Andrew Herrington-Gilmore It was an impossible question to answer correctly. If you understood law, you'd get that. You want law to be simple. It's not and it never will be. It's human beings trying to make rules to govern human beings. I understand that you think "if the lawyers would just interpret the law as it is, we would be fine." What you fail to see is that there are many legitimate arguments for the meaning of laws. You just assume there is one interpretation because it's how you believe it should be interpreted. Read one opinion by any judge and you'll see how misguided your are. And yea, I said I gave up, but I'm annoying and can't help myself.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore "intentionally incomprehensible legislation that impacts the rest of society." Legislators make statutory law. Judges make common law. Layers don't write law. Some lawyers (lobbyists) help to write law. Some lawyers are legislators. Evidence helps conclusions.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore It's not a surrender. You make arguments with zero support to further your already hardened position. Arguing with you is pointless. I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I believe your claims are nonsensical. You disagree with me. That's not going to change.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore Here's a law John, passed in 1789, when practicing law was a scholarly, distinguished pursuit, and all law was clearly written for all to understand. The Alien Tort Statute of 1789: "The District courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." Judges and lawyer have debated for decades how to interpret this statutes original intent, and how it applies today. Are all these lawyers manipulating the law as it's clearly stated?
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore "they create work, by looking for problematic situations and convincing people to sue." - Conclusion with no support. "A carpenter is infinitely more valuable than a lawyer. Why? They actually build something." - Practicing law is a service. That's like saying a carpenter is more valuable than a hostess. Maybe, maybe not. But it's apples and oranges. "they spend most of their time blocking creation. Slowing down the economy." - Conclusion with no support. "Further, it's the legal system they created that helps get innocent people incarcerated and charged in the first place." - Conclusion with no support. It's tough to debate when you provide zero support for your arguments.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore So you believe if we just read law as it is that there would be no disputes? The law is so clear as written that if lawyers would just quit bending the obvious meaning of the law, we'd all be better off? I'll give you $1 million if you can explain, in clear terms, exactly what the Commerce Clause means, as it was intended, and as it should be applied today. If you can do that without anyone disagreeing with you in good faith, then you are smarter than anyone who has ever read the CC. The point is there will always be disputes no matter how clearly the law is written. Even if we know the intent of the drafters there will be disputes -- factual, legal, procedural. That's where lawyers fit in.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore Someone has absolutely no clue what law school is all about. "But after taking some law classes, I realized I just didn't like lawyers." - There were lawyers in your law classes? Or independent of your law classes you decided you didn't like lawyers, and therefore the law classes you were taking seemed pointless? "Even if they aren't the problem, they are a symptom of the problem." - Define the problem please.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore While a great critique of Ryan's speech, I don't think you should characterize Ryan's assertions as "lies." You offered the alternate perspective that Obama and the Dems will surely argue. For example, characterizing Ryan's comments on medicare a lie implies he actually wants to kill medicare, but is claiming to be saving it. Ryan genuinely believes he's saving medicare, and that if the policy stays as it is, it will cease to exist. Now, the Simpson Bowles critique by Ryan I cannot defend. He voted against it. Last night he blamed Obama for ignoring it. They both dropped the ball. I think the majority of blame goes to Obama for ignoring it, but it's tough for Ryan to make the case against Obama. when Ryan voted against it.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. The point at which I have been arguing the entire time is here: "If I don't know something, I learn about it. If I disagree, having learned everything about it, I am prejudiced to it." But take that further- What if you're wrong? Learning does not = truth. I commend your desire to learn. I'm with you. However, regarding political theory, over time I have come to believe there is not always one right answer to every philosophical question. I think it's important to constantly strive to learn, to have opinions backed with evidence/reason, and to debate them with conviction. But it's equally important to remember you could be wrong, or that others with different views could also be right.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore You called a woman a house negro and implied those who hold conservative beliefs are racist. I called you naive because I believe you are. Then I stated why. Then I showed a peer reviewed study to back up my claims-- not as gospel but as back up for my argument. Perhaps it was an "assholism" to do that, but I guess I think it's an "assholism" to assume all those who disagree with you are lazy, stupid republicans-- and that all black people who are conservatives are house negroes. We'll have to agree to disagree. And, lastly, I jumped on your comment solely because I think you are wrong and your insinuations are counter productive to what you ultimately want- less racism, more equality.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore to hold conservative viewpoints because you legitimately believe it's best for everyone-- not rooted in racism. I don't think that's a radical viewpoint, and I honestly don't understand why it makes you so angry. You're clearly a smart and passionate guy. You don't like racism or inequality. I'm with you. I just don't think assuming all people who disagree with you are wrong or misguided is going to solve the problem.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore That's fair enough. I'm not trying to endorse the Republican platform. The Republican stance on homosexuality makes me sick. I'm simply trying to point out that it is possible for conservatives to believe the way they do based on sound, logical policy beliefs. Just a personal anecdote. I wrote my senior thesis on whether ethnocentrism is causally related to social policy beliefs. At the guidance of my professor, and controlling for every imaginable variable, there was no statistically significant correlation between conservatism and policy beliefs regarding affirmative action and immigration. It's not that I haven't read or thought deeply about the issue, and frankly I don't know where I stand, but I do believe it's possible... cntd.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore Good point Emen. I don't have the balls to challenge conservatism. The reason I believe it is possible for people to have conservative beliefs that aren't racist is because I'm not well read, and I refuse to challenge myself intellectually. You label black conservatives house negroes. You understand something Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are ignorant of. They don't have legitimate policy beliefs. They are appeasing white people. If people can't see that, they can't see the truth. Truth defined by Emen, who had the balls to challenge bullshit conservatism. You call for an open dialogue on race, yet you can't even fathom that you could be wrong, or that others may make good points counter to yours. No point in debating.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore I was providing one example of a peer reviewed study to highlight the point that is is possible for you to be wrong Emen, as hard as that may be for you to believe. "Sorry you don't like that, but that's how it is." Good argument. I'll counter: I'm right. You're wrong. Why? Because I'm right.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore Of course it's just not the truth because I may or may not disagree with you. Similarly, it's not the truth just because you make a claim, then call it truth with no justification for your claim.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore I want to dwell on your promise to me for a second, that "this woman ADOPTED conservative ideas to save her ass, as much as possible, from being mistreated by fellow white conservatives." Aside from being illogical, what an incredibly arrogant viewpoint. If a black person has conservative ideals/policy beliefs, they must be appeasing white people. They don't know any better. Liberals get it. They're altruistic. Conservatives are racist. Not everyone can see that, and it's not necessarily their fault, but its liberals' job to show them the truth. That's not your brain believing logically that perhaps conservatives offer solutions that may be better than liberals, that's you subconsciously appeasing white people. Yikes.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore Once again, your belief. You guarantee she adopted conservative beliefs to save her ass from being mistreated by her fellow conservatives. Is that not circular logic? You aren't even willing to entertain the possibility she is a legitimate conservative and that conservative policy beliefs are not rooted in racism... And you call yourself a big thinker? You're right, I can't relate to the experiences of a conservative black woman. That, however, does not at all support your argument.
Andrew Herrington-Gilmore Someone needs a lesson in reading comprehension. You are confusing racists that are conservative with racism and conservatism being causally related. As I stated there are more conservative racists than conservative liberals.That does not mean that a) conservative beliefs = racism or are rooted in racism and b) that liberals policy choices can't also be rooted in racism. Again, the world is not as simple as racist conservatives vs. altruistic liberals. There are racists in both parties. That fact alone does not negate the underlying policy beliefs of either of the parties. Do you really think Condoleeza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell are "house negroes" or is it possible that they have legitimate viewpoints?