Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
How are the women in Boston ???
All flavors in Boston.
How are the women in Boston ???
All flavors in Boston.
Massachusetts - what's it like ?
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: aa1986
I focused on one topic which was if disagreeing with the constitution or a supreme courts ruling on the constitution is an attack on the constitution, then why do many conservatives keep on disagreeing with Roe vs Wade? Why are those people not characterized as attacking the constitution?
This is NOT the topic at hand and I will not discuss abortion here. But will suffice to say that disagreeing with a Supreme court decision is in no way an attack on the Constitution. That is a very odd interpretation, IMHO. Almost like you are trying to stir the pot.
No I'm not trying to stir the pot. I am trying to establish a principle for what constitutes an attack on the constitution. Because one of the complaints about attacking the constitution centers around the 2nd amendment and those who want to regulate firearms vs those who want less or even no regulations. Throughout history, the Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd amendment and there have always been restrictions on firearms. The most recent ruling, DC vs Heller, swung the constitution towards less restrictions.
Historically there have been restrictions and the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue multiple times. Yet, those who favor restrictions are characterized as attacking the constitution and being unAmerican.
This is wrong IMO.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: aa1986
If you characterize other people's viewpoints as attacks and unpatriotic, but your own viewpoints as the opposite, you create an environment of division and hostility and do not even understand the first amendment.
OK. That's a mouthful. Are you accusing me or conservatives or just the President of doing this?
Who is accused of doing this is implicit in my statement. Readily using phrases such as "attacking the constitution" and accusing others of being unpatriotic or anti US is a divisive way of responding to viewpoints whoever uses it. It has become an all too common way of arguing.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: aa1986
And being steadfastly literal about the constitution, as with religion, is the actual behavior that is new and extreme. Because if you examine history, interpretation has always been required, that is why there is a supreme court.
We have drifted so far from the literal meaning of our Constitution, it may seem unusual to some folks to point out such things as the reason for most all of the Constitution is to limit the power of GOVERNMENT, not PEOPLE. My earlier point is some people don't even understand this!
Firstly, I totally agree that the constitution is about protecting the individual.
The fact that we have drifted away from the literal meaning of the Constitution however does not necessarily mean there is a flaw with ALL the choices we have made through the democratic process. The flaw could be in the desire to literally interpret ALL of the constitution, a constitution written in an entirely different time that could never have envisaged modern day America and it's place in the world. Indeed, my personal belief is that the system of government they set up is inherently flawed and we're going to find it hard to resolve what is wrong in the country with the current set up.
If you look at Europe, since WW2, Germany & France pushed the idea of an EU, originally to avoid further conflicts. Countries who wanted to join needed to alter their constitutions. Since that time countries have given up power to the EU. Some countries are more pro EU, some are less, but there is a democratic process to enact the constitutional changes required. Scotland recently voted against independence and the UK has now promised to devolve certain powers to Scotland which is another constitutional change. If constitutional change wasn't possible, many countries in Europe would be worse off, unable to join the EU. Equally, countries who feel the EU now doesn't work for them, have the ability to change their constitution and leave.
To be wedded to a literal interpretation of ALL parts of any constitution is really a recipe to hinder the progress of a country.
Originally Posted By: aa1986
I focused on one topic which was if disagreeing with the constitution or a supreme courts ruling on the constitution is an attack on the constitution, then why do many conservatives keep on disagreeing with Roe vs Wade? Why are those people not characterized as attacking the constitution?
This is NOT the topic at hand and I will not discuss abortion here. But will suffice to say that disagreeing with a Supreme court decision is in no way an attack on the Constitution. That is a very odd interpretation, IMHO. Almost like you are trying to stir the pot.
No I'm not trying to stir the pot. I am trying to establish a principle for what constitutes an attack on the constitution. Because one of the complaints about attacking the constitution centers around the 2nd amendment and those who want to regulate firearms vs those who want less or even no regulations. Throughout history, the Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd amendment and there have always been restrictions on firearms. The most recent ruling, DC vs Heller, swung the constitution towards less restrictions.
Historically there have been restrictions and the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue multiple times. Yet, those who favor restrictions are characterized as attacking the constitution and being unAmerican.
This is wrong IMO.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: aa1986
If you characterize other people's viewpoints as attacks and unpatriotic, but your own viewpoints as the opposite, you create an environment of division and hostility and do not even understand the first amendment.
OK. That's a mouthful. Are you accusing me or conservatives or just the President of doing this?
Who is accused of doing this is implicit in my statement. Readily using phrases such as "attacking the constitution" and accusing others of being unpatriotic or anti US is a divisive way of responding to viewpoints whoever uses it. It has become an all too common way of arguing.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: aa1986
And being steadfastly literal about the constitution, as with religion, is the actual behavior that is new and extreme. Because if you examine history, interpretation has always been required, that is why there is a supreme court.
We have drifted so far from the literal meaning of our Constitution, it may seem unusual to some folks to point out such things as the reason for most all of the Constitution is to limit the power of GOVERNMENT, not PEOPLE. My earlier point is some people don't even understand this!
Firstly, I totally agree that the constitution is about protecting the individual.
