Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.

While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.

Slight shove = "hit a woman"

6 guys holding someone down = "gave a gay guy a haircut"

Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective

How about this clarification
1. Romney hazed a kid in prep school.
2. Obama did felony level heavy narcotics in college.

I like to have a President with some street cred, keeps it gangsta with the other countries.

If Romney gets a teardrop tattoo he would get my vote.

biccat wrote:
The idea of "even perspective" was thrown out the window a long time ago.

Which is now apparently an excuse for continuing to avoid a stance based on an even perspective.

To paraphrase: "Mommy, he did it first!"

Chowderhead wrote:I'm just wondering how the kid who got attacked is doing in life right now.

I think it was newt Gingrich. That's why he wouldn't get out of the race.

sirlynchmob wrote:Not defending DOMA is good decision though. Why waste time and money defending a discriminatory piece of legislation?

I don't like DOMA, but I disagree strongly with the decision not to enforce it, and the attitude behind that decision. The executive does not have the right to determine what laws are constitutional, and it certainly does not have the right to choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to.

I think he should have lobbied to have DOMA repealed; but the decision not to enforce the law of the land was a low point in my opinion.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.

While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.

Slight shove = "hit a woman"

6 guys holding someone down = "gave a gay guy a haircut"

Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective

How about this clarification
1. Romney hazed a kid in prep school.
2. Obama did felony level heavy narcotics in college.

I like to have a President with some street cred, keeps it gangsta with the other countries.

If Romney gets a teardrop tattoo he would get my vote.

Actually I respect and agree with that. Of course Nixon's my hero...
"You mess with me the B-52s fly !!!"

Oh noes! Red is out locking threads! I sense an imminent end to my precious!

Frazzled wrote:
How about this clarification
1. Romney hazed a kid in prep school.
2. Obama did felony level heavy narcotics in college.

In neither case would they be the first candidate to do either, or potentially both.

Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Not defending DOMA is good decision though. Why waste time and money defending a discriminatory piece of legislation?

I don't like DOMA, but I disagree strongly with the decision not to enforce it, and the attitude behind that decision. The executive does not have the right to determine what laws are constitutional, and it certainly does not have the right to choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to.

I think he should have lobbied to have DOMA repealed; but the decision not to enforce the law of the land was a low point in my opinion.

For the law to be changed, first someone it affects needs to challenge it in court. Once someone is able to make a case against it, it will go away.

No wonder we have so many stupid laws still on the books though, do you really think the original 13 states need to defend the laws that state "it is illegal to carry ice cream in your pocket"?

Or to defend the law in texas where you have to get off the trolly car before you shoot an Indian?

For a fun afternoon, google the stupid laws in your state and city, then ask yourself would you want your state officials to waste money trying to defend these laws?

All levels of the government should take a year off from passing new laws and review all the old laws and just do away with the idiotic ones and ones that are blatantly unconstitutional.

Ouze wrote:
I think he should have lobbied to have DOMA repealed; but the decision not to enforce the law of the land was a low point in my opinion.

To be clear, they haven't stopped enforcing DOMA (specifically Section 3 of DOMA), they've just stopped defending it in court; and as far as I know they aren't required to do so.

sirlynchmob wrote:
For the law to be changed, first someone it affects needs to challenge it in court. Once someone is able to make a case against it, it will go away.

That, or it needs to be altered or repealed by another bill.

sirlynchmob wrote:ones that are blatantly unconstitutional.

DOMA is blatently unconstitutional?

Ouze wrote:I don't like DOMA, but I disagree strongly with the decision not to enforce it, and the attitude behind that decision. The executive does not have the right to determine what laws are constitutional, and it certainly does not have the right to choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to.

I think he should have lobbied to have DOMA repealed; but the decision not to enforce the law of the land was a low point in my opinion.

Odd, I disagree almost entirely.

I like DOMA, I think allowing states to decide whether they want to recognize out-of-state marriages is a good solution. But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it.

I suspect Obama was thinking of this when he instructed the DOJ to stop defending DOMA. He just played the issue poorly from a political perspective. But I think Obama is less politically savvy than most people give him credit for.

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:ones that are blatantly unconstitutional.

DOMA is blatently unconstitutional?

Yes:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/22/430779/breaking-bush-appointee-finds-doma-unconstitutional/

Amusingly:

BLAG also contends that Congress could have rationally sought to base eligibility for federal benefits on a traditional definition of marriage in order “to avoid the arbitrariness and inconsistency in such eligibility ... and not depend[] on the vagaries of state law.” (BLAG Motion to Dismiss at 24.) However, as explained above, in all of the years preceding the passage of DOMA, Congress relied on the various states’ definitions of marriage without incident.

All couples married under state law were entitled to federal benefits, even if the particulars of the states’ definitions were variable. The passage of DOMA actually undermined administrative consistency by requiring that the federal government, for the first time, discern which state definitions of marriage are entitled to federal recognition and which are not.

Accordingly, the Court finds that consistency does not constitute a rational basis.

I like this judge.

That case is at odds with Supreme Court precedent.

biccat wrote:That case is at odds with Supreme Court precedent.

So was the ruling against segregation.

biccat wrote: But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it

Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?

Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote: But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it

Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?

Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?

Most rational people can look at laws and decide if they're still applicable today and need enforcing or defending. Lets look at some fun ones from north carolina.

