Disturbed Republican looking for candidate [Archive]

miloblithe

Apr 5, 2004, 11:06 AM

Vote for someone other than the main two candidates. I'm not sure who's running this time around though. The reality is, especially for Presidential candiates, we have a two party system, but voting for a third party is a good way of showing the major two parties what they are doing wrong. If you are a Republican, for the most part or through and through and believe that Bush has betrayed your interests as a Republican in some way, vote for the party that represents that betrayal the best. If that party takes a significant number of votes away from the Republicans, you'd better believe they'd take notice.

Also, perhaps Kerry is more of a possibility than you realize. Like most presidential candidates, he is somewhat middle of the road (or at least represents himself that way).

Or vote on the issues. That makes sense too.

trebblekicked

Apr 5, 2004, 11:18 AM

the next closest thing to a republican on the ballot would most likely be Gary Nolan (http://www.garynolan.com/index.shtml), followed by John Kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com/) and Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org/) in that order.

from where i stand, there isn't too much difference between Kerry and a moderate Republican of the Specter/McCain variety. But Nader is making a big push to get Republicans to consider his policies. i highly recommend checking his site out.

<EDIT>
one more thing: Candidate Map (http://www.candidatemap.com/cm/#)

zimv20

Apr 5, 2004, 11:52 AM

b2tm - you do have the option of abstaining from the presidential/VP vote. cast votes for your local elections should you find candidates you like for those.

my alderman ran unopposed last march, but i don't like him. so he didn't get my vote. i hope that a low total sends him a message.

mactastic

Apr 5, 2004, 12:58 PM

Don't lose hope yet BTTM, American Candidate (http://www.americancandidate.com/home.php) hasn't even gotten going yet! :p

And you've only got until this Friday to get your application in.....

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 01:06 PM

Vote 3rd party.

I always vote the issues, even though I'm a registered Republican. Prior to that, I was a registered Democrat, but even then I voted the issues.

Voting for 3rd parties is even easier when the state is not a battleground state. You can definitely vote the issues.

My issue is 2nd Amendment rights, or as Col Jeff Cooper would like to call it, the Statute of Liberty (http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/jeff/jeff7_7.html). :D

One article that I have read, I think it was by a columnist that writes for the Sierra Times, is that 2nd Amendment rights and the way a politician treats is is very indicative of how much trust you can place on the politician. I tend to agree. I would vote for John Dingell, even though he's a democrat. I would vote against John McCain, even though he's a republican.

mactastic

Apr 5, 2004, 01:13 PM

One article that I have read, I think it was by a columnist that writes for the Sierra Times, is that 2nd Amendment rights and the way a politician treats is is very indicative of how much trust you can place on the politician.

So now that Dubya's set to vote the same way as your beloved Sen. Feinstein (let's see if you can reply to this WITHOUT resorting to name-calling) on the Assult Weapons Ban, I'm assuming you can no longer vocalize any support for our president? :p

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 02:17 PM

So now that Dubya's set to vote the same way as your beloved Sen. Feinstein (let's see if you can reply to this WITHOUT resorting to name-calling) on the Assult Weapons Ban, I'm assuming you can no longer vocalize any support for our president? :p

There is no gun control bills waiting for GWBush to sign into law.

The Assault Weapons Ban is set to sunset in 2004, and I am awaiting like Buffy the Vampire Slayer to put a stake through its heart. :eek:

GWBush has said that he would reauthorize the AWBan if it ever makes it to his desk much to the chagrin of me and other gun owners. But, it takes two houses of Congress to do that first. :p

I knew GWBush's stance on this issue back in campaign 2000. That's why it wasn't as difficult to vote for another candidate. Too bad Alan Keyes didn't win the GOP primary. :sad:

One thing I like that GWBush is doing though, is nominating conservative judges like tasty Janice Rogers Brown (CA supreme court judge, if she ever leaves her husband, I got dibs. ;) ). These judges tend to interpret the 2nd Amendment correctly as an individual right.

The strange thing is why liberals, who are supposed to be proponents of individual rights have selective blinders on about the 2nd Amendment. Weird.

3rdpath

Apr 5, 2004, 02:28 PM

cheers to you...

being a nonpartisan, i've been in your position before...as in 2000.

i wasn't a big fan of gore but i knew enough about bush to be afraid of his positions...or lack of. i would've voted mccain in a heartbeat. anyone with a spine is ok by me( but they're a rarity in politics). and nader just wasn't a viable choice-big changes in government come from the bottom up-not the top down. nader has good intentions but his desires don't work within the realities of our current system...i'm a dreamer too but i know reality when i step in it.

if it makes you feel any better...i have quite a few friends and family in texas
( who supported bush) who are now voting kerry. they feel misled. heck, i didn't vote for bush and i still feel misled.

after this last election, many people said our country could survive four years of a bad president...that's a nice theory, but the fact is many people haven't survived this administration's follies. many more people will die before we get out of iraq. facter in our huge deficit, social security ills, assaults on the environment, job losses... and i just don't see a positive side to the last 4 years.

do what ya gotta do...whichever way you go...at least you're being openminded.

Taft

Apr 5, 2004, 03:35 PM

One thing I like that GWBush is doing though, is nominating conservative judges like tasty Janice Rogers Brown (CA supreme court judge, if she ever leaves her husband, I got dibs. ;) ). These judges tend to interpret the 2nd Amendment correctly as an individual right.

Not that gun control isn't an important issue, but to focus on it while ignoring other issues might be folly. As an example, I submit Brown's record on decisions outside 2nd ammendment issues:

From http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/brown.html:
# Ignoring gross attorney errors and the defendant's brutal childhood to uphold a death sentence, Brown's opinion was noted by the dissent as "clinically cold." In re Andrews, 28 Cal. 4th 1234 (2002).

# Brown finds for special interests in majority of free speech cases. [Kasky v. Nike Incorporated, 27 Cal. 4th 939 (2002), Aguilar v. Avis Rent a Car System, 21 Cal. 4th 121 (1999), Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Association, 26 Cal. 4th 1013 (2001), People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th (1997)]

# Participates in many invitation-only private "seminars" thrown by ultra-right wing organizations such as the Liberty Fund and John M. Olin Foundation. Attending such events, at the very least, contributes to an appearance of impropriety and, at worst, may influence judges and affect the outcomes of cases.

# Brown was the first California Supreme Court Justice to receive an unqualified rating from the state bar and still be nominated by a governor, in this case Gov. Pete Wilson. Three-fourths of state bar evaluators felt Brown was ill-equipped to hold the position. Complaints filed by her peers called her "insensitive to established legal precedent…and lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views."

(Edit: More information regarding her more controversial opinions can be found here: http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=16978)

Ouch! Not exactly what I'd be looking for in judicial nominee no matter what her views on guns are. Anyone squarely in the pockets of either major party and special interest lobbiests isn't someone I can trust to uphold and fairly interpret the laws of our land.

Surely you can find a more scrupulous judge who supports gun ownership.

Taft

Backtothemac

Apr 5, 2004, 04:05 PM

Well, Riley I do vote on the issues, and there are a couple that would keep me from voting for Kerry. If Edwards had gotten the nomination, I would have voted for him in a split second. Personally, I think McCain would be better than Bush, I would love to support him. I just think it is a lesser of two evils, and Bush wins with me on a couple of points.

Point being that even I, a long time republican, am fed up. If McCain was Kerry's VP, then yep, I would probably go with Kerry at that point.

That would actually be an interesting ticket.

I will probably abstain from the Presidential vote this year to be honest. I am just discouraged that I don't want to be responsible for the **** up that makes it worse.

zimv20

Apr 5, 2004, 04:14 PM

The strange thing is why liberals, who are supposed to be proponents of individual rights have selective blinders on about the 2nd Amendment. Weird.
i've been thinking about the 2nd amendment lately.

in a very literal sense, it's about guns. in a broader sense, it's about protecting the public from oppression by the federal government.

i submit that, in the broader sense, the success of the bush administration in silencing critics in its march to war (remember when speaking out against anything bush got one labeled unpatriotic or a terrorist?) is indictative of how the purpose of the 2nd amendment has been lost.

so while i support the idea of the broader protection, i'm undecided on gun ownership. when i go skeet shooting in alabama, the gun protections mean a different thing than when i see a drive-by in chicago (which i've seen).

yes, it is possible for gun ownership to be done responsibly. but it's often not. what's the solution? who's right?

p.s. i call ************ on anyone who supports gun ownership and the federal ban on ephedra

pseudobrit

Apr 5, 2004, 05:17 PM

yes, it is possible for gun ownership to be done responsibly. but it's often not. what's the solution? who's right?

I think the 2nd amendment is very important to our society.

But I think that, much like the other protections afforded us in the Bill of Rights, there are no absolute freedoms and therefore are limits to how far we can take these guaranteed freedoms.

To use two clichéd examples, you have free speech but not to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre. And you are free to own a rifle but not a nuclear weapon. There are grey areas, and that is where we disagree.

Now of course there are some who want all guns banned and some who would argue it's okay to own a SAM battery, but discounting such "all or none" extremists, we're simply different shades of the same colour.

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 05:23 PM

Not that gun control isn't an important issue, but to focus on it while ignoring other issues might be folly. As an example, I submit Brown's record on decisions outside 2nd ammendment issues:

...snip...

Surely you can find a more scrupulous judge who supports gun ownership.

Taft

Andrews, 28 Cal. 4th 1234 (2002) (http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw) --- being 'clinically cold' not withstanding, here Andrews raped and killed one, robbed and killed another, and finally killed one more. This specific case was about the penalty phase of the trial; the question of Andrews' guilt is established, he killed 3 people. This is in 1979. The case goes on about the penalty phase and has a reference to another murder in 1968 when Andrews' was 16! Wow. Four people, and he's not over 30 yet! Andrews' is an oxygen-thief. He should have been put to death after the 1st murder. Then 3 other people would still be alive today. Is this what you are trying to defend?

I started looking at the other opinions, and I do not see anything yet that I do not agree with. I'm at the Kasky vs Nike case, and her analysis is top-notch and scholarly too.

IJ Reilly

Apr 5, 2004, 05:26 PM

Is this what you are trying to defend?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 05:33 PM

i've been thinking about the 2nd amendment lately.

yes, it is possible for gun ownership to be done responsibly. but it's often not. what's the solution? who's right?

p.s. i call ************ on anyone who supports gun ownership and the federal ban on ephedra

Its often not? Or is it that there is an appearance that it is not?

Remember, there are over 200 million guns in private hands in the United States of America. How many of these 200 milion guns are used irresponsibly over the course of a year? I contend that the irresponsible and illegal use of guns comprises less than 1%.

Often, you consider often to be 1%?

Freedom denotes responsibility. Seems that passing laws that affect the 99% who are responsible in order to fix the 1% that are irresponsible and wouldn't follow the law anyhow is the wrong approach.

Repeating this wrong approach and expecting a different outcome is the mark of insanity.

If you don't want your Mac to lose data, and you lose data every time you unplug the Mac without saving your data first, why would you keep unplugging the Mac and wonder why you are losing data?

pseudobrit

Apr 5, 2004, 05:41 PM

Its often not? Or is it that there is an appearance that it is not?

Guns are made for killing, to dispatch a biological entity quickly and efficiently.

If 99% of the people are responsible with them, the 1% who aren't will have much more drastic effects than if 1% of the driving public are irresponsible drivers. Irresponsible gun use is misuse of an effective item designed to kill.

In these instances 1% amounts to "often enough." If 1% of the world's nuclear weapons were used each year on civilian targets, would you defend the rights of the 99% that weren't?

mactastic

Apr 5, 2004, 05:44 PM

Often, you consider often to be 1%?

That 1% is all it takes to ruin something for everyone. Should we repeal anti-drunk-driving laws because 99% of people drink responsibly? I suppose you'd be OK with the judicial process happening in secret since 99% of judges are good, honest people? No need for internal affairs investigators in police departments, 99% of cops are good guys, right?

zimv20

Apr 5, 2004, 06:00 PM

Its often not? Or is it that there is an appearance that it is not?
my use of "often" aside, there are indeed negative effects of gun ownership. a few stats from here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=domviolence)

GUNS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Guns and domestic violence make a deadly combination. Over half of family murders are caused by firearms.[1] Firearms assaults have been found to be 12 times as likely to result in death as non-firearms assaults.[2]

Women as Victims in Firearms Homicides

In 2000, firearms were responsible for the deaths of 1120 white women, 615 African-American women, 220 Hispanic women and 104 others.[3]

Most women are killed by their intimate partners and over two-thirds are killed by guns.[4]

In 2000, 735 women were killed by intimates using guns compared to 226 men.[5]

From 1990 to 2000, over 67 percent of spouse and ex-spouse victims were killed by guns, while 57 percent of girlfriends and 47 percent of boyfriends were killed by guns.[6]

African-American and Hispanic females, especially young women, remain at high risk.

In 2000, among young women age 15 to 24, 191 African-Americans and 112 Hispanics were killed by firearms.[7]

The African-American rate was 5 times and the Hispanic rate 2 times the rate of white young women.[8]

Guns in the Home are Risk Factors for Domestic Violence

In 1997, the presence of a gun in the home made it 3.4 times more likely a woman would become a homicide victim and 7.2 times as likely she would be a victim of homicide by a spouse, intimate or close relative.[9]

Children are also seriously affected by gun violence in the home. Children who witness the use or threat of a firearm exhibit greater behavioral problems than those who do not.[10]

i don't post this to come off as some kind of anti-gun zealot. as i said, i'm unsure what to do, but i do recognize that the easy availability of guns leads to kinds of violence and deaths that otherwise wouldn't occur or be as severe. i do not have the answer.

mactastic

Apr 5, 2004, 06:04 PM

i don't post this to come off as some kind of anti-gun zealot. as i said, i'm unsure what to do, but i do recognize that the easy availability of guns leads to kinds of violence and deaths that otherwise wouldn't occur or be as severe. i do not have the answer.

But it's so much easier when I can put you neatly in the 'anti-gun-zealot' box... ;)

zimv20

Apr 5, 2004, 06:08 PM

But it's so much easier when I can put you neatly in the 'anti-gun-zealot' box... ;)
..especially if ya trick 'im into standing in the box -- and then shooting him!

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 06:13 PM

The 99% are the ones that are going to be affected by the laws, and they are not the ones that are irresponsible? How about laws targetting the irresponsible ones, like extra punishment for use of a gun in a violent crime? How about no plea bargaining for a lesser offense on any violent crime with gun use?

Anti-drunk driving laws, when you are driving you are supposed to be responsible for obeying traffic laws and not hitting anyone. Doesn't matter if you are drunk or not. Somehow, people have fallen for the trap of forgiving someone an offense if they have given an excuse.

Oh, I'm sorry that I hit you, I lost control because I had a couple of drinks.
Oh, I'm sorry that I hit you, I lost control because I answered my phone.
Oh, I'm sorry that I hit you, I lost control because I was changing radio stations.
Oh, I'm sorry that I hit you, I lost control because I was daydreaming.
Oh, I'm sorry that I hit you, I lost control because you looked like my husband that I'm trying to kill.
Oh, I'm sorry that I hit you, I lost control ...

No excuses. You lost control, you hit me, you have to pay compensation to my satisfaction, and the law's satisfaction. Seems that in the civilian world, the maximum effective range of an excuse is not zero.

The way some of these laws are written, its as if you are punishing the 99% in order to get at the 1%. Thats like the entire class having to write an extra 20 page essay because one student did not turn his essay in. Or the entire platoon having to do extra pushups and situps because one private did not pass his APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test).

zimv20

Apr 5, 2004, 06:22 PM

mactastic

Apr 5, 2004, 06:26 PM

The way some of these laws are written, its as if you are punishing the 99% in order to get at the 1%. Thats like the entire class having to write an extra 20 page essay because one student did not turn his essay in. Or the entire platoon having to do extra pushups and situps because one private did not pass his APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test).

I'm telling you, 1% can and does ruin things for everyone. Why do I have to go through so many inspections and reviews to get a building permit? 99% of the contractors I know are perfectly reputable people who build to code. But how long do you think that would last if suddenly everyone knew that there would be no inspectors coming to the job site?

Then one contractor decides to cut some corners so he can offer a better price (capitalism at it's finest). Once he does, all others have to follow suit or go out of business. How long do you think voluntary compliance with building codes would last once we stop 'punishing' the 99% who do things right?

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 06:35 PM

my use of "often" aside, there are indeed negative effects of gun ownership. a few stats from here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=domviolence)

i don't post this to come off as some kind of anti-gun zealot. as i said, i'm unsure what to do, but i do recognize that the easy availability of guns leads to kinds of violence and deaths that otherwise wouldn't occur or be as severe. i do not have the answer.

Maybe we should stop intimacy. Thats guaranteed to stop the death of intimates, both male and female. Everyone donate eggs and sperm and everyone comes from a test tube. Hook us up to the Matrix and we have the solution for our energy dependence on fossil fuels. :eek:

I see that the Kellerman study is still being adhered to by the anti-gun zealots even though its been discredited. (http://www.jpfo.org/doctors-epidemic.htm)

"Keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide."

Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Maybe cohabitating with a scumbag drug dealer with a record of beating up his ex-girlfriend when he's snorting his product could get your killed.

I have one request for you.

Could you tell me what you, a law-abiding citizen, would have to do in order to purchase a brand-new 1911 pistol in your state.

Compare this to what you would have to do to purchase a brand-new 1911 pistol in your state, if I stuck you into a DeLorean with a fully-charged flux capacitor, and set the time to 1933.

In both cases, you have enough money for the transaction.

IJ Reilly

Apr 5, 2004, 06:37 PM

Notice how we are now talking about gun control instead of about disgruntled Republicans. Karl Rove would be proud of Frohickey's talent for deflecting the discussion away from damaging issues.

Backtothemac

Apr 5, 2004, 06:44 PM

Notice how we are now talking about gun control instead of about disgruntled Republicans. Karl Rove would be proud of Frohickey's talent for deflecting the discussion away from damaging issues.

I agree. *thud* Picks self off floor. Ok, I hereby reclaim this thread as MY thread. The point of it is to discuss how a die hard republican such as myself could even for a second consider an alternative to a war president.

NOT Gun control.

mactastic

Apr 5, 2004, 06:54 PM

I agree. *thud* Picks self off floor. Ok, I hereby reclaim this thread as MY thread. The point of it is to discuss how a die hard republican such as myself could even for a second consider an alternative to a war president.

NOT Gun control.

You're kinda screwed. There's no challenge at all to Bush from within his own party, so you are left with 3rd party candidates who may or may not be representative of your views. That's assuming you'd rather neuter yourself with a rusty spoon than vote Democrat. Heck I don't even really like Kerry that much, he's just not that exciting and he is way to much of a prefessional polititian. Unfortunately it is rare (at least to me) that you ever get a chance to vote for a national candidate who isn't the 'lesser of two evils'. That's our 2-party system for ya. I think that gets reflected into the binary nature of politics these days. If you aren't for Bush, you are for terrorists. If you aren't for tax cuts, you are a tax-raiser. There's too much either A else B logic and not enough thinking outside the box. Much as I hate to admit it, polititians could learn something from Herr Gropenfuehrer in how to get back to reaching compromises.

