You're next

George1963 wrote:Oh, the dreaded Slippery Slope.



Society as we know it is coming to an end for sure.


I'll not have your progressive jibber-jabber ruining my mood.
The oil man says I don't need a new furnace,
I'm going to Kiawah island for the weekend and
a college girl from ECU mistakenly sent me a nekkid selfie.
I'm good.


Sweet, man. 

Damn, I want to go to Kiawah Island. 

And bring my clubs.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:Oh, the dreaded Slippery Slope.



Society as we know it is coming to an end for sure.


I'll not have your progressive jibber-jabber ruining my mood.
The oil man says I don't need a new furnace,
I'm going to Kiawah island for the weekend and
a college girl from ECU mistakenly sent me a nekkid selfie.
I'm good.


Sweet, man. 

Damn, I want to go to Kiawah Island. 

And bring my clubs.

George1963 wrote:Harry Reid's coming for you Red Mesa reservation school.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
 
Racist bastards.

With all the problems with our country and our government, Harry Reid is a senile old coot that has nothing better to do. It could be the side effects of his continuous embalming fluid IV drip..... 

George1963 wrote:
What's stopping you?


Right now, unfortunately, $.

George1963 wrote:
Scalias opinion makes sense to me. Kagans seems like....well, that it was written by Kagan.



What?  You don't think Kagan is hot?   Definitely hotter than Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  LOL.




Scalia says there are so many loopholes in the statute, he just thinks this straw purchaser part is another  one, and that it should not be interpreted so literally and strictly to convict the guy who lied on the application to purchase the gun.  Kagan says no, it is what it is.  The guy lied on the application, period.  Guilty. 

It seems to me you would favor Kagan over Scalia if they ruled on Belichick's actions in spygate.  Seriously.   Kagan would be the one who would say, "no loophole, you violated the rule Mr. Belichick and the Commissioner's memo, therefore, you're guilty.  Scalia would say, oh, the rule wasn't meant to punish what BB did, he only filmed from the wrong place, and he said he misinterpreted the rule, which is easily understandable, considering the vague and equivocal language used and the careless way in which the rule was drafted.   Ya, in my hypothetical, you'd side with Kagan, The Enforcer, and you'd call Scalia, a spineless wimp who let a depraved criminal off the hook.

It all comes down to whose ox is being gored doesn't it?


"If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death ... but the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.

"If, however the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is requested."


In 1521, Martin Luther apparently drew on these verses to make what many say was history's first use of "it depends on whose ox is gored."
Luther, you may recall, earned the wrath of the Catholic Church when he, according to legend, nailed his 95 Theses to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on Oct. 31, 1517. In a letter to his bishop, he assailed the sale of indulgences and further raised hackles by contending, among other heretical ideas, that man is saved by faith alone, not faith as proven through charity and good works.


For this blasphemy, Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X on Jan. 3, 1521, but he was given one last chance to recant at the Diet of Worms, which opened three weeks later. Luther, of course, refused to back down and during his defense reportedly said, "Most human affairs come down to depending upon whose ox is gored."
In other words, if your ox fights another person's ox, the consequences are going to be radically different depending on which one is gored. Substitute, say, "tax bill" or, in this case, "religious beliefs" for "ox" and you probably start to see the modern application. How people react to something depends on how they are affected by it.


Hey, take your pick between the majority and the minority.  If some provision of the statute is fuzzy, it will just be up to Congress to re-write it more clearly anyway.  Otherwise, we'll continue to have these 5-4 decisions.

I just can't too worked up about this stuff.  The problem is, the way things are so polarized, you are either in favor of strong regulation, or no regulation.  There is no middle ground.  Where is the place for people like me in the middle, in favor of only limited, reasonable regulation? 

And then there are wackos who think that 911 and the Boston Marathon bombing were perpetrated by our own government.  Sheesh.