The fact that we have drifted away from the literal meaning of the Constitution however does not necessarily mean there is a flaw with ALL the choices we have made through the democratic process. The flaw could be in the desire to literally interpret ALL of the constitution, a constitution written in an entirely different time that could never have envisaged modern day America and it's place in the world. Indeed, my personal belief is that the system of government they set up is inherently flawed and we're going to find it hard to resolve what is wrong in the country with the current set up.
If you look at Europe, since WW2, Germany & France pushed the idea of an EU, originally to avoid further conflicts. Countries who wanted to join needed to alter their constitutions. Since that time countries have given up power to the EU. Some countries are more pro EU, some are less, but there is a democratic process to enact the constitutional changes required. Scotland recently voted against independence and the UK has now promised to devolve certain powers to Scotland which is another constitutional change. If constitutional change wasn't possible, many countries in Europe would be worse off, unable to join the EU. Equally, countries who feel the EU now doesn't work for them, have the ability to change their constitution and leave.
To be wedded to a literal interpretation of ALL parts of any constitution is really a recipe to hinder the progress of a country.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Pablo
What poll tax legislation did he support?
Every version of photo ID that was deemed "acceptable" had to be paid for through a government agency.
Yes, I already had a driver's license. But I paid for that license. It is a poll-tax and entirely contrary to the 24th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Senator Ted Cruz supported legislation that clearly violated the 24th Amendment
That's different. He's a patriot, a true American. Not like the others who weren't even born here.
I literally laughed out loud.
A true close minded typical response and why this country is so divided. Because someone has to prove they are citizen, does not equal a poll tax. Wow. AND because people favor an orderly controlled system of immigration does not mean they are against people coming to the USA and becoming citizens. You guys are twisted all around your views of what you think conservatives are about. I think you watch too much TV.
I didn't say anything about immigration.
I just pay attention to when politicians from my state attack the Constitution. Cruz has gone after the 1st and 4th and stepped all over the 24th.
The best thing about him? The birthers shut up when he rose to prominence.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Pablo
What poll tax legislation did he support?
Every version of photo ID that was deemed "acceptable" had to be paid for through a government agency.
Yes, I already had a driver's license. But I paid for that license. It is a poll-tax and entirely contrary to the 24th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Senator Ted Cruz supported legislation that clearly violated the 24th Amendment
That's different. He's a patriot, a true American. Not like the others who weren't even born here.
I literally laughed out loud.
A true close minded typical response and why this country is so divided. Because someone has to prove they are citizen, does not equal a poll tax. Wow. AND because people favor an orderly controlled system of immigration does not mean they are against people coming to the USA and becoming citizens. You guys are twisted all around your views of what you think conservatives are about. I think you watch too much TV.
I didn't say anything about immigration.
I just pay attention to when politicians from my state attack the Constitution. Cruz has gone after the 1st and 4th and stepped all over the 24th.
The best thing about him? The birthers shut up when he rose to prominence.
Originally Posted By: supton
I like how a thread about "is visiting Mass for a vacation worthwhile" derails into "we all hate Mass"...
I'll be talking to some reps from that company early in the new year, and asking them what on Earth they were thinking basing themselves there, that's for sure !!!
I like how a thread about "is visiting Mass for a vacation worthwhile" derails into "we all hate Mass"...
I'll be talking to some reps from that company early in the new year, and asking them what on Earth they were thinking basing themselves there, that's for sure !!!
Well, Shannow, it's been quite a thread- I'm surprised it didn't get shut down- but at least you now know all about Massachusetts.
Boy has this thing veered off the path. A thread started to ask what a state was like has clearly morphed somehow into a political argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the OP asked. Where are the mod's? I thought politics were a no-no?
And people, STOP FEEDING THE TROLL !!!! You know who I mean( i.e. who the troll is ). This guy/gal has you all hooked big time.
And people, STOP FEEDING THE TROLL !!!! You know who I mean( i.e. who the troll is ). This guy/gal has you all hooked big time.
Last edited:
Suprised this thing didn't get shut down two weeks ago!
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Boy has this thing veered off the path. A thread started to ask what a state was like has clearly morphed somehow into a political argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the OP asked. Where are the mod's? I thought politics were a no-no?
A mod has participated in this thread.
I think it's fair to say the no-politics rule is dead.
Boy has this thing veered off the path. A thread started to ask what a state was like has clearly morphed somehow into a political argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the OP asked. Where are the mod's? I thought politics were a no-no?
A mod has participated in this thread.
I think it's fair to say the no-politics rule is dead.
Yeah, I agree with that NHHEMI. I think a lot of people know who the troll is. The guy who keeps coming back with new user names and he likes to disrupt things here. This entire website would work much better to everybody's benefit if people would treat each other with decency and follow the rules, and discuss what is being discussed and stay on target with posts.
People really should just ignore the troll. He will likely always be here with one user name or another unless the people who run the website find a way to keep him away.
The troll has already violated the rules by bringing up religion and discussing political stuff. I think it is important for people to know that the troll is nobody's friend. He might pretend to be your friend for a while, but he is not. Just saying so you will not be surprised when he tries to stab you in the back.