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 07:27 PM

in terms of specifics...

i hear that it's still possible to buy guns at a gun show w/o a background check. i think that should be fixed.

i hear that records from background checks are destroyed after a short period (24 hours? 5 days?). i don't think it's unreasonable to keep those records around.

frohickey - how do you feel about those two specific things?

Yes. Its possible to buy guns at a gun show without a background check. It depends on who the seller is, and what state the transaction is taking place in. If the seller is a federally licensed dealer of firearms, you have to go through a background check, and depending on the state, a waiting period. If the seller is not a federally licensed dealer, say, its your uncle trying to sell a 1911 pistol that he owns, then there is no background check requirement if you live in certain states. The background check is only mandated for dealers that make their living selling guns.

BTW, for years before 1968, the way guns were bought and sold is just like how your uncle would sell his guns. No background checks, even if you were a dealer making a living selling guns.

Why should the way we buy and sell second-hand objects be regulated by government? Do we do the same thing to baseball bats? Screwdrivers? Chainsaws? Knives? Vacuum aspirators? ;)

As for keeping the results of the background checks, I think that the record of the background check happening and the disposition of it should be deleted immediately if the check says the purchase should go through. If the purchase should NOT go through, then the computer should flag the local police department, and the dealer should ask the would-be customer to wait. Then when the police get there, the would-be customer should be arrested for attempting to purchase a firearm while being prohibited from doing so. Jail them right there and then, or whenever the background check completes and its flagged as a prohibited action.

If the background check comes back clean, then the record should be kept until the buyer and seller finishes their transaction, cash is exchanged, credit card is swiped and comes back approved, and the gun is transfered from the buyer to the seller. Then, the record should be deleted forever, the only trail being the bill of sale between the buyer and the seller.

Why should clean background checks be saved? You might say that its because the gun could be used in a crime, that way we know who's got a gun and who doesn't. Do we have background checks for purchasers of baseball bats? Rat poison? Screwdrivers? Knives? Vaccum Aspirators?

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 07:30 PM

Don't get me wrong. I have totally nothing against people who use vacuum aspirators. In fact, if given the option of having met someone that had to use a vacuum aspirator or not, and being personally involved in the situation with needing the vacuum aspiration to be done, I would say, the more the better. :eek: :p :D

That would mean a very tired but happy Frohickey though. :cool:

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 07:32 PM

I agree. *thud* Picks self off floor. Ok, I hereby reclaim this thread as MY thread. The point of it is to discuss how a die hard republican such as myself could even for a second consider an alternative to a war president.

NOT Gun control.

You could withhold your vote, and vote a 3rd party candidate.

Remember, if enough people vote 3rd party, the party ends up becoming not-3rd party.

wwworry

Apr 5, 2004, 07:42 PM

I also would like some more accurate way of voting, like multi-party elections, or a way to rate candidates like 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice. I thought Edwards/Clark would have been a good ticket. Kerry McCain would be a really interesting ticket maybe bringing about a true bi-partisan coilition but I do not think it will happen.

edit: Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine actually changed my view a bit on gun control. I think registration would be good but I am not so for a ban as I was.

blackfox

Apr 5, 2004, 07:50 PM

Well, I don't know what to do. There is no way that I can vote for Kerry, but I am really pissed at Bush. I have read Clarke's book, and I have to say that I owe the man an appology. I am happy that we liberated Iraq, but I am ready for our boys to come home, or fight the good fight in the war on terror.

What do I do? Vote for the republican that I don't think is really a republican, or vote for a democrat, something I just can't see myself doing.

Advice, please!
It is a depressing turn of events - having to choose between these candidates...I actually will vote for Kerry, as my desire to have Bush removed from office trumps all else. I base this on not so much Bush himself, but because I also (even more so) dislike his cabinet, VP and appointments of his administration...I also do not like the choice of judicial nominees...
My advice is to wait to see who will be announced as Kerrys VP to make a final decision...and do not trust ANY campaign ad...looking to the issues is always good, but it is difficult to discern the candidates' positions and at times they are near-identical...you really have to make a guess of character and integrity...Kerry may ultimately not fare well here, but Bush has already been proven dubious in these instances...good luck

Frohickey

Apr 5, 2004, 08:47 PM

Neserk

Apr 5, 2004, 09:55 PM

Try voting the issues instead of the party.

Or vote for the lesser of the 2 evils.

Or vote *against* Bush.

Taft

Apr 6, 2004, 10:02 AM

Andrews, 28 Cal. 4th 1234 (2002) (http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw) --- being 'clinically cold' not withstanding, here Andrews raped and killed one, robbed and killed another, and finally killed one more. This specific case was about the penalty phase of the trial; the question of Andrews' guilt is established, he killed 3 people. This is in 1979. The case goes on about the penalty phase and has a reference to another murder in 1968 when Andrews' was 16! Wow. Four people, and he's not over 30 yet! Andrews' is an oxygen-thief. He should have been put to death after the 1st murder. Then 3 other people would still be alive today. Is this what you are trying to defend?

I started looking at the other opinions, and I do not see anything yet that I do not agree with. I'm at the Kasky vs Nike case, and her analysis is top-notch and scholarly too.

OK, how about her decision in Konig vs. Fair Employment and Housing Com.? In this minority opinion, it seems to me that she completely ignores California Law in favor of her own political tendencies.

The notion that the acquiescence of parties to an administrative proceeding sanctions constitutionally suspect jurisdiction ignores the reason structural restraints, like the judicial powers clause, were built into constitutions in the first instance. The idea was to create a complex system of checks and balances that would operate to "counteract the effects of faction despite the inevitability of the factional spirit" (Sunstein, Interest Groups in American Public Law (1985) 38 Stan. L.Rev. 29, 44) and "prevent both majorities and minorities from usurping government power to distribute wealth or opportunities in their favor." (Ibid.) These days, however, the Madisonian world has gone "topsy turvy" as factions, defined as groups " 'activated by some common interest ...,' have become sectors of policy." (Golembiewski & Wildavsky, The Cost of Federalism, Bare Bones: Putting Flesh on the Skeleton of American Federalism (1984) p. 73.) "Indeed," as Aaron Wildavsky notes, "government now pays citizens to organize, lawyers to sue, and politicians to run for office. Soon enough, if current [28 Cal.4th 760] trends continue, government will become self-contained, generating (apparently spontaneously) the forces to which it responds." (Ibid.) When the courts aid and abet such insularity, the implications give rise to all the more concern.

The most disturbing aspect of this case is not that the court should cede constitutional ground with such alacrity; its willingness to do so is by now well established. (See Obrien v. Jones (2000) 23 Cal.4th 40 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 205, 999 P.2d 95]; In re Rose (2000) 22 Cal.4th 430 [93 Cal.Rptr.2d 298, 993 P.2d 956]; Leone v. Medical Board (2000) 22 Cal.4th 660 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 61, 995 P.2d 191].) Rather, it is the encouragement given this agency-and any others that are quick studies-to do what the agency deems best for its constituency or its consequence, even if that results in arrogating core judicial functions the Legislature itself has implicitly recognized are beyond reach. I respectfully dissent.

You can read the majority's opinion at findlaw.

Taft

jelloshotsrule

Apr 6, 2004, 10:30 AM

back-dawg. one thing to consider and then a question..

keep in mind that you have SEEN that bush cannot be trusted. he has lied, betrayed you (his own party!), etc etc... we know he will continue this. it's a fact. however, we don't "know" what kerry will do. now, i personally don't like him so much because he's far less liberal than i'd like :). all the more reason to vote for him, for you at least... whereas i might have to go with nader..

so basically, you know bush sucks. but you don't know kerry does... you just expect him to. tough situation, but there's something to be said for not voting for someone you know will lie and be a total batard.

second

what are the sticking issues for you that'd keep you from voting for kerry? my mom has one - abortion... it upsets me pretty greatly, but i won't get into that now... but, talk about which issues and maybe some more discussion about the candidates themselves can actually begin. word

great to see you being independent instead of a party line robot...

Backtothemac

Apr 6, 2004, 11:25 AM

zimv20

Apr 6, 2004, 11:47 AM

(I don't want to loose the additional child tax credit, nor have the marriage penalty come back.

this may ease your mind a bit...
link (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0828.html)

(4) PROVIDE TAX RELIEF TO MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES RATHER AND CRACK DOWN ON UNFAIR RELIEF FOR CORPORATE AMERICA.* President Bush has turned a blind eye to struggling American families, despite the fact that today’s two-earner families are earning 75 percent more than their single earner family counterparts a generation ago, but they have less money to spend due to soaring housing costs, day care, college tuition, and health care. John Kerry would:

Keep the Middle Class Tax Cuts to Help Families Make Ends Meet.* John Kerry believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003, which increased the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty and lowered tax rates.* He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts, which would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2000.

Help Americans Get Ahead.

College Tax Cut: John Kerry will help Americans get ahead with his new “College Opportunity Tax Credit” by ensuring college is available for four years for every American.

Helping Create Wealth in the Stock Market: John Kerry opposes the dividend tax cuts in the 2003 tax bill that result in receptionists paying higher tax rates than CEOs. However, he does believe that middle class Americans should get more from their investments and will lower capital gains and dividend taxes for the middle class.*

He voted against every major defense initiative that I supported.

yeah, the WH is spinning it that way. i'm short on time right now, but look at why kerry voted the way he did. in the couple of instances i've looked at, kerry supported the larger bill but had an issue w/ a particular part of it (usually some kind of pork). i'm getting the impression he's a complicated guy, which the WH is spinning as flip-floppy.

jelloshotsrule

Apr 6, 2004, 11:52 AM

Thanks Jello.

