothing like social security should exist. We aren't all anarcho-capitalists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 18:10:13 GMT -5
I'm not talking about their values. I'm talking about their economic interests.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 27, 2018 18:19:53 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed by the number of conservatives interested in working for the welfare office Why? It's a government position that will exist whether or not you apply. Your taxes are already funding both the benefits and the ALJ structure. Why forego the job opportunity? Also, it's a chance to help make sure the law is correctly administered. That's like when people called Ayn Rand a hypocrite for taking social security. She correctly replied that she was not the Queen and couldn't just change the system at will, her FICA had been taken from her by force, and there was no reason to be a sucker and not get back some fraction of it if she could. Shame on her for bowing to the will of collective in the first place. Howard Roark wouldn’t have done that!!
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 27, 2018 18:40:22 GMT -5
I continue to be amazed by the number of conservatives interested in working for the welfare office Why? It's a government position that will exist whether or not you apply. Your taxes are already funding both the benefits and the ALJ structure. Why forego the job opportunity? Just like how I am morally opposed to the death penalty but took that job as an executioner. After all my taxes are already paying for it and if I don’t apply someone else will just get the job!
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jun 27, 2018 18:48:04 GMT -5
Praise God! Finally a real chance to overturn Roe v Wade and the even more ridiculous Obergefell v Hodges decision! I’m actually hoping for Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett. She is the Catholic Who was opposed by some Democrats because the Catholic “dogma lives loudly within you.” She’s only in her 40’s so she could serve for 40 more years Plus a few Dems voted for Barrett so they’d look foolish voting no now. Hey legit question - do you just want to stop at overturning Obregfell or would you like to see Lawrence v Texas overturned as well? Romer v Evans? And what about Griswold? A strict constructionist would point out that there’s no right to privacy in the constitution and this case essentially created a right to privacy - shouldn’t it be overturned ?
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jun 27, 2018 19:06:36 GMT -5
I don’t know I haven’t thought about those. But to the extent that Lawrence (a Kennedy decision) said that the public morality cannot form the basis of law, then yes it is clearly wrong and should be overruled.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 27, 2018 19:36:23 GMT -5
We’re now out of situational bourbon.
It’s definitely an existential crisis at Casa Harp.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Jun 27, 2018 20:08:30 GMT -5
By and large, this board does a great job of staying away from promoting or attacking political positions. I've been really surprised by how this thread has become divisive. There's no need for it, but I guess since it's okay for conservatives to be accosted in their homes, in their jobs, in restaurants, or wherever they might be, then it's okay to belittle conservatives here. I'm a conservative. There, I said it. Up until now, I've kept my political leanings to myself, at least to the best of my ability, but after reading what's been posted here, it's time to speak up. I don't see any inconsistency in a conservative being an SSA ALJ or an IJ. The laws are there and they need to be administered. We all pay into Social Security, it's a system that is mandated. There's nothing inconsistent about conservatives accepting retirement - or disability - benefits since we've paid in. Saying a conservative shouldn't accept SS benefits is like saying conservatives shouldn't use public roads that are paid for by our tax dollars. Give me a break. Comparing an SSA ALJ to an executioner? OMG. Just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean that they are opposed Social Security. I'd like to see it reformed so that it's sustainable, but I'm not opposed to the program. I wish there were more options for where our SS taxes could go, so they could realize a better return on the investments. That doesn't mean I want to see it go away. There are other social safety nets that meet a legitimate need, but there's well-documented abuse that needs to be stopped. It's like some of you think that conservatives don't want government to do anything but maintain national defense or something. Instead of holding on to stereotypes and projecting them to an entire group of citizens, how about taking some time and actually getting to know some of us on a personal basis? You might actually find that we are reasonable, kind, caring, and generous people who want the best for our fellow citizens. As an example of what you might find, check out what this Harvard professor did with some students. nypost.com/2018/06/16/these-harvard-kids-got-the-lesson-of-their-life-in-the-heartland/I'm glad Gorsuch is on the Court, and I hope Trump nominates another person like him. I've been encouraged by some of the recent decisions that have come down from the Supremes. I hope we see more like them in the future. Maybe I'll change my pen name here to "AnotherDeplorable."
|
|
|
Post by harp on Jun 27, 2018 20:14:55 GMT -5
We’re about to have a SCOTUS where four of the nine justices were appointed by a president who didn’t win the popular vote. Maybe it’s just my idealistic Millennial notions of functioning representative democracy, but that’s alarming.
I think we have some tequila somewhere around here...
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 27, 2018 20:23:31 GMT -5
And let’s say goodbye to the politics. I’m happy we have a diverse group across the political spectrum.
I agree many slams on here have been directed toward conservatives. I think I saw some against various religions too. That’s not needed.
