World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Sarge]

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the aclj comparison.

Because they are a right-leaning non-profit. I'm guessing you don't agree with everything they've argued in court, any more than I agree with every case that the ACLU has argued in court.

Also, I'm not sure how asking you a question is missing the mark on "due respect". Should I simply assume you support civil liberties when you oppose a non-profit group whose purpose is to protect them? It seems like a valid question.

I resent the implication that because I see a non-profit legal group that leans to the left and at times is at odds with my position on certain Constitutional and civil rights issues (as well as other legal scholars) that I'm somehow opposed to civil liberties. I never question yours or anyone else's motives here, I try to stick to the issues. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Simplifying the ACLU's purpose to "they protect civil rights!" is setting up a bit of a strawman as well. I believe they are wrong on several issues. Some of them revolve around religious issues. Cases in which we have conflicting rights. Clearly, there are other civil rights groups out there that I can support other than the ACLU. I can certainly acknowledge when they do take what I feel to be the correct position, but they aren't always right.

If the "left agenda" bothers you due to the financial side of things then certainly I can understand your conservative views, if it has to do with something else then I don't see how that is valid in regards to politics. An NPO is not government funded so why do you have a problem with them simply because they "lean left"?

I'm trying to get the gist of your point here. Their funding source doesn't bother me, it's some of the legal positions that they take in court, which is very much a political endeavor. That I would not want to support an organization that tends to, more often than not, have a different legal interpretation than my own or other right-leaning law scholars shouldn't be surprising, and it certainly shouldn't be used as an opportunity to try to paint your humble sparring partner as somehow not supportive of civil rights.

[jp1]

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the aclj comparison.

Because they are a right-leaning non-profit. I'm guessing you don't agree with everything they've argued in court, any more than I agree with every case that the ACLU has argued in court.

Also, I'm not sure how asking you a question is missing the mark on "due respect". Should I simply assume you support civil liberties when you oppose a non-profit group whose purpose is to protect them? It seems like a valid question.

I resent the implication that because I see a non-profit legal group that leans to the left and at times is at odds with my position on certain Constitutional and civil rights issues (as well as other legal scholars) that I'm somehow opposed to civil liberties. I never question yours or anyone else's motives here, I try to stick to the issues. And I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy.

Simplifying the ACLU's purpose to "they protect civil rights!" is setting up a bit of a strawman as well. I believe they are wrong on several issues. Some of them revolve around religious issues. Cases in which we have conflicting rights. Clearly, there are other civil rights groups out there that I can support other than the ACLU. I can certainly acknowledge when they do take what I feel to be the correct position, but they aren't always right.

If the "left agenda" bothers you due to the financial side of things then certainly I can understand your conservative views, if it has to do with something else then I don't see how that is valid in regards to politics. An NPO is not government funded so why do you have a problem with them simply because they "lean left"?

I'm trying to get the gist of your point here. Their funding source doesn't bother me, it's some of the legal positions that they take in court, which is very much a political endeavor. That I would not want to support an organization that tends to, more often than not, have a different legal interpretation of my own or other right-leaning law scholars shouldn't be surprising, and it certainly shouldn't be used as an opportunity to try to paint your humble sparring partner as somehow not supportive of civil rights.

Sarge, I don't know you from Adam. Why in the world would I be making inferences on your character? It was an honest question, because I can't understand what evil the ACLU has done. Perhaps you have better knowledge of some social atrocity they have committed, but your initial comment simply stated they "leaned left" which felt a bit weak for an argument against them.

In any case, I've exasperated my patience with trying to deal with this "Right vs. Left" garbage. I'll be stepping away from the whole conversation for some time. It seems all I can ever get is some circular logic that assumes I take umbrage with every conservative view. I'm actually trying to be as respectful as I can, the fact that I still piss you off is a bit of a red flag for me with going any further.