It’s against the law to sing off key.
Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields.

Are you staying these laws still need to be enforced and defended?
If there is ever a talent call in north carolina for american idol, should the cops be outside issuing tickets to everyone who sings off key?

but frazzled would be happy to see that in Barber NC.
Fights between cats and dogs are prohibited.

Defending the law equates to representing it in court and defending it against against claimants.

Enforcing it equates to the actual act of applying the law, such as giving people a ticket and making them pay a fine for breaking the speed limit.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote: But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it

Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?

Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?

Most rational people can look at laws and decide if they're still applicable today and need enforcing or defending. (snip)

Are you staying these laws still need to be enforced and defended?

You know, I started out typing how I agree they are dumb but I don't think, say, a law enforcement officer can choose which laws to pick and enforce, and that's really up to a prosecutor; but I realized as I was typing it that's not really true, LEO's choose every day when and when not to make an arrest; otherwise they'd spend all damn day arresting jaywalkers. So I see what you mean.

I still prefer that when faced with a law which is stupid, it's better to repeal it than to ignore it.

Ouze wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote: But I don't have a problem with the executive deciding not to enforce laws that it believes are unconstitutional. And in court cases, if the Executive doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a law it's better (ethically) to hire outside counsel to defend the law than to torpedo it

Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?

Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?

Most rational people can look at laws and decide if they're still applicable today and need enforcing or defending. (snip)

Are you staying these laws still need to be enforced and defended?

You know, I started out typing how I agree they are dumb but I don't think, say, a law enforcement officer can choose which laws to pick and enforce, and that's really up to a prosecutor; but I realized as I was typing it that's not really true, LEO's choose every day when and when not to make an arrest; otherwise they'd spend all damn day arresting jaywalkers. So I see what you mean.

I still prefer that when faced with a law which is stupid, it's better to repeal it than to ignore it.

I agree, but in order to have a law repealed you have to go through all the steps as if passing a new law. thats why there are so many laws on the books and not much interest in getting rid of them.

Which is the legislature's job.

Since when has this had anything to do with how executives enforce the laws?

Ouze wrote:Is there some basis in the former element above I'm unaware of? What principle allows the executive to pick and choose what legally passed laws it's obliged to enforce?

Mostly prosecutor discretion. You can't (well, you could) force the government to prosecute all offenders of a law that they're aware of. It has a lot to do with separation of powers.

Ouze wrote:Also, whats the distinction between defending a law and enforcing it?

Enforcing a law is when the government acts against a person who is required to act under that law.

Defending a law is when an individual challenges either the constitutionality or applicability of a law against them.

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:Romney gave a gay guy a haircut. Obama hit a woman. Prioritize appropriately.

While I agree this is a bunch of nonsense, this post in particular made me laugh.

Slight shove = "hit a woman"

6 guys holding someone down = "gave a gay guy a haircut"

Glad to see we're keeping an even perspective

Bingo.

I know almost everyone has done something when they were in school that they later regret in life. But to equate the two isn't feasible at all.

I agree. Neither of them should be president.

Monster Rain wrote:I agree. Neither of them should be president.

Your post did to me what the little person in your sig is doing to that brat.

I think the complete opposite kind sir. The road to the WH should go through the
Octagon! And we clearly have 2 seasoned combatants.

Ahh, it's these kinds of things that make me hate being an American (or human) some days. Can we not, as a race, just treat each other appropriately? My God. Romney doing this as a late teen makes him a douchebag. Unqualified to run as president? No, just a douchebag. Gay people (or suspected gay people) don't deserve this kind of treatment from crappy homophobes. You know what? If everybody who ever enacted a hate crime of any kind against somebody else based on gender, race or sexuality put a gun in their own mouth and pulled the trigger, I think the world would be better off. I know I'd sleep without losing a wink if every person like that was off this world. That does include terrorists too, by the way. I'm preparing to be the guy getting this post locked by supporting mass-suicide of a large group of asshats. Does that make me a donkey-cave for supporting this? I don't think so, because it's a stance against those who tear down others. Homophobes, racists and terrorists may disagree with me.

And Biccat-I'm with Matty-my opinion of you has gone way down. Obama shoved a girl off him at a young age because he was getting teased and got nervous-"pushed" doesn't equal "hit." Romney outright led a witch hunt against someone who didn't style his hair the way Romney liked.

Scarily enough, my opinion of Melissia has been going WAY up based on what she's written in the off-topic area. I'm scared. I'll be huddled in the shower for the next few days now.

I love that there's a biccat vs. Melissia political rubric now.

By "love" I of course mean "am slightly saddened by."

The significance of these happenings is not that people were badly behaved as teenagers, it is how they deal with the revelation now.

In this respect Romney fairs badly. His response sounds evasive and insincere to a modern audience, no matter how defensible his actions might be given the historical context.

He should have said something like this:

"I do remember the incident. It was a rotten thing to do, and I am sorry for it."

Even if he does not remember the incident, or feels it wasn't rotten, etc. it sounds better to express proper remorse.

Monster Rain wrote:I love that there's a biccat vs. Melissia political rubric now.

Vote biccat 2012, I won't eat your babies.

You can trust me, I'm a politician.*

* may not actually be a politician

Im defending a GOP the world must be ending.
But he apologized, let it go, sure his feelings are still there but we shouldnt judge him for things he did in HS, if we did, no one would be president.