• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Beginning of the End

Guy Incognito said:
It was well known to people in the know. I can tell you that i myself saw the outcome years in advance. Not because I have any prophetic abilities, just because I applied some basic understanding of constitutional law. The role of the supreme court is uphold the will of the legislature if at all possible. The fact that it functions as a tax means it is constitutional, even if it is not called a tax. There was no basis to strike down the law.

You just don't understand the pertinent concepts.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Ok...whatever you say...:thumbs:

:lamo
 
ChezC3 said:
:roll:

Ok...whatever you say...:thumbs:

:lamo
Click to expand...

Yeah, because I'm right and you're wrong. And your emoticons are no very persuasive.

You just don't understand the legal issues at play. There's no shame in that. The shame is in continuing to insist on your wrong ideas even after having it clearly explained to you why they are wrong.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yeah, because I'm right and you're wrong. And your emoticons are no very persuasive.

You just don't understand the legal issues at play. There's no shame in that. The shame is in continuing to insist on your wrong ideas even after having it clearly explained to you why they are wrong.
Click to expand...

There are no legal issues when it comes down to the facts. Roberts had to amend the law twice from the bench in order to justify the Court's final ruling...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, lied is much more descriptive. As in the President directly lied to the citizens of this country...
Click to expand...

It wasn't a direct lie, which is why bull**** is a better description. The mandate can arguably be considered to be something other than a tax, which is great when you're selling a bill to the public. It's not honest and forthright but it's not exactly untrue. It's dissembling, not lying.

But when you're a Supreme Court justice deciding whether that law is constitutional, then you need to give it the broadest possible interpretation. If it can be construed as a tax then it's a tax.

This is all about context. You're not doing proper justice to the nuances, here.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
There are no legal issues when it comes down to the facts. Roberts had to amend the law twice from the bench in order to justify the Court's final ruling...
Click to expand...

That's not even close to accurate.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yeah, because I'm right and you're wrong. And your emoticons are no very persuasive.

You just don't understand the legal issues at play. There's no shame in that. The shame is in continuing to insist on your wrong ideas even after having it clearly explained to you why they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure buddy, whatever you say, you're a regular Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Tribe, and Mark Tushnet all rolled into one... I get it...
 
Guy Incognito said:
It wasn't a direct lie, which is why bull**** is a better description. The mandate can arguably be considered to be something other than a tax, which is great when you're selling a bill to the public. It's not honest and forthright but it's not exactly untrue. It's dissembling, not lying.

But when you're a Supreme Court justices deciding whether that law is constitutional, then you need to give it the broadest possible interpretation. If it can be construed as a tax then it's a tax.

This is all about context. You're not doing proper justice to the nuances, here.
Click to expand...

No, it's not about context when he tells Stephanopolous that it is not a tax by any definition and then sends in Justice Department lawyers to argue the it is. If it were a tax, the SCOTUS should have dismissed the case as it had not taken effect when the case was brought before it...
 
ChezC3 said:
Sure buddy, whatever you say, you're a regular Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Tribe, and Mark Tushnet all rolled into one... I get it...
Click to expand...

I'm just somebody who has taken the time to come to grips with some complex ideas, unlike you.

Pretty much anybody is capable of understanding these things, you don't need to be a Laurence Tribe. You just need to put aside your political bias and maybe crack a book.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, it's not about context when he tells Stephanopolous that it is not a tax by any definition and then sends in Justice Department lawyers to argue the it is.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the word context means? When he is on TV explaining to the American people, that is a different context than defending the law against a constitutional challenge.

If it were a tax, the SCOTUS should have dismissed the case as it had not taken effect when the case was brought before it...
Click to expand...

This is wrong.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Do you know what the word context means? When he is on TV explaining to the American people, that is a different context than defending the law against a constitutional challenge.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's not. If a country's leader chooses to tell the commoners one thing to placate their fears while knowing it's not true, that is directly misleading the citizenry as to a governmental action...
 
ChezC3 said:
Senate Panel OKs Measure Defining a Journalist

This is a lion posing as a house pet.

Say good bye free speech, freedom of the press, we hardly knew you...
Click to expand...

Well, I am of two minds about this issue. I'll explain below.

Aunt Spiker said:
So, I'm trying to understand why this is necessary - before this, was there an issue?
Click to expand...

CalGun said:
If there is freedom of speech in America why does one need to define journalist at all?
Click to expand...

To answer those questions the issue arises out of trying to make a desired privilege legal. Currently Lawyers have attorney-client privilege, and Catholic Priests have the privilege of the Confessional. Journalists have been fighting for the privilege of protecting the identity of their sources to encourage sources to seek them out. The Senate is trying to formulate a definition to see who qualifies if a privilege is legally granted by Act of Congress.

I think journalists should have this privilege, but should everyone who claims to be one have it? For example; a gossip "columnist" is considered a journalist because she is published, but does that make a common gossip a journalist because her audience is the local neighborhood? A sports writer is considered a journalist, but should your buddy who knows the stats of all the teams and likes to call the plays when you guys hang out entitled to be a journalist too? If one has a blog, and the total readership is 100 people around the country, is he a journalist?