I know a few conservatives whom I can manage to have polite discourse with although we see eye to eye on virtually nothing. For whatever reason I'm not able to do the same thing in this setting. It could certainly be my fault, but it is definitely not my intention. Honestly, it just frustrates me that nobody wants to address their reasons for such beliefs head on. If you are steadfast in your views and they aren't anything to be ashamed of why must they be milked from you (not just you, but in general) so painfully? I'm trying to see the positive in your point of view, but if you can't be bothered to explain it, I'm not sure how I can.

Any disrespect however, I can say with all honesty is something that is just lost in translation.

[Sarge]

My apologies if you did not mean it in that way. I do think, in that case, we are clearly missing each other somewhere along the way.

I don't believe I've said anything to you in the past that was intended as disrespectful, so if I've done so, please be assured that was, or is, not the case.

[Tanooki]

If the "left agenda" bothers you due to the financial side of things then certainly I can understand your conservative views, if it has to do with something else then I don't see how that is valid in regards to politics.

In my case *ding* we have a winner. I'm fine with some left leaning policies, you'd kind of have to be a really cruel asshole not to be. It's when the left cross into that irrational line of wanting to do this and that, and the whole solution is to punish certain groups of people financially to do it. Or to lie and deflect saying they'll tax the crap out of the 1% but the language of the law screws the lower, lower-middle and middle class types the worst. There are good ways and bad ways to pay for things, and some things just shouldn't be free on the tax payers dime either unless certain conditions are met if at all. There's where I get annoyed and split more often than not.

[MrPopo]

My apologies if you did not mean it in that way. I do think, in that case, we are clearly missing each other somewhere along the way.

I don't believe I've said anything to you in the past that was intended as disrespectful, so if I've done so, please be assured that was, or is, not the case.

I think you pointed it out earlier; the two of you don't agree on what specific civil liberties should be in every case. But you seem reticent to point out specific examples. It's like the abortion debate; both sides are coming from a position of "how could you ever thing anything but how I do? It's blindingly obvious my position is correct" and so you can't have a meaningful conversation.

[jp1]

My apologies if you did not mean it in that way. I do think, in that case, we are clearly missing each other somewhere along the way.

I don't believe I've said anything to you in the past that was intended as disrespectful, so if I've done so, please be assured that was, or is, not the case.

You haven't. It's my bad, just a misunderstanding. Bad week obviously interfering with my ability to communicate effectively. Apologies, you're alright man.

Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk

[Sarge]

Yeah, I think we're on the same page now. We're all good. Just me jumping to conclusions.

[MrPopo]

[J T]

Trump is planning to appoint Tom Price as the head of Health and Human Services.

Tom Price has written up plans for how he will dismantle the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). If you want to know more about what this stripped away ACA will look like, there is a decent summary here. If you want all the details, you can read a pdf of the full proposal here. The bottom line is that it will be restructured so that the main people to benefit are rich, healthy, young people who don't really want/need insurance.

Old people do not fare well, except for a tax credit. This tax credit is no longer based on income though, so wealthy old people benefit most, poor young people benefit least, as far as the tax credit goes.

Oh, and they are planning to weaken the protections for people with pre-existing conditions by making it so that you lose that protection if you ever have a lapse in coverage, like if you were to ever lose your job and not be able to afford paying for your own insurance.

Please don't call it "Obamacare" anymore after they are done gutting it. It won't be fair to blame Obama once they pull all the benefits out of the plan.

[J T]

Trump's FCC advisor, Mark Jamison wants to eliminate the FCC.

Mark Jamison used to be part of Sprint's team of lobbyists and he is a staunch critic of Net Neutrality, the principle that all internet data should be treated equally and carriers like Comcast shouldn't be allowed to charge more for data from different users, content, or types of applications. In other words, they shouldn't be charging for "fast lanes" that run at current speeds, while dumping everyone else in slow lanes.

Mark Jamison is an enemy of net neutrality and the open internet. By getting rid of the FCC he would take away or redistribute the key roles the FCC plays in protecting internet openness, promoting cable and wireless competition, ensuring broadband privacy protections, and encouraging deployment of internet access around the country, especially in low-income, rural and underserved communities.

Read more here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016 ... comments=1