People really should just ignore the troll. He will likely always be here with one user name or another unless the people who run the website find a way to keep him away.
The troll has already violated the rules by bringing up religion and discussing political stuff. I think it is important for people to know that the troll is nobody's friend. He might pretend to be your friend for a while, but he is not. Just saying so you will not be surprised when he tries to stab you in the back.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
And people, STOP FEEDING THE TROLL !!!! You know who I mean( i.e. who the troll is ). This guy/gal has you all hooked big time.
Glad that more folks are at least aware. I kind of enjoy the guy's histrionics, he's entertaining!
And people, STOP FEEDING THE TROLL !!!! You know who I mean( i.e. who the troll is ). This guy/gal has you all hooked big time.
Glad that more folks are at least aware. I kind of enjoy the guy's histrionics, he's entertaining!
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Boy has this thing veered off the path. A thread started to ask what a state was like has clearly morphed somehow into a political argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the OP asked. Where are the mod's? I thought politics were a no-no?
A mod has participated in this thread.
I think it's fair to say the no-politics rule is dead.
Oh, it will eventually get locked and/or deleted if this keeps up. And mods are free to participate. ..
This has become more of a "party" thread. We have been political for PAGES.. Very little about MA. I think it is safe to say that we all just pretty much rolling with it.. the political started off being peppered in. Now, in this thread, it has become blatant. That will absolutely be offensive to some.
No comment on poster taking us to Graceland of Politics at maximum RPM (I.e. as fast and hard as possible.)
Well, if you ride like lightning, you are gonna crash like thunder..
I still think Boston is a wonderful city. And Massachusetts has one of the highest costs of living in the USA. Boston is so good a city I would ask if the cost is a detractor.. maybe it is not! Boston and its T rocks. I may have gripes with some Bostonians, but, hey, its not serious.. just an ego thing. There are plenty nice Bostonians. Though Mass has its own mentality. This coming from a Yankee.. we think differently than a New Englander. Live both places and you will see.
I also know of a pic that may be pertinent:
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Boy has this thing veered off the path. A thread started to ask what a state was like has clearly morphed somehow into a political argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the OP asked. Where are the mod's? I thought politics were a no-no?
A mod has participated in this thread.
I think it's fair to say the no-politics rule is dead.
Oh, it will eventually get locked and/or deleted if this keeps up. And mods are free to participate. ..
This has become more of a "party" thread. We have been political for PAGES.. Very little about MA. I think it is safe to say that we all just pretty much rolling with it.. the political started off being peppered in. Now, in this thread, it has become blatant. That will absolutely be offensive to some.
No comment on poster taking us to Graceland of Politics at maximum RPM (I.e. as fast and hard as possible.)
Well, if you ride like lightning, you are gonna crash like thunder..
I still think Boston is a wonderful city. And Massachusetts has one of the highest costs of living in the USA. Boston is so good a city I would ask if the cost is a detractor.. maybe it is not! Boston and its T rocks. I may have gripes with some Bostonians, but, hey, its not serious.. just an ego thing. There are plenty nice Bostonians. Though Mass has its own mentality. This coming from a Yankee.. we think differently than a New Englander. Live both places and you will see.
I also know of a pic that may be pertinent:
This pic brings up memories.
Doing my best to find the non-expletive clearly visible version. But this pic IS pertinent to this thread, and question asked.
Last edited:
Ahhhh, if you said it was just like Canberra, my Nation's capital, it would have saved 10 pages.
(except Canberra get subsidised by the rest of the nation, not just taxing themselves)
(edit...having seen the original pics, and LOLLING majorly)
(except Canberra get subsidised by the rest of the nation, not just taxing themselves)
(edit...having seen the original pics, and LOLLING majorly)
I lived around here (below) before.
Still trying to find an acceptable version of the roads pic.
*edit: Shannow, glad you could see.
Trying to not put up the one with a BITOG problem creater in big bold letters at the bottom..
Still trying to find an acceptable version of the roads pic.
*edit: Shannow, glad you could see.
Last edited:
OK, I found a censored one. Thank God!
And I like this pic because it seems consistent with the attitude of most Bostonians I have seen.
And I like this pic because it seems consistent with the attitude of most Bostonians I have seen.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
And people, STOP FEEDING THE TROLL !!!! You know who I mean( i.e. who the troll is ). This guy/gal has you all hooked big time.
Glad that more folks are at least aware. I kind of enjoy the guy's histrionics, he's entertaining!
+1
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
And people, STOP FEEDING THE TROLL !!!! You know who I mean( i.e. who the troll is ). This guy/gal has you all hooked big time.
Glad that more folks are at least aware. I kind of enjoy the guy's histrionics, he's entertaining!
+1
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne
This pic brings up memories.
Doing my best to find the non-expletive clearly visible version. But this pic IS pertinent to this thread, and question asked.
There is a reason the standard response to asking directions in New England starts with, "You can't get there from here!"
This pic brings up memories.
Doing my best to find the non-expletive clearly visible version. But this pic IS pertinent to this thread, and question asked.
There is a reason the standard response to asking directions in New England starts with, "You can't get there from here!"
- Status