Whoever wants to discuss these issues, please argue or discuss in private messages. Thx
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 20:24:51 GMT -5
I'm not talking about their values. I'm talking about their economic interests. You're talking about both simultaneously but don't realize it. Is it in your economic interests or against them to live under a welfare state versus a free market state? Depends on your abilities and your values as to self-reliance, charity, and the like. You're projecting your values onto other people when you say they are voting against their interests. The issue is not usually that they are dumb. It is that they don't share your values. That doesn't make them dumb.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Jun 27, 2018 20:31:48 GMT -5
What's the point in hanging on to the popular vote complaint? If elections were based upon popular votes instead of the electoral college, campaigns would be run differently. There's no way to predict who would have won if elections were based on the popular vote. Throughout the entire primary and general election campaigns, Trump had seven rallies in NY, and nine in California. He didn't even have one rally in California during the general election campaign. He didn't spend time in those states, despite their huge number of electoral votes, because he did not expect to win them and he would be better off campaigning in states where he had a shot. Both parties planned their campaigns based upon maximizing their electoral votes. We've all seen how that played out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 20:38:38 GMT -5
By and large, this board does a great job of staying away from promoting or attacking political positions. I've been really surprised by how this thread has become divisive. There's no need for it, but I guess since it's okay for conservatives to be accosted in their homes, in their jobs, in restaurants, or wherever they might be, then it's okay to belittle conservatives here. I'm a conservative. There, I said it. Up until now, I've kept my political leanings to myself, at least to the best of my ability, but after reading what's been posted here, it's time to speak up. I don't see any inconsistency in a conservative being an SSA ALJ or an IJ. The laws are there and they need to be administered. We all pay into Social Security, it's a system that is mandated. There's nothing inconsistent about conservatives accepting retirement - or disability - benefits since we've paid in. Saying a conservative shouldn't accept SS benefits is like saying conservatives shouldn't use public roads that are paid for by our tax dollars. Give me a break. Comparing an SSA ALJ to an executioner? OMG. Just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean that they are opposed Social Security. I'd like to see it reformed so that it's sustainable, but I'm not opposed to the program. I wish there were more options for where our SS taxes could go, so they could realize a better return on the investments. That doesn't mean I want to see it go away. There are other social safety nets that meet a legitimate need, but there's well-documented abuse that needs to be stopped. It's like some of you think that conservatives don't want government to do anything but maintain national defense or something. Instead of holding on to stereotypes and projecting them to an entire group of citizens, how about taking some time and actually getting to know some of us on a personal basis? You might actually find that we are reasonable, kind, caring, and generous people who want the best for our fellow citizens. As an example of what you might find, check out what this Harvard professor did with some students. nypost.com/2018/06/16/these-harvard-kids-got-the-lesson-of-their-life-in-the-heartland/I'm glad Gorsuch is on the Court, and I hope Trump nominates another person like him. I've been encouraged by some of the recent decisions that have come down from the Supremes. I hope we see more like them in the future. Maybe I'll change my pen name here to "AnotherDeplorable." I'm gonna make heads explode: I'm probably just as conservative as JudgeKnot on most issues, and I think the cap should be lifted on FICA to make old age benefits sustainable. I don't agree with a means test, however.
|
|
|
Post by kylearan on Jun 27, 2018 20:43:39 GMT -5
Applause applause JudgeKnot! NO ONE is more conservative than me! I have dibs on "Adorable Deplorable" ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 20:49:34 GMT -5
We’re about to have a SCOTUS where four of the nine justices were appointed by a president who didn’t win the popular vote. Maybe it’s just my idealistic Millennial notions of functioning representative democracy, but that’s alarming. I think we have some tequila somewhere around here... Vegas has paid out a lot of money to people who bet on football teams that got fewer total yards, including in Super Bowls. You have to deal with the rules of the game as they are. Manning's stats in his SB win for the Broncos were atrocious, but they won. If the popular vote mattered, people would campaign differently both as to positions on issues and geographic efforts. Also, do you think there are currently more apathy non-votes by Reps in states like California and New York or more apathy non-votes by Dems in states like Kansas and Montana?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 20:50:26 GMT -5
I didn't say anyone was dumb. I said people vote against their economic interest. You read dumb. I would provide a more robust response but it's fruitless as this will be shut down by Pixie in short order now that someone got offended. I thought the young millennial college campus liberals were suppose to get offended and shut down speech.
Couple times a year this place gets interesting but five comments later someone gets butt hurt and shuts it down failing to realize it's likely half devil's advocate/trolling just seeking a robust denate or meaningful response to something different and worthwhile other than the naming of popular restaurants in various OHO locations or keeping tabs on college sports.
That was a doozy, fun while it lasted. We can all go retreat to our bubbles now. Pixie lock the thread. Let's meet at work tomorrow you tell me what Sean Hannity said, I'll tell you what Rachel Maddow cried about. Cheers
The forum may now return to business as usual: Namely, rampant speculation and superficial chatter.
|
|
Ranse
Full Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 89
|
Post by Ranse on Jun 27, 2018 20:59:37 GMT -5
This is kind of off-topic, but you know what I like most about working for OHO?
The Hatch Act.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 27, 2018 21:01:13 GMT -5
We’re about to have a SCOTUS where four of the nine justices were appointed by a president who didn’t win the popular vote. Maybe it’s just my idealistic Millennial notions of functioning representative democracy, but that’s alarming. I think we have some tequila somewhere around here... Vegas has paid out a lot of money to people who bet on football teams that got fewer total yards, including in Super Bowls. You have to deal with the rules of the game as they are. Manning's stats in his SB win for the Broncos were atrocious, but they won. If the popular vote mattered, people would campaign differently both as to positions on issues and geographic efforts. Also, do you think there are currently more apathy non-votes by Reps in states like California and New York or more apathy non-votes by Dems in states like Kansas and Montana? There are probably more apathy non-votes by Dems in CA and NY than non-votes by Reps in those states. Texas likely had a high number of non-voting Reps on the other side. Non-votes in lower population states would have little impact on the popular vote.
|
|
|
Post by aljnoobie on Jun 27, 2018 21:05:31 GMT -5
Wow....and I thought the law was an ass.....and this is why we can’t have a reasoned debate in our country anymore.
|
|