Another Stupendous Obama Pick: We Should Ban Hunting

[concept]

Could Obama be any worse? Can he make any worse picks?

His latest "selection", Cass Sunstein, is a radical nutcase. And he fits right in at Camp Doofus. He seems to share Obama's disdain for the constitution.

The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Cass Sunstein: An Intellect Who Towers Over the Founders

Here are a few whoppers:

"We ought to ban hunting”
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University

“[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. “
- Cass Sunstein, writing in his book, “Radicals in Robes”

“Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”
- 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions

“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University

“[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”
- Cass Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” August 2002.

If I get sued by a chicken, there's going to be trouble. That's all I am saying.

 

[Modbert]

Quite the radical:

Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. He is generally thought to be liberal despite publicly supporting some of George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.

On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot bring suit for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.

That's what you harp on ^

However, nowhere in the introduction does Sunstein propose doing so: the discussion on page 11 is merely an exploration of the philosophical dimensions and formal sources of animal rights involved in the debates which the rest of the book is to consider.

This is the truth ^.

However, as usual, I'm not surprised you're taking comments taken out of context and trying to spin them as the truth.

Edit: Also, are you that fucking stupid?

“[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”
- Cass Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” August 2002

What's wrong with this? The man doesn't want to see animals abused or overworked to the point of death in experiments and by the entertainment industry. You actually have a problem with that?

 

[Otter_Creek]

Anybody obama picks will be removed after the impeachment.

 

[Modbert]

Anybody obama picks will be removed after the impeachment.

You should do this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cHsPCAZlP4&feature=related]YouTube - Pinocchio- When you wish upon a star[/ame]

Then maybe, just maybe if you wish hard enough, it will come true.

 

[elvis]

Anybody obama picks will be removed after the impeachment.

You should do this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cHsPCAZlP4&feature=related]YouTube - Pinocchio- When you wish upon a star[/ame]

Then maybe, just maybe if you wish hard enough, it will come true.

well, it worked for your side.

 

[ba1614]

Sounds like this Cass fella is tailor made for the Obama admin.

 

[Modbert]

well, it worked for your side.

My "side"? What do you mean my side? Do you mean Democrats? Cause if so, I rather not repeat myself on that topic. If you mean Liberals, we wanted a true Liberal candidate who made actions like he is one. However, since Obama has taken office, he has proven himself to be quite the opposite.

 

[Modbert]

I personally think it's sad how people don't even want full context or full information about the Czars. Just rather have taken out of context quotes, lies, and half truths so try can and pressure them to quit as to not be a distraction.

If only Republicans would take the time to examine their own party candidates and congress members as much as they do with the Czars.

 

[concept]

Sounds like this Cass fella is tailor made for the Obama admin.

Exactly. Don't try to tell that to hacks like Santauri though. His head will explode.

It's all denial, all the time where Obama's retarded picks are concerned.

 

[Modbert]

Exactly. Don't try to tell that to hacks like Santauri though. His head will explode.

It's all denial, all the time where Obama's retarded picks are concerned.

Not only did you spell my name wrong but you call ME a hack? What are you smoking?

I just called out Obama in this thread and you call me a hack? Willow agreed with me last night because I said the Democrats should not censure Joe Wilson. Do you even bother to read posts or do you just enjoy talking out of your own ass? My goodness.

 

[elvis]

I personally think it's sad how people don't even want full context or full information about the Czars. Just rather have taken out of context quotes, lies, and half truths so try can and pressure them to quit as to not be a distraction.

If only Republicans would take the time to examine their own party candidates and congress members as much as they do with the Czars.

Uh, Obama is extreme.

 

[elvis]

well, it worked for your side.

My "side"? What do you mean my side? Do you mean Democrats? Cause if so, I rather not repeat myself on that topic. If you mean Liberals, we wanted a true Liberal candidate who made actions like he is one. However, since Obama has taken office, he has proven himself to be quite the opposite.

Well i am sure Nader will run next time and he would appreciate your support.

 

[concept]

I personally think it's sad how people don't even want full context or full information about the Czars. Just rather have taken out of context quotes, lies, and half truths so try can and pressure them to quit as to not be a distraction.

If only Republicans would take the time to examine their own party candidates and congress members as much as they do with the Czars.

Yeah we never examine our own....

You aren't too bright are you?

Why do you think Bush's numbers were so low? Or why repubs lost so badly in the last two elections? Or do you conveniently ignore that little factoid? I think I can safely guess that you're a hack and that inconvenient facts like that are simply ignored.

Rarely is the case that liberals denounce their own. If ever.



I wonder if Obama's latest radical has tax problems? Or anything else in the closet like that screwball Van Jones. At least we got him tossed. Maybe we can get this latest idiot tossed also.

 

[concept]

Quite the radical:

Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. He is generally thought to be liberal despite publicly supporting some of George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.

On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about whether animals should be thought of as owned by humans, Sunstein notes that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit. For example, under current law, if someone saw their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot bring suit for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.

That's what you harp on ^

However, nowhere in the introduction does Sunstein propose doing so: the discussion on page 11 is merely an exploration of the philosophical dimensions and formal sources of animal rights involved in the debates which the rest of the book is to consider.

This is the truth ^.

However, as usual, I'm not surprised you're taking comments taken out of context and trying to spin them as the truth.

Edit: Also, are you that fucking stupid?

“[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”
- Cass Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” August 2002

What's wrong with this? The man doesn't want to see animals abused or overworked to the point of death in experiments and by the entertainment industry. You actually have a problem with that?

Yeah animals should be able to bring suit against humans.


LOL what an idiot. You're apologising for this clown?

 

[concept]

Exactly. Don't try to tell that to hacks like Santauri though. His head will explode.

It's all denial, all the time where Obama's retarded picks are concerned.

Not only did you spell my name wrong but you call ME a hack? What are you smoking?

I just called out Obama in this thread and you call me a hack? Willow agreed with me last night because I said the Democrats should not censure Joe Wilson. Do you even bother to read posts or do you just enjoy talking out of your own ass? My goodness.

Yeah, you're a hack. Anything else?

I'm out for the evening, talk to you later.

 

[Modbert]

Well i am sure Nader will run next time and he would appreciate your support.

Actually, I'm looking forward to seeing the Libertarian candidate's position and views. I'm also hoping that Jesse Ventura will decide to run. However, if I disagree with the Libertarian candidate, then I will probably vote for Nader.

Who are you going to vote for Elvis?

 

[Modbert]

Yeah animals should be able to bring suit against humans.


LOL what an idiot. You're apologising for this clown?

Yup, it's official, you don't even bother to read the posts. Note that he NEVER SUPPORTED THIS. He was throwing the idea out there as it was part of a philosophical discussion. My god, you can't be that fucking stupid can you?

 

[Modbert]

Yeah, you're a hack. Anything else?

I'm out for the evening, talk to you later.

Well, I guess that answers my question. Later hack.

 

[Terry]

Can someone post a link to the votes on confirmation for Sunstein? I want to see what R's voted yes! They will get a big boot come 2010

 

[elvis]

Well i am sure Nader will run next time and he would appreciate your support.

Actually, I'm looking forward to seeing the Libertarian candidate's position and views. I'm also hoping that Jesse Ventura will decide to run. However, if I disagree with the Libertarian candidate, then I will probably vote for Nader.

Who are you going to vote for Elvis?

What has Obama not been liberal enough about?