Actually some of the issues are abortion, taxes (I don't want to loose the additional child tax credit, nor have the marriage penalty come back. Also, Kerry's voting record is an issue for me. I am actually scared of him because of it. He voted against every major defense initiative that I supported.

I don't know man, I am really torn.

well i don't know enough about taxes to speak to it... and it's clear we have a different ideal defense system, so i won't try to convince you on that... but as for abortion. just some quick info about my background. raised catholic. my mom has always been super super pro life... went to many marches for life in dc as a kid. i've changed my mind about abortion to some extent over the last 3 or so years, but i still would have a hard time considering myself "pro choice" or participating in the pro choice walk (though my girlfriend was going to, along with her friends)... i will not talk to the morality issue of abortion, but rather, the politics of it... here's how i see it breaking down. i personally believe that banning abortion would have some bad consequences (ie, people getting unsafe, alley type abortions). but the main thing is that i see a candidate who would work harder for lower classes, along with improving education (sex ed, and all education really), i see that type of candidate as working to root out the causes of abortion... poverty, lack of education, etc... that is why nader's "pro choice" stance in 2000 (and 2k4) didn't bother me much, and that is why i think that kerry is still a more life affirming candidate... not to mention wars, etc, which i know we somewhat disagree on... i'll just sum it up with, i can't call someone "pro life" when they have directly caused the destruction of so many lives, vs a man who supports a person's individual right to their own body... there's a big difference to me between pulling the trigger (on thousands) and telling other people that "while i wouldn't pull the trigger, you have the right to"...

anyways, just my thoughts. it's tough telling all this to my mom though. ;)

zimv20

Apr 6, 2004, 12:02 PM

abortion is a really horrible thing. i wish it never happened. but -- i do not believe that the state's right trumps that of the individual. so i am pro-choice.

rainman::|:|

Apr 6, 2004, 12:07 PM

Blah, blah, blah. everyone namecalling. Tsk.

I know your dilemma, I'm a solid libertarian, which is, in many ways, more conservative than republicans. We're like what republicans used to stand up for -- personal liberty and responsibility, income tax abolishment, vastly reduced government. Republicans simply don't value these things anymore. Bush, obviously, is spending us into the ground, and hasn't even thought about where to get the money... Then he attacks Kerry for wanting to raise taxes for some groups. Well, W, money doesn't grow on trees, and patriot acts cost money. Anyway, it's my opinion that the parties have shifted-- democrats are the ones that want personal liberty (if not responsibility, sometimes), lower taxes for the working class, reduced government. That Bush would enact the Patriot act, and that liberals want it repealed, is testamant to that-- Gone are the days of the liberal who wants welfare to support everyone, by taxing the hard workers of the country. Gone are the days when republicans fought against more government agencies and expendatures. That's all bipartesan history, what the parties represented in the period between Reaganomics and 9/11. You can't judge today's candidates based on that.

Sure Kerry supports some classic liberal ideas, like maintaining a pretty moderate pro-choice view. He's not running around trying to convince people to have abortions, and he's pretty clearly uncomfortable with the subject. But he knows it's something that's here for better or worse, unless public opinion swings greatly on it. Gay rights the same, he's middle of the road. He's that way on all social issues.

Give me some objections to Kerry, i'll answer them. I really think voting for a dem would be a good move for someone with your ideals. Any other election, i'd tell you to throw your vote away on a 3rd candidate-- but this one is too important to make a point. Remember, just because you vote democrat doesn't mean you are one, not that it matters. The parties stand for nothing anymore, except expensive arguments and bickering.

paul

jelloshotsrule

Apr 6, 2004, 12:20 PM

abortion is a really horrible thing. i wish it never happened. but -- i do not believe that the state's right trumps that of the individual. so i am pro-choice.

i don't want this thread to go off track again, and i also agree with you basically. i guess what i don't like about the very very staunchly "pro choice" people is that they ignore the (at the very least) potential human being that is the heart of the matter. liberals are all about human rights... well i feel it's a bit hypocritical to entirely ignore the rights of the potential human. in fact, it's the most helpless form. those who i think need the most defense on their behalf... that all said, there's a super grey area about when "life" begins, and that gets into religion, etc... likewise, there are plenty of instances when forcing someone to carry out a pregnancy is not a good idea, to me. i just wish that there was more emphasis placed on alternatives and such than purely on guaranteeing the person's "choice"..

i digress ;)

IJ Reilly

Apr 6, 2004, 01:15 PM

Frohickey

Apr 6, 2004, 01:32 PM

I know your dilemma, I'm a solid libertarian, which is, in many ways, more conservative than republicans. We're like what republicans used to stand up for -- personal liberty and responsibility, income tax abolishment, vastly reduced government.

Anyway, it's my opinion that the parties have shifted-- democrats are the ones that want personal liberty (if not responsibility, sometimes), lower taxes for the working class, reduced government.

I take it that you are not deep in the heart of California...

Frohickey

Apr 6, 2004, 02:00 PM

OK, how about her decision in Konig vs. Fair Employment and Housing Com.? In this minority opinion, it seems to me that she completely ignores California Law in favor of her own political tendencies.

You can read the majority's opinion at findlaw.

Taft

I need to download her opinions, but so far I agree with the analysis. In the Konig vs FEHC, Konig is a white woman that did not want to rent to black people. A complaint was made to the FEHC and the FEHC decided to award damages to McCoy, the black woman that tried to ask about the particulars of the place for rent.

In this one, forget the skin color of the participants. Instead, look at who's got the property, and the rights that go along with it. Shouldn't a property owner be free to be able to do with their property as they desire? I think that the dissent says that law should ""prevent both majorities and minorities from usurping government power to distribute wealth or opportunities in their favor."" Seems that when you have started on this road where one side can use government power to beat the other side upside the head, you are on your way to fragmenting society.

Now, lets say that McCoy manage to get a valid rental agreement from Konig, and Konig decide to renege on the agreement, then McCoy has got the law on her side.

Cases like these end up hampering commerce, IMO. I've had had to rent lots of different places here in California, and it used to be that landlords would rent to tenants who agreed to on price, and had the rent/last rent/security deposit. These days, you have to subject yourself to a credit check, most often this runs from $25 all the way to $45. Multiply that by the number of places you potentially apply to because the landlord might not pick you as the tenant, and you are talking serious money, enough for a chunk of a month's rent. Then you have moving costs, time away from work, etc.

Grant, Konig is most definitely a bigot, but bigots have rights too. I've come across other bigots as well. Some are black, some are asian. Do I like it, no. But in the case of the asian bigot, I got to rent the house instead of some other tenant, and my house search and $25 credit check outlay stopped.

Reading Brown's background, you would think that if she was judging on her personal feelings, she would be the first to be on the side of McCoy. She did not. IMO, thats integrity.

Neserk

Apr 6, 2004, 02:35 PM

Actually some of the issues are abortion,

that is all and great to have your beliefs about abortion but you have to ask yourself this: even if abortion was made illegal would it actually stop? The answer is no. It is too "easy" because so many doctors have the ability to perform them. If you want to stop abortions the best way to do it is to (a)prevent pregnancies, and (b) given women better alternatives. This is not done through making laws but through grassroots organizations. Not voting for a candidate because they are pro-choice does not really make sense to me since the likelihood of them getting abortions to become illegal is nil.

taxes (I don't want to loose the additional child tax credit, nor have the marriage penalty come back.

Well, you may have to. The benefit of it is a more stable economy in the long run. As we have all seen these supposed tax reliefs have done nothing except cause problems of unemployment. It may not have hit you yet but it will eventually one way or another.

Recently there was a news show that stated that 1/3rd of all bankruptcy's are filed by those with huge medical bill debt. Guess what? If they were properly employed they would have health insurance and would not have had to file bankruptcy. That cost comes back to you. Your insurance rates go up and the economy takes a turn for the worst. Try and see the big picture. Hope that helps some.

3rdpath

Apr 6, 2004, 02:40 PM

In the Konig vs FEHC, Konig is a white woman that did not want to rent to black people....SNIP.....In this one, forget the skin color of the participants.

by all means, let's remove the relevant details of this case...

Frohickey

Apr 6, 2004, 04:51 PM

by all means, let's remove the relevant details of this case...

The relevant detail is that you have a property owner that had a property for rent, but she is very particular to who she would rent it to.
Another relevant detail is that the potential renter decided to report it fact that someone was rude to her to the FEHC.

Switch the two places, and is it still a good idea? What if you are rude to bigoted women renters with small Chihuahua dogs? Sounds like what should be done here is the potential renter should sue the property owner for being rude to her and making her re-live the bad memories of her youth in civil court.

We don't need an arm of government doing it for her.

Backtothemac

Apr 6, 2004, 11:54 PM

that is all and great to have your beliefs about abortion but you have to ask yourself this: even if abortion was made illegal would it actually stop? The answer is no. It is too "easy" because so many doctors have the ability to perform them. If you want to stop abortions the best way to do it is to (a)prevent pregnancies, and (b) given women better alternatives. This is not done through making laws but through grassroots organizations. Not voting for a candidate because they are pro-choice does not really make sense to me since the likelihood of them getting abortions to become illegal is nil.

Well, you may have to. The benefit of it is a more stable economy in the long run. As we have all seen these supposed tax reliefs have done nothing except cause problems of unemployment. It may not have hit you yet but it will eventually one way or another.

Recently there was a news show that stated that 1/3rd of all bankruptcy's are filed by those with huge medical bill debt. Guess what? If they were properly employed they would have health insurance and would not have had to file bankruptcy. That cost comes back to you. Your insurance rates go up and the economy takes a turn for the worst. Try and see the big picture. Hope that helps some.

I agree with you on abortion, but I want my government not to condone it. That is the difference for me. I want someone who is trying to make it illegal.

As for the other. No, I disagree. Why not stop the pork, the bs out of washington so that they won't need all of our money. Here is the funny thing. Last year, my wife and I had to file bankruptcy. Yep. AND it was over bills that came from medical problems. But you know what? That was my fault, not the governments. It is my responsiblity to handle and be responsible for my failures, not the governments ;)

GREAT THREAD!

pseudobrit

Apr 7, 2004, 01:26 AM

mactastic

Apr 7, 2004, 09:39 AM

I agree with you on abortion, but I want my government not to condone it. That is the difference for me. I want someone who is trying to make it illegal.

This I don't understand. You acknowledge that abortion will continue no matter what, with all the consequences that entails (back alley abortions, bleach baths etc) and that you want the government to not condone it, but at the same time you want someone to make it illegal? Or do you just want someone who says they are against abortion but just wont do anything about it?

wwworry

Apr 7, 2004, 09:51 AM

Maybe you could make a list of your most important issues and then do some sort of chart assigning points as to issue importance and candidate performance. You would have to rank the candidate on actual performance versus party reputation. And add in events that might add or subtract points that are not issue based.

Like the photo op with the fake Turkey - how would that add or subtract points.
Like the deficit and budget - it would be easy to rank Bush negatively here but harder to put points on Kerry. Clinton was supposed to be a tax and spend democrat but we ended up with surpluses. Could the Bush tax cuts have happened without the CLinton surpluses? Would Gore have cut taxes? What would Kerry do in the face of these huge deficits? Can Kerry be blamed for "raising" taxes if Bush hands him huge deficits? Is Bush really cutting taxes or is he just posponing paying them and adding on the cost of interest to our children?

too complicated - go with gut instinct

Backtothemac

Apr 7, 2004, 11:36 AM

I ignore abortion as an issue because too many candidates grab onto it knowing they'll get the easy one-issue voters (either side) in their pockets while knowing they can't and won't do a damn thing about it anyway.

As far as taxes, wait until the AMT starts hitting you, if it hasn't already. You're going to wonder where the hell your tax credits went.

What is AMT?

mactastic, I want it illegal as it currently exists. For example. If a woman wants an abortion, and the father says sure, then go for it. If the father says, I will raise the child, then I think he should have a right to that child. Otherwise it is the murder of his child.

I think the law needs reform basically. And I am actually going to look at Kerry.

mactastic

Apr 7, 2004, 11:44 AM

What is AMT?

The Alternative Minimum Tax (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001878518_pftaxamt14.html)

zimv20

Apr 7, 2004, 11:53 AM

What is AMT?

alternative minimum tax. designed to get more tax from the wealthy, it actually hits the middle class pretty hard. i was screwed but good because of it in 2001.

i don't know all the ins and outs of it, but here's how it screwed me: in 2000, i made a lot of money in LT cap gains (and properly paid my taxes on it). the next year, i made almost no money. but instead of owing a very small amount of taxes, the AMT disallowed some $70k worth of deductions and nullified some otherwise careful tax planning. combined w/ the gains i had that year, i actually owed more in taxes than i had earned.

btw -- if it hits you, it would likely disallow your exemptions, child tax credits and mortgage deductions. and every year it affects more and more of the middle class. iirc, there was a 1-year exemption from AMT for those claiming the child tax credit. i don't think that protection is still in place.

zimv20

Apr 7, 2004, 11:59 AM

btw -

if you're hit by the AMT, then you consider the effect of the bush tax cuts:

The Bush administration states that the average tax cut for 2003 will be $1,126. They do not specify that the median household will receive $217, 53% of taxpayers will get $100 or less, 50 million will receive no benefits, and filers who make more than $1 million per year will receive $93,500. 83% of taxpayers will get less than the average cut stated by the administration.

(Source: Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, Andrew Lee and Joel Friedman, "Administration Continues to Rely on Misleading Use of Average's to Describe Tax-Cut Benefits," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 28, 2003. See article at: http://www.cbpp.org/5-28-03tax4.htm)

...your blood will boil

Backtothemac

Apr 7, 2004, 01:01 PM

Well how does it get forced on you? I thought the AMT was alternative?

What gives. Is it selective?

zimv20

Apr 7, 2004, 01:16 PM

Well how does it get forced on you? I thought the AMT was alternative?

What gives. Is it selective?
alternative means "alternative to your lower tax." it's not a choice.

mactastic

Apr 7, 2004, 01:17 PM

Well how does it get forced on you? I thought the AMT was alternative?

What gives. Is it selective?

Not so much selective as not adjusted for inflation. That means as people become more prosperous, more and more get caught by a system that disallows several of the common exemptions. Originally it affected very few, but because of the lack of inflation-adjusted levels at which it kicks in more and more of the middle class are affected by it.

See here for more info. (http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/filing/index.cfm?story=amt)

Backtothemac

Apr 7, 2004, 01:38 PM

Ok, I want a candidate that will push to raise the AMT to those making about $150,000 a year. The AMT is a joke, and should go, that just sucks!

Frohickey

Apr 7, 2004, 01:56 PM

Get rid of the AMT already. :mad:
And give zimv20 a refund.

trebblekicked

Apr 7, 2004, 01:57 PM

he opposed the Bush cut in corporate AMT, but he's said nothing about the individual AMT in his campaign to date. However, he does know about the problem, and tried to push a bill through the senate in 2001:

But what does Kerry think of the AMT? Back in May 2001, Kerry in fact put forward his own amendment that would have exempted individual taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes below $100,000 from the AMT and modify the reduction in the top marginal tax bracket rate; it failed 46-53.
(source: MSNBC LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4659182/))

zimv20

Apr 7, 2004, 02:04 PM

it failed 46-53.
so the GOP-controlled congress stuck it to the middle-class taxpayer. can't say i'm surprised.

Backtothemac

Apr 7, 2004, 02:26 PM

Wow, now that pisses me off. O.K. Well, taxes are the issue that I am going to be voting on, so I have a basis by which to look at things now.

zimv20

Apr 7, 2004, 02:48 PM

Wow, now that pisses me off. O.K. Well, taxes are the issue that I am going to be voting on, so I have a basis by which to look at things now.
it's very interesting to me to note how the GOP runs as the tax-cutting party and proceeds to focus mainly on federal income tax. when the entire tax picture is examined, i don't see a commensurate effect.

Frohickey

Apr 7, 2004, 03:30 PM

I'd vote for Kerry if he proposes a bill and gets it passed that seeks to abolish the IRS. Or tax collectors have to go around visiting people's houses to collect taxes. :eek:

Backtothemac

Apr 7, 2004, 03:40 PM

pseudobrit

Apr 7, 2004, 08:25 PM

Well, I am frustrated because I am going to be in the AMT bracket this year. That sucks. I come from a poor family, work my ass off to get somewhere in this world, and then get hammered for my success. That is BS.

Yup. Just remember when Bush says he cut your taxes, he cut them knowing you'd get nailed with the AMT and he'd get your money anyway.

Same with everyone middle class and below. Our income tax rates were lowered a bit, but with the cuts in funding to state and local governments, huge increases in fees have been implemented to make up for the shortfall. Bush's tax cuts are phantoms.

The problem is that most people are saying that Bush cuts taxes in a way that favors the wealthy. This is the stereotypical class warfare we're supposed to expect from the Democrats, and it's countered as such.

We'll hear that "a rising tide lifts all boats" and everyone is getting a tax cut and the hippy liberals just want to stick it to the rich.

The reality is that Bush has been effectively raising taxes on most Americans while cutting them for the very rich.

Backtothemac

Apr 7, 2004, 09:20 PM

Yup. Just remember when Bush says he cut your taxes, he cut them knowing you'd get nailed with the AMT and he'd get your money anyway.

Same with everyone middle class and below. Our income tax rates were lowered a bit, but with the cuts in funding to state and local governments, huge increases in fees have been implemented to make up for the shortfall. Bush's tax cuts are phantoms.

The problem is that most people are saying that Bush cuts taxes in a way that favors the wealthy. This is the stereotypical class warfare we're supposed to expect from the Democrats, and it's countered as such.

We'll hear that "a rising tide lifts all boats" and everyone is getting a tax cut and the hippy liberals just want to stick it to the rich.

The reality is that Bush has been effectively raising taxes on most Americans while cutting them for the very rich.

Oh man, I am becoming a liberal.

zimv20

Apr 7, 2004, 09:22 PM

Oh man, I am becoming a liberal.
"don't worry, it doesn't hurt. here, just go to sleep next to this pod"

:-)

seriously, all the doubts you've been expressing i'd chalk up to just plain reason. maybe i should start up that Reasonable Party i'd mentioned some time back.

pseudobrit

Apr 7, 2004, 09:23 PM

Oh man, I am becoming a liberal.

Nah. You're just realising that Bush doesn't represent you, the average middle class American. It matters not whether you're Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative; chances are, no matter who you are, Bush is not helping you and does not care about you.

Frohickey

Apr 7, 2004, 09:28 PM

Oh man, I am becoming a liberal.

Once you have been mugged, you can't be unmugged.

pseudobrit

Apr 7, 2004, 09:30 PM

Once you have been mugged, you can't be unmugged.

I agree. Bush's tax increases are tantamount to being mugged.

Neserk

Apr 7, 2004, 09:57 PM

maybe i should start up that Reasonable Party i'd mentioned some time back.

That party I might just join ;)

Backtothemac

Apr 7, 2004, 11:03 PM

Well, it is hard for me. I felt like Clinton did represent me, and I defended him when he was my President, even when I disagreed with him. The older I have become, the more apathetic I am becoming. I don't feel represented by the candidates, and those that do represent me will never get the opportunity actually be the President.

I am a republican, however, I am one without someone to represent me.

Neserk

Apr 7, 2004, 11:17 PM

I am a republican, however, I am one without someone to represent me.

Just out of curiosity: why are you so stuck on the label?

Frohickey

Apr 7, 2004, 11:20 PM

Tax Freedom Day Comes on April 11 in 2004, Earliest Since 1967 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html)

I can't speak about zimv20's tax situation, but I have seen my taxes for the 2003 tax year as lower than previous years. I can compare 2003 and 2002 head to head since there were no raises in 2003, and 2002, and 2001. el Stevo didn't give any out to nobody. :eek:

So, I think in this regard, things were good.

(That is, if you discount the effect of inflation, which was also low these recent years. In fact, they were dreading the use of the 'D'-word Deflation.)

Backtothemac

Apr 7, 2004, 11:21 PM

Just out of curiosity: why are you so stuck on the label?

Hmmmm, good question. i think it is because people here define themselves so much. You are what you are. I could say that I am a conservative, but I choose the word republican. I am one of the few in my family, but I do define myself by that word.

pseudobrit

Apr 7, 2004, 11:30 PM

Hmmmm, good question. i think it is because people here define themselves so much. You are what you are. I could say that I am a conservative, but I choose the word republican. I am one of the few in my family, but I do define myself by that word.

I call myself a Democrat rather than liberal. I think "liberal" and "conservative" have come to mean far left and right on the political spectrum. Because the two parties must appeal to a broader audience, they're generally forced into being more moderate.
This of course can fluctuate.

pseudobrit

Apr 7, 2004, 11:34 PM

(That is, if you discount the effect of inflation, which was also low these recent years. In fact, they were dreading the use of the 'D'-word Deflation.)

Wha? The dollar is dropping hard. It's getting its ass kicked by the euro.

As for your "tax freedom" day, I'll be writing a cheque to the US Treasury, owing tax for the first time in my life. And I spent a few months laid off last year too. Thanks again, Bush, for both the manufacturing job loss and the lack of tax relief for the poor.

Frohickey

Apr 7, 2004, 11:37 PM

Hmmmm, good question. i think it is because people here define themselves so much. You are what you are. I could say that I am a conservative, but I choose the word republican. I am one of the few in my family, but I do define myself by that word.

Republican does not necessarily mean conservative. Case in point... GWBush, Schwarzenegger, Guilliani.

Frohickey

Apr 7, 2004, 11:47 PM

Wha? The dollar is dropping hard. It's getting its ass kicked by the euro.

As for your "tax freedom" day, I'll be writing a cheque to the US Treasury, owing tax for the first time in my life. And I spent a few months laid off last year too. Thanks again, Bush, for both the manufacturing job loss and the lack of tax relief for the poor.

That matters if you get paid in dollars, and you spend it in euros. In my case, I get paid in dollars, and I spend it in dollars. Deflation was a big fear of Greenspan, and inflation is very low. I like the 0% car loan that I was able to get. That, and refinancing high interest debt with lower interest ones.

Did the amount of tax you paid decrease or increase. If you are writing a check, it could mean that they did not withhold enough, but that does not mean your tax bill did not drop. Getting a tax return, or writing a check is not the proper gauge. Its how much you ended up paying.

If you think about it though, its actually good to be writing a check when the tax bill is due, that means you got to use your money, and also a little bit of what Uncle Sam is supposed to get. If you always get a tax refund, that means you have given Uncle Sam an interest fee loan that you could have used to instead.

Last I saw, I do not have Frohickey's Savings & Loan tattooed on my forehead. :D

wwworry

Apr 8, 2004, 12:09 AM

You're right about that Frohickey, though it does not feel good at the time of payment.

As for labels, I'm not so sure Bush is so traditionaly republican. Government growth is at the highest since LBJ. Deficits are at the highest amount ever. Governent intrusion into private lives is also at a all time high with email survailence, the tell on your neighbor program etc.

There is a difference between these neo-cons and your traditional repubilcan. Maybe if Bush was voted out it would reshape the party. Mondale's loss reshaped the Dems into a more centrist party. I hear Kerry is proposing spending caps.

It just comes down to "do you want more of this or not".

Neserk

Apr 8, 2004, 01:10 AM

Hmmmm, good question. i think it is because people here define themselves so much. You are what you are. I could say that I am a conservative, but I choose the word republican. I am one of the few in my family, but I do define myself by that word.

I'm the opposite. I don't join groups. Churches, political parties, etc., etc. I don't like lables. They never describe me correctly anyhow. In some ways I'm conservative in others I'm very liberal. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm just me :D You might want to give getting rid of the labels shot because from what it sounds like they don't fit you very well, either.

IJ Reilly

Apr 8, 2004, 01:24 AM

I'm the opposite. I don't join groups. Churches, political parties, etc., etc. I don't like lables. They never describe me correctly anyhow. In some ways I'm conservative in others I'm very liberal. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm just me :D You might want to give getting rid of the labels shot because from what it sounds like they don't fit you very well, either.

Not all groups confer a label on their members, at least not one you'd feel the need to live down. Service clubs, for example.

G4scott

Apr 8, 2004, 11:29 AM

Then one contractor decides to cut some corners so he can offer a better price (capitalism at it's finest).

I believe that's called "greed". That is why capitalism needs some government controls (hence the inspectors) to keep things in line. Without the inspectors, or government control, capitalism would get really nasty. With too much government control, it would be inefficient. There's a sweet spot for the necessary amount of government control that keeps businesses in line, but doesn't oppress them so that they can't grow, and make a profit. Just a little info on the workings of capitalism.

As for the disturbed republican looking for a candidate, I'd have to agree with the third party voting. There's always Nader... ;)

Don't panic

Apr 8, 2004, 04:34 PM

Republican does not necessarily mean conservative. Case in point... GWBush, Schwarzenegger, Guilliani.

So, short of resorting to name calling (tempting but way too easy) how would you define GWB? Fascist?

blackfox

Apr 8, 2004, 05:02 PM

Frohickey

Apr 8, 2004, 05:14 PM

So, short of resorting to name calling (tempting but way too easy) how would you define GWB? Fascist?

RINO.

pseudobrit

Apr 8, 2004, 05:17 PM

Anyone else feel like giving up and emigrating to Canada?...I have seriously been considering it...everyone likes Canada, and w/ global warming and such, by the time i retire, it could be quite balmy at those lattitudes...

In 25-50 years, Canada should have average temperatures that are 3-6 C higher than they are now.

Frohickey

Apr 8, 2004, 05:26 PM

I believe that's called "greed". That is why capitalism needs some government controls (hence the inspectors) to keep things in line. Without the inspectors, or government control, capitalism would get really nasty. With too much government control, it would be inefficient. There's a sweet spot for the necessary amount of government control that keeps businesses in line, but doesn't oppress them so that they can't grow, and make a profit. Just a little info on the workings of capitalism.

As for the disturbed republican looking for a candidate, I'd have to agree with the third party voting. There's always Nader... ;)

A better way would be a thriving competitive landscape where there is no virtual or real monopolies on goods and services bought and sold.

Imagine if Microsoft had a competitor. Each one would have to one-up their competition, and there would be no way one can demand anything the customers do not value from.

Nader? Green party platform (http://www.gp.org/tenkey.html)
5. DECENTRALIZATION

Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

Is this double-speak? If wealth and power is centralized, its because the owners of wealth and power have chosen to centralize. How would the Green Party decentralize it? Confiscatory measures, like in Zimbabwe?

sethypoo

Apr 8, 2004, 05:27 PM

I don't join groups. Churches, political parties, etc., etc... I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

Just to add, I don't think anyone really fits neatly into the mold of a Democrat or a Republican.

I myself am a Republicrat. A little bit of both.

Joining groups gives one an identity both in the personal sense, and it allows us to identify with others around us. Humans are social animals, to seclude yourself is a foolish thing to do, IMO.

You've got to me a member or part of something? Right?

Thanatoast

Apr 8, 2004, 05:31 PM

when it comes to politics, labels are important. one of the first ways children identify themselves is by party. most children can identify themselves by party before they know what it means or what the party stands for. they pick it up from their parents.

also, by the time party identification has been fully established (around 20 or so), it becomes incredibly stable. most, a great majority, of people will have the same party ties when they die as when they were 20. the south continued to vote democrat long after civil rights was forced upon them by their own party.

it's also one of the primary ways people can identify eachother. if you find out someone is republican or democrat, you can start to make a general picture of their attitudes and beliefs.

also, and this is more opinion than studied, i think people have a tendency to gravitate towards groups. they like to reinforce the us vs. them mentality. indetifying yourself with a group gives a sense of place. it also gives a convenient scapegoat for your problems in the form of your enemies.

Frohickey

Apr 8, 2004, 05:34 PM

In 25-50 years, Canada should have average temperatures that are 3-6 C higher than they are now.

Vancouver, Canada weather (http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/climatology/monthly/CAXX0518?from=search)
Month-AvgHigh-AvgLow
Jan - 42F - 32F
Feb - 46F - 34F
Mar - 49F - 36F
Apr - 54F - 40F
May - 61F - 46F
Jun - 66F - 51F
Jul - 71F - 54F

I am going to bet you an ice-cold 6 pack of beer of your choice, that in April 8, 2054, Vancouver, Canada average temperatures will not be 3-6C higher than they are now. ;)

pseudobrit

Apr 8, 2004, 06:13 PM

Vancouver, Canada weather (http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/climatology/monthly/CAXX0518?from=search)
Month-AvgHigh-AvgLow
Jan - 42F - 32F
Feb - 46F - 34F
Mar - 49F - 36F
Apr - 54F - 40F
May - 61F - 46F
Jun - 66F - 51F
Jul - 71F - 54F

I am going to bet you an ice-cold 6 pack of beer of your choice, that in April 8, 2054, Vancouver, Canada average temperatures will not be 3-6C higher than they are now. ;)

Of course, results may vary; the tropical nature of the Northwest makes it immune to the typical Canadian winter.

Montréal:

Jan 21°F-5°F
Feb 24°F-7°F
Mar 35°F-19°F
Apr 51°F-33°F
May 65°F-45°F
Jun 74°F-54°F
Jul 79°F-59°F
Aug 76°F-57°F
Sep 67°F-48°F
Oct 55°F-38°F
Nov 41°F-28°F
Dec 26°F-12°F

Neserk

Apr 8, 2004, 06:55 PM

So, short of resorting to name calling (tempting but way too easy) how would you define GWB? Fascist?

Evil Dictator.

Neserk

Apr 8, 2004, 06:57 PM

Just to add, I don't think anyone really fits neatly into the mold of a Democrat or a Republican.

I myself am a Republicrat. A little bit of both.

That is good. Rpublicrat. Or Democan.

Joining groups gives one an identity both in the personal sense, and it allows us to identify with others around us. Humans are social animals, to seclude yourself is a foolish thing to do, IMO.

It only serves to frustrate me. I don't have to join to be social ;)

You've got to me a member or part of something? Right?

nope. I prefer being hermit :D

zimv20

Apr 8, 2004, 06:59 PM

Evil Dictator.
<simpsons>
here's yer problem -- you got this dictator set to evil!
</simpsons>

Frohickey

Apr 9, 2004, 01:36 PM

Lyn Nofziger (http://www.lynnofziger.com/)

I am a Republican because I believe that freedom is more important than government-provided security. Sometimes I wish I were a Democrat because Democrats seem to have more fun. At other times I wish I were a Libertarian because Republicans are too much like Democrats.

What I actually am is a right-wing independent who is registered Republican because there isn't any place else to go. In the future I expect to be critical of both parties and their leadership and a lot of other people and things, too.

Backtothemac

Apr 9, 2004, 01:52 PM

Lyn Nofziger (http://www.lynnofziger.com/)
Yep, that sounds like me. Wow, someone defined me :)

Thanatoast

Apr 9, 2004, 02:13 PM

Lyn Nofziger (http://www.lynnofziger.com/)So what does this person think about the current war on terror and its tactics? Still Republican? The current administration has taken away tons of freedom in return for government-security.

jefhatfield

Apr 10, 2004, 08:20 AM

The strange thing is why liberals, who are supposed to be proponents of individual rights have selective blinders on about the 2nd Amendment. Weird.

and if the dems are into individual and human rights, why are they pro-choice...not much consideration for the unborn child who is a person

and the gop are into non interference yet they oppose gay marriage for mostly religious reasons and the gop stands by state's rights yet when a state passes a medical marijuana law, they freak out

politics is definitely not absolute and many find this the very thing which attracts them to it

the idea of mccain being kerry's vp is totally preposterous but in these times, it's actually a viable winning ticket

i think today's libertarians are what republicans used to be so backtothemac may give them a closer look...they are anti-big government and are into letting people live their lives without too much government hindrance

miloblithe

Apr 10, 2004, 09:07 AM

the gop stands by state's rights yet when a state passes a medical marijuana law, they freak out

DC had a medical marijuana vote a couple years ago. It was pretty obvious that it was going to pass (everwhelmingly), so Congress revoked DC's funding to _count the vote_. It's funny how little democracy exists in DC.

IJ Reilly

Apr 10, 2004, 11:52 AM

Spot on. What's more, the people with the real "blinders" on are those who claim that the Second Amendment prohibits gun control.

Frohickey

Apr 10, 2004, 10:13 PM

and if the dems are into individual and human rights, why are they pro-choice...not much consideration for the unborn child who is a person

and the gop are into non interference yet they oppose gay marriage for mostly religious reasons and the gop stands by state's rights yet when a state passes a medical marijuana law, they freak out

The two main parties have had to form coalitions from multiple varied groups, and with each addition, the party platform gets modified. When a party adds a group, the opposing party courts the votes of the opposing group. Pro-choice... Pro-life. Pro-union...Industry groups. Anti-religion...Religious zealots. Pro-environment... PropertyRightsAdvocates.

Each main party is afraid to tell their groups that they are wrong, because that would spell disaster at the polls when the opposing group supports the opposition party. You won't have a Republican hold a press conference saying that he doesn't want born-again Christians with a militant recruitment drive to support him. You won't have a Democrat hold a press conference saying that she doesn't want pro-environment Preservationist that belong to groups that financially aids SUV/Housing development-torching vandals to support her.

What is needed is for each group to look at the document that was ratified back in 1791 and see how they can maximize freedom and liberty for all groups, not just their one particular group.

Thanatoast

Apr 11, 2004, 02:01 AM

What is needed is for each group to look at the document that was ratified back in 1791 and see how they can maximize freedom and liberty for all groups, not just their one particular group.But that's just the thing. Politics is the act of balancing individual rights and liberties among groups. Some people want gun control, some don't. Some want environmental protection, some want less interference in business. It's a matter of choosing which rights and liberties take precedence over others. The parties formed because different groups of people had different ideas on what should take priority.

Personally, I think a proportional representation system would be a lot more representative than the single member district system we have now. The two parties (two parties being a result of the SMD system) are too catch-all to truly represent everybody. You've got one choice which may agree with you on some issues, but comes with a lot of baggage or other priorities you don't hold, or the other choice, which is even less representative of your views.

Blech.

Frohickey

Apr 12, 2004, 01:35 PM

But that's just the thing. Politics is the act of balancing individual rights and liberties among groups. Some people want gun control, some don't. Some want environmental protection, some want less interference in business. It's a matter of choosing which rights and liberties take precedence over others. The parties formed because different groups of people had different ideas on what should take priority.

I see your point. But I don't see how it could lead to more freedom and liberty for everyone if you decide on each group's rights ala-carte?

Everyone says that they are for Free Speech, but what if we take each group's exercise of Free Speech individually? You will have a small minority that want to have public speeches against abortion, or against income taxes, or for racial separation, or for sex with minors, or against govt waste, or against corporate welfare, or for the environment. Every one of these will most likely have a majority that would be against their exercise of Free Speech, and so, they would be prevented from doing do. But if you lump it all together, everyone would be for Free Speech.

Doing so gives the various groups cohesion, in essence saying, I'll support you (Free speech for sex with minors), if you support me (Free speech against sex with minors), and other groups gain as well.

IJ Reilly

Apr 12, 2004, 04:07 PM

Frohickey

Apr 12, 2004, 05:20 PM

This is not how our system of government works. The Supreme Court to decides the limits of the exercise of Constitutional rights. It is not a matter of different groups of people agreeing or disagreeing or making deals.

Maybe we need less government then. ;)

You have one group of people disagreeing with another group, and then suing and looking at government to decide against the other group. Pretty soon, each group has won judgements against their opponents, but they fail to see how each judgement has eroded their rights as well as the opposition.

Thanatoast

Apr 12, 2004, 06:47 PM

This is not how our system of government works. The Supreme Court to decides the limits of the exercise of Constitutional rights. It is not a matter of different groups of people agreeing or disagreeing or making deals.I disagree. This is exactly what Republicans and Democrats do every day in Washington. The Supreme Court is only around to kick them back into play when they go out of bounds.

IJ Reilly

Apr 12, 2004, 09:51 PM

I disagree. This is exactly what Republicans and Democrats do every day in Washington. The Supreme Court is only around to kick them back into play when they go out of bounds.

The proposition was about the meaning of the First Amendment. Congress doesn't get to decide how the language of the Constitution should be understood. True, if they impinge on it the court may overturn the law, but the meaning of the Constitution is not decided on the basis of deal-making between political parties.

Thanatoast

Apr 12, 2004, 11:53 PM

The proposition was about the meaning of the First Amendment. Congress doesn't get to decide how the language of the Constitution should be understood. True, if they impinge on it the court may overturn the law, but the meaning of the Constitution is not decided on the basis of deal-making between political parties.True, but the congress has a lot of play between one extreme and the other before the Supreme Court will step in to declare something unconstitutional. This is where the balancing of liberties and rights comes in. Like I was saying earlier, congress gets to decide whose rights take precedence over whose liberties and vice versa. eg)sierra club members or nat'l manufacturer's association. It's not a consitutional matter, but involves debate and deal-making around rights and liberties nonetheless.

IJ Reilly

Apr 13, 2004, 12:48 AM

Thanatoast

Apr 13, 2004, 01:58 AM

I think you're confusing rights, which are protected by the Constitution, with laws, which are created by legislation. The difference is not as subtle as you might imagine. Congress has no power to determine which rights are protected or not, and the courts have no power to express the will of the people through the creation of legislation.is clean air a right? it's not spelled out in the constituion, does that mean i don't have a right to clean air? and how is that right, if it exists, affected by legislation? if you're talking purely in a constitutional sense, then you have a point, but taken in the larger sense, i think you're off mark.

Frohickey

Apr 13, 2004, 02:32 PM

I think you're confusing rights, which are protected by the Constitution, with laws, which are created by legislation. The difference is not as subtle as you might imagine. Congress has no power to determine which rights are protected or not, and the courts have no power to express the will of the people through the creation of legislation.

Bwahahaha...

CFR... steps right on the toes of the 1st Amendment.
NFA... steps right on the toes of the 2nd Amendment.
Drug laws... steps right on the toes of the 4th Amendment.
ESA... steps right on the toes of the 5th Amendment.

Frohickey

Apr 13, 2004, 02:33 PM

I disagree. This is exactly what Republicans and Democrats do every day in Washington. The Supreme Court is only around to kick them back into play when they go out of bounds.

Not all the time. SCOTUS has been silent in some cases that have come down on them.

IJ Reilly

Apr 13, 2004, 03:43 PM

is clean air a right? it's not spelled out in the constituion, does that mean i don't have a right to clean air? and how is that right, if it exists, affected by legislation? if you're talking purely in a constitutional sense, then you have a point, but taken in the larger sense, i think you're off mark.

No, clean air is not a "right," it's just a really good idea. I know it may seem like I'm picking nits, but the distinction I'm making is a really important one, particularly in the context of the discussion we're having now. The moment the things we feel are good for government to promote or encourage or allow or protect are transformed into "rights," they become absolute and non-negotiable. We can demand clean air from our government because it's important, without ever calling it a right.

Gun control is another perfect example of the talk about rights polluting a debate. It may very well be a perfectly reasonable idea to protect gun ownership and I expect a majority of Americans would agree. But when a minority insists that gun ownership is a right (against all the Constitutional evidence), the debate turns binary. The problem becomes unsolvable because one side is taking an intractable, absolutist, rights-based position.

zimv20

Apr 13, 2004, 03:55 PM

No, clean air is not a "right," it's just a really good idea.
what about water? judging by the bush's family history of buying up water rights across the world, i'd say they see it as a commodity.

Frohickey

Apr 13, 2004, 04:08 PM

No, clean air is not a "right," it's just a really good idea. I know it may seem like I'm picking nits, but the distinction I'm making is a really important one, particularly in the context of the discussion we're having now. The moment the things we feel are good for government to promote or encourage or allow or protect are transformed into "rights," they become absolute and non-negotiable. We can demand clean air from our government because it's important, without ever calling it a right.

Gun control is another perfect example of the talk about rights polluting a debate. It may very well be a perfectly reasonable idea to protect gun ownership and I expect a majority of Americans would agree. But when a minority insists that gun ownership is a right (against all the Constitutional evidence), the debate turns binary. The problem becomes unsolvable because one side is taking an intractable, absolutist, rights-based position.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I guess you could say that gun ownership is not a right... depends on what the definition of 'is' is. :eek:

mactastic

Apr 13, 2004, 04:10 PM

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I guess you could say that gun ownership is not a right... depends on what the definition of 'is' is. :eek:

Actually it depends on what the definition of 'militia' is.

Frohickey

Apr 13, 2004, 04:35 PM

Actually it depends on what the definition of 'militia' is.

Even if the definition of 'militia' is a group of people who like to eat marshmallow peeps with rum&coke in the nude by the pale winter moonlight, the subject and predicate of the amendment is unchanged.

How about this (http://www.libertybelles.org/news/englishusage.htm)?

A well schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

If the above sentence were the 2nd & half amendment, would the right to keep and read books only be limited to registered voters (electorate)?

numediaman

Apr 13, 2004, 04:53 PM

Even if the definition of 'militia' is a group of people who like to eat marshmallow peeps with rum&coke in the nude by the pale winter moonlight, the subject and predicate of the amendment is unchanged.

How about this (http://www.libertybelles.org/news/englishusage.htm)?

A well schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

If the above sentence were the 2nd & half amendment, would the right to keep and read books only be limited to registered voters (electorate)?

I think the rights granted in the Second Amendment can not be limited. Therefore, I think it would be unconstitutional to enact any legislation that limited the rights of citizens to possess firearms designed and manufactured before 1791.

All other firearms manufactured after this year should be regulated. I think that solves a lot of issues. :D

Frohickey

Apr 13, 2004, 05:40 PM

I think the rights granted in the Second Amendment can not be limited. Therefore, I think it would be unconstitutional to enact any legislation that limited the rights of citizens to possess firearms designed and manufactured before 1791.

All other firearms manufactured after this year should be regulated. I think that solves a lot of issues. :D

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I guess that means that Congress can make laws against religions that were started after 1791. Also, speech using television, radio, electric bullhorns, speakers can be regulated too. Printed materials using typewriters, computers, transmitted via the internet, etc can also be restricted. Only religions that were started prior to 1791, speech via 1791-era methods, and books/pamphlets produced with 1791-era methods are protected. :D

IJ Reilly

Apr 13, 2004, 05:49 PM

Actually it depends on what the definition of 'militia' is.

Actually, it depends on what the Supreme Court says it means, a subtlety of our system of government that escapes some. Anyway, I hardly needed my point proven, but it was, yet again.

Frohickey

Apr 13, 2004, 06:01 PM

Actually, it depends on what the Supreme Court says it means, a subtlety of our system of government that escapes some. Anyway, I hardly needed my point proven, but it was, yet again.

Wrong. Militia (http://www.webleyweb.com/klh/militia1.html) is defined by Congress.

After the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the first Militia act was signed into law in 1792. Since then, the Militia act has been refined over the years, and the original definition of militia has been expanded to include women, it has never been contracted to exclude people.

Thanatoast

Apr 13, 2004, 06:55 PM

okay, IJ, i went back and re-read, and i think you may have a point.

dictionary.com says;

adj: often Right Of

which i think is what you're reffering to

it also says:

n: Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature

which is what i'm reffering to. you're speaking of constitutional rights, and i'm speaking more along the line of natural rights. so far, that's as close as i can come to you on the subject, but i have no problem continuing to nit-pick :)

IJ Reilly

Apr 13, 2004, 07:40 PM

okay, IJ, i went back and re-read, and i think you may have a point.

Hey, I'll take it!

Just so you know I didn't invent this concept all on my own, here's terrific book on this subject, "Rights Talk" by Mary Ann Glendon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029118239/qid=1081902968/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2729877-2413516?v=glance&s=books

Very highly recommended. Very.

Frohickey

Apr 13, 2004, 08:22 PM

Hey, I'll take it!

Just so you know I didn't invent this concept all on my own, here's terrific book on this subject, "Rights Talk" by Mary Ann Glendon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029118239/qid=1081902968/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2729877-2413516?v=glance&s=books

Very highly recommended. Very.

You mean...

"Too many people are only willing to to defend rights that are personally important to them. It's selfish ignorance, and it's exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people. Freedom does not mean freedom just for the things *I* think I should be able to do. Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other's people's rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own." - Tony Lawrence

A similar one is...

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
*** because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
*** because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
*** because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
*** because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
*** and there was no one left to speak out for me.

SlyHunter

Apr 13, 2004, 09:11 PM

That 1% is all it takes to ruin something for everyone. Should we repeal anti-drunk-driving laws because 99% of people drink responsibly? I suppose you'd be OK with the judicial process happening in secret since 99% of judges are good, honest people? No need for internal affairs investigators in police departments, 99% of cops are good guys, right?
Wrong way to ask that question.
Proper way I believe is should we outlaw Cars because 1% of drivers drive drunk?
Should we outlaw the court system because 1% of judges are bad?
Should we outlaw law enforcement because 1% of Cops are dirty?

The back to the original question should we outlaw guns because 1% of them are used to cause murder, robery or other crimes?

Thats assuming 1% is the correct %.
Also big difference between what a gun can do and what a nuclear weapon can do. Some risks we can take in the name of freedom, others we can't.

SlyHunter

Apr 13, 2004, 09:16 PM

Frohickey

Apr 13, 2004, 09:51 PM

I think the original intent was so that the citizens could forcably remove a corrupt government if and when its called for and knowing that then the government would be less likely to be corrupt. Problem is I doubt the founding fathers envisioned tanks.

Maybe not, but there were field artillery pieces around that time. The colonials privately owned field artillery pieces as well (http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html). Some of these are land-based, some are ship-based units.

It should be noted here that this includes ANY armor and/or weapons that are currently being used by the "standing army" [our current military], as you must* remember that the Continentals of the Revolutionary War NOT only had the same smooth bore muskets and cannon as the British regulars, but also had rifled muskets, pistols, rifles and carbines which were far superior.* What they lacked most, was a reliable source of ammunition [powder, ball, and flints]. (http://users.erols.com/muggsy/Amendment2Brief)

Now, a tank is not that useful, IMHO. Sure, if you are trying to make sure that you have a counterbalance to a corrupt government, a tank would be helpful for the people seeking to overthrow it. But a tank requires a lot of infrastructure with which to field properly. Besides, military tank driver stooges of a corrupt government needing to be overthrow have to come out to pee sometime. :eek:

I tend to believe though, that a government that cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms of its citizenry is also a government that would never dream of of trampling on the rights of its citizens. Imagine, a President John Doe, trying to make himself King, knowing full well that the citizenry is armed, is against the idea of a monarchy. Every time King John makes an appearance, he doesn't know how many sniper rifles are aimed at him. And it only requires 1 to hit.

I end this post with a neat quote, from a recent 2nd Amendment case, written by a judge, no less.

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees," Kozinski wrote.

"However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake free people get to make only once."