No... just human.


On the downvotes, there is obviously a political element to it which each of us will have noticed it on himself, and therefore will believe is caused at least partially by his political opponents. So the left guys are right that they were downvoted by the right ones, and the right ones are right they got downvoted by the left ones. And they all think the others started it.

That said, I do not underestimate the amount of apolitical social pressure in this community. I believe there is a substantial group of people who do downvote and often what they feel are indecent or aggressive comments - regardless of the politics. Let's call it the old geezer factor?

Bottom line, it's easy for me to assume I'm getting politically motivated downvotes, BUT maybe it's just people that think I'm being too abrasive, and it's not actually political at all...


On originalism - because going straight into moral judgements is a fool's errand IMO - my invitation to Hedwards applies to you. Feel free to comment why originalism strikes you as so intellectually dubious. Similar historiographical methods are broadly employed outside jurisprudence, the relevance of precedent is almost a universal cultural norm, and considerations of creator intent should be natural.

You wouldn't be letting your dislike of the conclusions color your view on the premises heh? :)
Bulworth was stylistically a very unusual movie as well. Do not diminish the relevance of aesthetics and style in preventing it from reaching a broader audience. Certainly I recall a feel good movie about a regular Joe becoming president and that seems to be an almost folksy classic?

As for Saddam and Osama, I made the point in passing earlier that actual situations of war are obviously exempted from a moral limitation on wanting someone else to die. No hypocrisy required, just a bit of ... discrimination. ;)
We get to know each other better ZFR. Some people will not like us, but one also makes friends like this ;)

Of course not. That was not a serious statement that there should be any age limits, but just to show how each of the three branches needs a different mentality.

EDIT: as a side point, POTUS is not strictly executive, but more a legislature-executive fusion. Again, just a minor issue.

Case in point. This is exactly the kind of mentality for making judgment on existing laws, but with absolutely no power to change/create ones. If they're stubborn and set in their ways, they can't be bribed or threatened.
And if full separation of power was implemented then they must judge according to what the legislature (who are not of this type of mentality) have made.
Problems arise because the judiciary (and in many cases the executive; but that's a separate problem) encroach on legislative territory.

<accidental double post, sorry>

Has the conservative hunter general replied to my post yet?

Still searching?

Because the original post is "low rated", the topic appears as read even when there are no new posts, making it annoying for those who are actually interested in following the topic.

This is one of the many flaws in the way this forum works.

I quoted him, and that should leave a big, annoying ''1'' near his account on the top bar.

Whoa! Someone understood!

Do I win a prize? ;)

Despite believing "tone" downvotes are frequently an intolerant overreaction and should in principle be avoided (I do not use them myself at all) I actually usually assume when I get downvoted it's rather because of tone.

That said, it is obvious enough for those that participate in political topics that downvotes and upvotes due to partisanship are happening - regardless of how politely and dispassionately opinions are expressed.

You know the Democrats have done the exact same thing right. Senator Obama did the same exact thing with Justice Alito and Joe Biden has made clear back in the day why they shouldn't fill a Supreme Court vacancy (1992?). Yeah, they should fill it - but don't try to claim any sort of moral superiority when you do the exact same thing ya know?