At the same time, how DO we define a journalist? The Huffington Post started out as a blog and now it is a semi-respectable source of information. WikiLeaks started out as a general informatin source, and made a name for itself after revelations of secret (and embarrassing) information from around the world. Neither sells or buys the information, they simply publish it for our edification. That is the definition of "news." How then can we allow the government to say they are NOT valid journalistic efforts worthy of the privilege?

I don't think Joe the sports guy or Mary the neighborhood gossip are "journalists." At the same time I don't think Bob the new blogger should be excluded because he isn't as famous as the Huffington Post (yet).
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
I'm just somebody who has taken the time to come to grips with some complex ideas, unlike you.

Pretty much anybody is capable of understanding these things, you don't need to be a Laurence Tribe. You just need to put aside your political bias and maybe crack a book.
Click to expand...

Uh huh...
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, I am of two minds about this issue. I'll explain below.





To answer those questions the issue arises out of trying to make a desired privilege legal. Currently Lawyers have attorney-client privilege, and Catholic Priests have the privilege of the Confessional. Journalists have been fighting for the privilege of protecting the identity of their sources to encourage sources to seek them out. The Senate is trying to formulate a definition to see who qualifies if a privilege is legally granted by Act of Congress.

I think journalists should have this privilege, but should everyone have it? For example; a gossip "columnist" is considered a journalist because she is published, but does that make a common gossip a journalist because her audience is the local neighborhood? A sports writer is considered a journalist, but should your buddy who knows the stats of all the teams and likes to call the plays when you guys hang out entitled to be a journalist too? If one has a blog, and the total readership is 100 people around the country, is he a journalist?

At the same time, how DO we define a journalist? The Huffington Post started out as a blog and now it is a semi-respectable source of information. WikiLeaks started out as a general informatin source, and made it name after revelations of secret (and embarrassing) information from around the world. Neither sells or buys the information, they simply publish it for our edification. How then can we allow the government to say they are NOT valid journalistic efforts worthy of the privilege?

I don't think Joe the sports guy or Mary the neighborhood gossip are "journalists." At the same time I don't think Bob the new blogger should be excluded because he isn't as famous as the Huffington Post (yet).
Click to expand...

Good post.

My biggest concern is where does this leave freelance? Also, just someone is a gossip columnist doesn't or shouldn't exclude them from this, privilege. There are libel and slander laws in place which will be enough of a coercive action that giving up their source would a realistic option when the alternative is financial ruin.
 
Jerry said:
IMO if you don't want to identify your sources, so your story can be verified, then you have no story anyway and shouldn't publish in the first place.
Click to expand...

So you're wanting to completely destroy Journalism then?
 
Jerry said:
IMO if you don't want to identify your sources, so your story can be verified, then you have no story anyway and shouldn't publish in the first place.
Click to expand...

So Woodward and Bernstein should have "outed" Deep Throat in their first article?

The point is that if the information is true there should be no issue, a journalist should not be forced to reveal his source. That cuts off not only his access to further info, but any other whistleblowers who would otherwise seek him out. This does NOT mean the offended party cannot exercise other alternatives to find the leak.
 
Last edited:
AlabamaPaul said:
Unfortunately, it's not. If a country's leader chooses to tell the commoners one thing to placate their fears while knowing it's not true, that is directly misleading the citizenry as to a governmental action...
Click to expand...

If you are stupid enough to believe that it wasn't functionally a tax hike for those not having insurance, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. But the point is that, despite your obviously hurt feelings over being duped, it wasn't a lie.

It was dissembling, also known as bull****. And in the context of a political campaign it makes perfect sense to play around with nomenclature like that. And again, if that surprises you, let's talk about the down payment for that bridge.

On the other hand in the context of a Supreme Court ruling, the issue hinges more on functionality to determine if the law is constitutional. It is arguably a more honest assessment. The constitution says the federal government can tax. There is nothing that says a tax has to be called a tax.
 
ChezC3 said:
So you're wanting to completely destroy Journalism then?
Click to expand...
If journalism is based on the notion that I should believe the internet or TV just because someone said it, no source, then yes journslism needs to go. Replace it with objective reporting and verifyable sources.
 
Captain Adverse said:
So Woodward and Bernstein should have "outed" Deep Throat in their first article?

The point is that if the information is true there should be no issue, a journalist should not be forced to reveal his source. That cuts off not only his access to further info, but any other whistleblowers who would otherwise seek him out. This does NOT mean the offended party cannot exercise other alternatives to find the leak.
Click to expand...
If you don't want a source to be known, then don't cite it. If there's a person helping you, great, take their direction. Use them as the tool they are acting like, and I don't mean "tool" in a negstive sense.

But don't then source that person, otherwise, as your source, they are subject to peer-review and scrutiny.
 
With the ability of software and communications today, facebook, twitter and the ability to post a blog instantly - everyone should be entitled to claim they are a journalist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom