d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Political Picture Thread
Prev12272282292302315001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Views: 919978Replies: 50000Track Topic
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
#2281
Jul 6 2015 01:02pm
Quote (Santara @ 6 Jul 2015 12:53)
I'm sorry if this is news to you, but prior to the 13th amendment, slavery was constitutional.


Why the snarkiness? Obviously I know this, and that isn't even what we are discussing.

We are discussing the dignity aspect of what Clarence said, not the 13th Amendment.
Member
Posts: 10,566
Joined: May 31 2013
Gold: 0.76
#2282
Jul 6 2015 04:16pm


More Bernie tomorrow He's got a great interview in The Nation
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
#2283
Jul 6 2015 08:48pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Jul 6 2015 09:18am)
Well, maybe it makes more sense in a divine context. Context is always important.

I just think it's absurd to say that slavery didn't cause slaves to lose even an ounce of self-worth or dignity, because it did. And the government (for a time) endorsed slavery.


I think it really depends on how you're defining "dignity." Thomas clearly used his own definition which may have conflicted with what the plaintiff meant. I highly doubt that they defined "dignity" in oral arguments or in the briefs but I haven't looked.

When arguing before the Court, I think one can make a reasonable argument one way or the other without having to go into natural rights.
Member
Posts: 14,099
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Gold: 83.30
#2284
Jul 7 2015 01:03am

Member
Posts: 28,450
Joined: Apr 2 2007
Gold: 678.00
#2285
Jul 7 2015 02:47am
"Peter Singer arrested for murder after spending $15 on luxuries instead of giving aid."

:D

This post was edited by hATemOnkEy on Jul 7 2015 02:48am
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#2286
Jul 7 2015 07:51am
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
#2287
Jul 7 2015 07:55am
Member
Posts: 10,566
Joined: May 31 2013
Gold: 0.76
#2288
Jul 7 2015 07:58am



Quote
The Nation: As a candidate for president, would you refuse money from fossil-fuel companies?


Sanders: (laughing and speaking sarcastically) Well, let me see—it’s true the Koch brothers did send us a large check, and we’ve been debating whether to accept it or not. Of course, for us, it’s rather an unrealistic issue: a) I don’t take corporate PAC money, and b) if, by some accident, some company sent us money, we would send it back—absolutely.
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
#2289
Jul 7 2015 08:02am
Quote (Valhalls_Sun @ Jul 7 2015 08:58am)
http://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/bernie_sanders_bw_otu_img.jpg


...and why would the Kochs send Bernie money? Probably because he represents level playing field ideals the Kochs have supported for years. But that's fine Bernie, send the money back. It can be sent to someone else who probably isn't militantly anti-fossil fuels.
Member
Posts: 10,566
Joined: May 31 2013
Gold: 0.76
#2290
Jul 7 2015 08:16am
Quote (Santara @ 7 Jul 2015 09:02)
...and why would the Kochs send Bernie money? Probably because he represents level playing field ideals the Kochs have supported for years. But that's fine Bernie, send the money back. It can be sent to someone else who probably isn't militantly anti-fossil fuels.



you mean militantly anti -corporate PAC, and companies buying candidates evening the playing field = them just owning whomever wins the candidacy is that really the best outcome Santara?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12272282292302315001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact