View Full Version : do you think Obama will be able to seat a judge?
freshstart
5-11-16, 9:59pm
this has me very concerned and I believe ethically Obama's nomination should be seriously considered. What do you think?
People should do their jobs.
Williamsmith
5-11-16, 10:08pm
I am in favor of term limits for Supreme Court judges. In this case, I am in favor of an up or down vote. It is not fair to the candidate to stonewall. But this is one reason Trump exists. Tired of the DC bullcrap.
I am in favor of term limits for Supreme Court judges.
I agree. It should be a long term, 10 or 12 years. But I'm pretty sure the founders, writing when the average life expectancy was in the high 30s, expected that we'd be seeing the same people on the court for more than three decades.
Come to think of it, I don't think the founders were anticipating assault rifles when they wrote the second amendment. But that's another discussion.
I agree. It should be a long term, 10 or 12 years. But I'm pretty sure the founders, writing when the average life expectancy was in the high 30s, expected that we'd be seeing the same people on the court for more than three decades.
Come to think of it, I don't think the founders were anticipating assault rifles when they wrote the second amendment. But that's another discussion.
When they wrote the Second Amendment, they fully anticipated private civilian ownership of cannon-armed naval vessels, the strategic weaponry of the day, capable of reducing harbor cities to rubble.
As to term limits for Justices, I'd think a more sensible approach would be a mandatory retirement age.
When they wrote the Second Amendment, they fully anticipated private civilian ownership of cannon-armed naval vessels, the strategic weaponry of the day, capable of reducing harbor cities to rubble.
Just as with flintlock muskets, I have no objection to private individuals owning all the cannon-armed naval vessels they want.
Williamsmith
5-12-16, 11:39am
I agree. It should be a long term, 10 or 12 years. But I'm pretty sure the founders, writing when the average life expectancy was in the high 30s, expected that we'd be seeing the same people on the court for more than three decades.
Come to think of it, I don't think the founders were anticipating assault rifles when they wrote the second amendment. But that's another discussion.
The flintlock musket was their modern day assault rifle. So yeah, they did and they heartily encouraged everyone to have at least one if they could afford it.
freshstart
5-12-16, 3:37pm
As to term limits for Justices, I'd think a more sensible approach would be a mandatory retirement age.
agreed
freshstart
5-12-16, 3:39pm
I am in favor of term limits for Supreme Court judges. In this case, I am in favor of an up or down vote. It is not fair to the candidate to stonewall. But this is one reason Trump exists. Tired of the DC bullcrap.
you don't think Trump is pleased as punch that the GOP is doing this and he may be picking the next judge? if he's saying different, he's lying, this is exactly the kind of stunt I would expect him to pull if he were in any office.
The flintlock musket was their modern day assault rifle. So yeah, they did and they heartily encouraged everyone to have at least one if they could afford it.
I think this can only be settled with a duel. ;) Since they are equivalent, you can have a flintlock musket, and I get an assault rifle.
Williamsmith
5-12-16, 5:31pm
I think this can only be settled with a duel. ;) Since they are equivalent, you can have a flintlock musket, and I get an assault rifle.
You are on. As long as I get to shoot first.
ToomuchStuff
5-12-16, 7:11pm
Not by himself.
I never understood that argument about the Founders not foreseeing "assault weapons" as opposed to cute and cuddly flintlocks, and that that somehow should invalidate the Second Amendment. They didn't foresee any number of things that the Bill of Rights touches on, but that doesn't mean that government now has the right to interfere with the First Amendment because we have the internet now.
I never understood that argument about the Founders not foreseeing "assault weapons" as opposed to cute and cuddly flintlocks, and that that somehow should invalidate the Second Amendment.
I'm of the opinion that the Founders inability to forsee technological advancement in weapons has nothing to do with the issue. What they did forsee was the fairly unique for its time idea that all citizens have the right to a means of self-defense against tyranny. All attempts to define a well regulated militia and types of arms available at the time are simply efforts to ensure the right to those means of self-defense be taken away.
Ultralight
5-13-16, 9:10am
In the US it is as though everybody is a constitutional scholar and an expert on the history of the Founding Fathers.
In the US it is as though everybody is a constitutional scholar and an expert on the history of the Founding Fathers.
I think that's a good thing. That way, when some cult figure comes along promising to build walls or hand out $20 trillion in free goodies, there will be a solid core of people saying "you can't do that".
Ultralight
5-13-16, 9:20am
I think that's a good thing. That way, when some cult figure comes along promising to build walls or hand out $20 trillion in free goodies, there will be a solid core of people saying "you can't do that".
Or maybe they say "you can do that!"
It depends on their interpretation of the FF and the C.
Or maybe they say "you can do that!"
It depends on their interpretation of the FF and the C.
For the most part, the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights is heavier on the "shall nots" for government and enumerating the powers it does have in order to keep it from inventing new ones.
That is a good thing, because it forces all those would-be national saviors, peoples' tribunes and philosopher-kings out there from getting too creative in swapping individual liberty for whatever gimcracks they happen to be selling.
Ultralight
5-13-16, 9:35am
Like I said, everyone is an expert. ;)
Like I said, everyone is an expert. ;)
"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."
You don't need a degree from Harvard Law to understand and apply the above as written. It would be more useful to have one if you're looking for loopholes, penumbrae and jiggery-pokery reinterpretations aimed at convincing the gullible that it doesn't really mean what it says.
Ultralight
5-13-16, 10:05am
"In god we trust."
"In god we trust."
Personally, I would take that off the currency for the same reason I object to government interfering with religious practices or institutions "for the common good".
Ultralight
5-13-16, 11:16am
Unexpected response. :)
Though that is refreshing to see from a right-winger.
Expect the unexpected from LDAHL!
Unexpected response. :)
Though that is refreshing to see from a right-winger.
Expect the unexpected from LDAHL!
As I said, conservatives argue that the Constitution means what it says. There is very little government can do to add to or detract from eternal truths. As a religious believer, I also object to the association of God with anything as morally questionable as American monetary and fiscal policy.
I agree that religious observance belongs in the private sphere. My concern is over the the accelerating efforts of the public sphere to intrude on the private.
ApatheticNoMore
5-13-16, 11:59am
I tend to ignore talk of the Constitution at this point, not because I think it's a bad idea even in the present (not that one might not improve it by learning from more recent constitutions that other countries have adopted), but because I think it doesn't have much to do with the present U.S. (again not normatively, as in whether it should or not, but actually).
Or more specifically the Bill of Rights has little to do with the present U.S. when we have indefinite detention without trial (The NDAA stuff), the NSA, free speech zones, etc. etc. - one could go on. Although other parts of the Constitution are also pretty irrelevant, wasn't Congress supposed to declare war?
I have a certain type of mind I guess that tends to blank out if there's too much noise in the data as it were - or basically when the rules are broken and made exception to as much as they are followed, I tend to conclude that the rules are actually fairly meaningless and likely self-serving, even if it could be worse if they were ignored even more. At a certain point of this exception to the rules and that exception to the rules, those rules are not valid for evaluating anything that actually exists anymore, add one more epicycle, it doesn't work anymore.
In the US it is as though everybody is a constitutional scholar and an expert on the history of the Founding Fathers.
Like Obama :laff: Nah I'm not an expert on much - first off I'm not a lawyer. But I did choose to do a few term papers on the Constitution in high school and so on :laff:
I tend to ignore talk of the Constitution at this point, not because I think it's a bad idea even in the present (not that one might not improve it by learning from more recent constitutions that other countries have adopted), but because I think it doesn't have much to do with the present U.S. (again not normatively, as in whether it should or not, but actually).
It seems we live in an era where limitations on the power of government and exaltation of the rights of individuals is simply too passé to be of concern.
It seems we live in an era where limitations on the power of government and exaltation of the rights of individuals is simply too passé to be of concern.
As so often before, I'm inclined to agree with you.
If people do unconstitutional things, it's not the fault of the Constitution.
ApatheticNoMore
5-13-16, 12:19pm
It seems we live in an era where limitations on the power of government and exaltation of the rights of individuals is simply too passé to be of concern.
it simply too at odds with describing reality to pretend it is useful to describing present reality in my estimation, though this is a large generalization from many instances where it is applied that I might not see or many where it is not that I might not see (again I am not intimately involved with all that). But the exceptions are just too glaring (NDAA come on ... at this point we have secret laws and secret interpretations of secret laws, and secret executive orders etc.) to pretend the U.S. government is bound by the Constitution.
In my view a statement that starts in reality would start: "while it is true the U.S. is largely post-constitutional ..." (if it ever was, but I think it was moreso say before 9-11) ... rather than "the U.S. is a constitutional Republic ..."
Williamsmith
5-13-16, 12:57pm
Well, if Clinton gets to seat a Supreme Court Justice or two or my God....three........the only remembrance you'll have of the Constitution is some faded parchment kids on a field trip will see under glass at the Smithsonian. And the teacher will comment, "And this is the First draft of the Constitution, an outmoded, inapplicable, grouping of tired ideas that a collection of rich white slave holders invented to establish a crude form of small government hundreds of years ago. Today we have adopted an enlightened approach."
I'd be much more fearful of a "conservative" justice who wanted to impose theocracy on us, personally. It seems the single biggest challenge to the Constitution is our eroding (vanished) rights to privacy, a speedy trial, free speech...all those fripperies Republicans seem to run rough shod over.
I'd be much more fearful of a "conservative" justice who wanted to impose theocracy on us, personally. It seems the single biggest challenge to the Constitution is our eroding (vanished) rights to privacy, a speedy trial, free speech...all those fripperies Republicans seem to run rough shod over.
Rights don't come from God, or from pieces of parchment, or from courtrooms full of political animals.
In the final analysis, you only have those rights you are willing to fight for. And by "fight" I mean "impose your will on others through force."
People tend to forget this now-and-then.
freshstart
5-13-16, 7:15pm
I'd be much more fearful of a "conservative" justice who wanted to impose theocracy on us, personally. It seems the single biggest challenge to the Constitution is our eroding (vanished) rights to privacy, a speedy trial, free speech...all those fripperies Republicans seem to run rough shod over.
I'm with you
Rights don't come from God, or from pieces of parchment, or from courtrooms full of political animals.
In the final analysis, you only have those rights you are willing to fight for. And by "fight" I mean "impose your will on others through force."
People tend to forget this now-and-then.
That's the pre- enlightenment view of rights. It only applies when respect for law crumbles.
I'd be much more fearful of a "conservative" justice who wanted to impose theocracy on us, personally. It seems the single biggest challenge to the Constitution is our eroding (vanished) rights to privacy, a speedy trial, free speech...all those fripperies Republicans seem to run rough shod over.
Where are these terrible theocrats? How have they imposed their backward thinking on same sex marriage or the great bathroom kerfuffle?
Where are these terrible theocrats? How have they imposed their backward thinking on same sex marriage or the great bathroom kerfuffle?
A few of them sit (sat) on the Supreme Court. Others are in Congress. Fortunately, they don't yet have the numbers to do much damage. Except on a state level.
That's the pre- enlightenment view of rights. It only applies when respect for law crumbles.
Thus my use of the phrasing "in the final analysis".
All is reasonably good as long as people respect the fiction of rule-of-law. But historically this is not a stable state, and sometimes the simplest failures of the system almost overnight unveil the fact that we are the planet's apex predators, and seem to have evolved to function in much smaller groups than we live in today...
Remember how lovely Sarajevo was for the 1984 Winter Olympics?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/1984_Winter_Olympics_opening_ceremony_at_Ko%C5%A1e vo_Stadium,_Sarajevo.jpg/800px-1984_Winter_Olympics_opening_ceremony_at_Ko%C5%A1e vo_Stadium,_Sarajevo.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KcC3uIF.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Sarajevo_Grbavica.JPG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Sarajevo_19.3.1996_war.JPG
A few of them sit (sat) on the Supreme Court. Others are in Congress. Fortunately, they don't yet have the numbers to do much damage. Except on a state level.
Well, then thank goodness we have a Bathroom Monitor-in-Chief to rein them in.
Well, then thank goodness we have a Bathroom Monitor-in-Chief to rein them in.
That is priceless! Ok, now I have had a really good laugh for the day. Thanks!
In the US it is as though everybody is a constitutional scholar and an expert on the history of the Founding Fathers.
Well, everybody EXCEPT President Obama, who happens to BE a constitutional scholar.>8)
I think that's a good thing. That way, when some cult figure comes along promising to build walls or hand out $20 trillion in free goodies, there will be a solid core of people saying "you can't do that".
Humm...so who are you gonna shoot? Which government official are you going to shoot? Are you and Alan going to storm congress? with your guns? Hows that gonna work for you? When are you ever going to fight this so called 'tyranny' with your guns? Whose blood, exactly, are you going to use to 'water the tree of liberty'?
You know, that old 'defending ourselves from tyranny' argument used to increase guns everywhere anywhere any time is kind of silly when you actually take just a few minutes to think about it.
No matter how much you disagree with the politics of the moment, or hate the politicians or think we are going to hell in a handbasket, you will never storm Washington with your gun. You will never fight your imaginary tyranny, or shoot your way to some new and glorious ideology. You would be dead, or in prison for life. But probably dead. And so will any of your friends who follow you, or any army of freedom fry loving patriots who only collect an arsenal of weapons to protect 'us' from tyranny...really really.:moon:
My new ERG came out recently. The required HAZMAT Technician/Operator training I am subjected to is pretty much a graduate-level course in doing unpleasant things with everyday objects. Guns are for personal defense, for really going to war there are far more efficient methods...
http://www.jjkeller.com/wcsstore/CVCatalogAssetStore/images/global/press-room/2016ERG_hi-res.jpg
Ultralight
5-17-16, 4:54pm
Let us be careful what we write on here. Big Brother is watching.
Now, I would not say anything bad, but I also would not want this place under undue scrutiny.
Let us be careful what we write on here. Big Brother is watching.
Now, I would not say anything bad, but I also would not want this place under undue scrutiny.
Homeland Security/FEMA/DOT sort of require that level of training of tens of thousands of us, and there are whole sections in the book devoted to the subject, so we know what to do when we come across Bad Things left by Bad People, or just simple Bad Accidents. It's not a secret.
Look at how the wars in Afghanistan/Iraq/... changed from morons with guns shooting at the most overtrained/overequipped troops on Earth to not-as-moronic people with AEDs and other such things.
There's a whole literature on the field, and after decades of war we now have how many hundreds of thousands of returning vets with skills in this arena?
Humm...so who are you gonna shoot? Which government official are you going to shoot? Are you and Alan going to storm congress? with your guns? Hows that gonna work for you? When are you ever going to fight this so called 'tyranny' with your guns? Whose blood, exactly, are you going to use to 'water the tree of liberty'?
Oh don't be silly. You're describing a leftist response to hurt feelings, not a principled response to an over-reaching government. When the American political version of Hitler/Chairman Mao/Stalin/Kim Yong-un or Castro and his henchman Che Guevara send their death squads for you, the founders were wise enough to guarantee you the right to a means of self defense, as well as the right to a means of offense when they arrive in your neighborhood.
Why would you want to take that away?
Just yesterday, as part of the American Radio Relay League's "National Parks On The Air" year-long event ( https://npota.arrl.org/ ) I spoke to an elderly fellow operating from the Manzanar National Historic Site. He had been "interned" there as a boy, though he was a US citizen.
You remember the Japanese "internment", right?
Concentration camps, holding ~120,000 people, 2/3 of whom were US citizens? Within living memory?
Never again.
Just yesterday, as part of the American Radio Relay League's "National Parks On The Air" year-long event ( https://npota.arrl.org/ ) I spoke to an elderly fellow operating from the Manzanar National Historic Site. He had been "interned" there as a boy, though he was a US citizen.
You remember the Japanese "internment", right?
Concentration camps, holding ~120,000 people, 2/3 of whom were US citizens? Within living memory?
Never again.
And if they had stood up to the government, it would have been "proof" of their sedition. It might have ended like The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising did.
And if they had stood up to the government, it would have been "proof" of their sedition. It might have ended like The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising did.
The '43 Warsaw uprising occupied some German resources that would have been better spent elsewhere at that time in the war, and planted the seeds for the '44 Wasraw uprising, which similarly distracted the Germans. Probably better than just stepping into the cattle cars and heading off to be slaughtered.
Hopefully we have learned from our misbehavior during WWII, and when they come to round up our fellow citizens, we will speak out, and if necessary resist their removal.
Never. Again.
Hopefully we have learned from our misbehavior during WWII, and when they come to round up our fellow citizens, we will speak out, and if necessary resist their removal.
Never. Again.
I wish I shared your optimism. And I hope that we don't have to find out one way or the other during the next presidential administration.
Yeah--I'm not optimistic about human nature. The basest impulses (self-preservation) usually apply. And that's one of the better ones.
Well, if Clinton gets to seat a Supreme Court Justice or two or my God....three........the only remembrance you'll have of the Constitution is some faded parchment kids on a field trip will see under glass at the Smithsonian. And the teacher will comment, "And this is the First draft of the Constitution, an outmoded, inapplicable, grouping of tired ideas that a collection of rich white slave holders invented to establish a crude form of small government hundreds of years ago. Today we have adopted an enlightened approach."
Hummm, really? Now who is it that refuses to do their CONSTITUTIONAL JOB? anyone? Bueller?
Oh don't be silly. You're describing a leftist response to hurt feelings, not a principled response to an over-reaching government. When the American political version of Hitler/Chairman Mao/Stalin/Kim Yong-un or Castro and his henchman Che Guevara send their death squads for you, the founders were wise enough to guarantee you the right to a means of self defense, as well as the right to a means of offense when they arrive in your neighborhood.
Why would you want to take that away?
Well, here's your 'tyranny' Alan. Here's your 'patriot' who stands ready, gun cocked, evil doers in sight.
I'm guessing williamsmith has his own private arsenal at the ready to water that tree of liberty.
So who is in charge of deciding which politician/party is the tyrannical one? By what williamsmith says, Hillary is the anti-christ come back to destroy all that is good and holy and American. According to him, she will literally discard everything we hold dear and install, what? funny how we have been livin g under the threat of liberal destruction for quite some time now but...nothing!
Where is the Sharia law they were supposed to install? From where I sit it's only republicans who are trying to rule by religion. Deny women body autonomy, or loving adult couples to marry. Or actually control when and who can procreate by controlling birth control. But I guess that doesn't count since it's republicans doing it so it must be right.
Where are the swarms of liberals prying the guns from your hands? For a party that's been 'trying to take your guns' for 30 years, they really aren't very good at it.
Again Alan, who are you gonna shoot? I really want to know. Do you seriously believe swarms of government agents (under the orders of liberals I suppose) are coming to your neighborhood to round you up? If Williamsmith truly believes what he says, do you think he should storm Washington? Isn't that what a good patriot would do?
I never said I wanted to take everyone's guns away, although if I were in charge I'd seriously consider it. But I'm not in charge, and that's probably one of the reasons why. And for the record, no democratic leader has expressed any wish to take everyone's guns away either. I know you keep saying that but it's just not true. Actually, it's a lie, perpetuated by the right, and you. A lie.
It's also a lie that the reason all the gun nuts out there are arming themselves to the teeth is to 'defend' themselves from a tyrannical government. That's a lie told by those who know better to manipulate the gullible. But just remember, those gullible, ignorant 'patriots' are armed to the teeth and easily manipulated (the reason the right loves them) and can just as easily turn their guns on the puppet masters. Trump has proven that.
The '43 Warsaw uprising occupied some German resources that would have been better spent elsewhere at that time in the war, and planted the seeds for the '44 Wasraw uprising, which similarly distracted the Germans. Probably better than just stepping into the cattle cars and heading off to be slaughtered.
Hopefully we have learned from our misbehavior during WWII, and when they come to round up our fellow citizens, we will speak out, and if necessary resist their removal.
Never. Again.
Well then vote for Hillary, because Trump is the only one calling for rounding up citizens. And if he were President, appointing justices, he just might get away with it.
Williamsmith
5-17-16, 11:03pm
Peggy,
You are an entertaining gal for sure. Anytime I read your posts I can be guarenteed a laugh or two. There is not a blood thirsty maniac patriot hiding in every bush ready to overthrow the government.
I'm pretty sure Alan spent a good chunk of his life in the military always prepared to sacrifice his life for your Liberty. I spent 25 years in law enforcement carrying a firearm and the responsibility to lay down my life for you rather than swerve from the path of duty. If you ever travelled through Pennsylvania I might have been there to protect your safety. Without good people with arms, bad people would have an easy time victimizing the unarmed.
I havent carried a firearm regularly since I retired. I know the responsibility involved. I don't like the way you stereotype firearms owners as if they are ignorant, hillbillys waiting to be led against the government. I own 18 firearms. One my grandfather used to shoot rabbits during the depression to feed his family. The rest are either deer, turkey or small game hunting tools or handguns I used on duty that have special significance to me. A few are primitive flintlock muzzleloaders.
In the course of my career, I have had to rely on my firearm to keep me alive and I have had to take life. I have seen my fellow officers shot down, I have seen plenty of citizens slaughtered, intentionally and accidentally. I have seen one of my own family members killed. No one knows the seriousness of the misuse of firearms more than I do and no one has been more professional in their possession and use than I have. So redirect your rants to someone who will put up with it.
Well then vote for Hillary, because Trump is the only one calling for rounding up citizens. And if he were President, appointing justices, he just might get away with it.
I'm not keen on voting for either the machine politician or the reality-TV star this election, but thanks,
Humm...so who are you gonna shoot? Which government official are you going to shoot? Are you and Alan going to storm congress? with your guns? Hows that gonna work for you? When are you ever going to fight this so called 'tyranny' with your guns? Whose blood, exactly, are you going to use to 'water the tree of liberty'?
You know, that old 'defending ourselves from tyranny' argument used to increase guns everywhere anywhere any time is kind of silly when you actually take just a few minutes to think about it.
No matter how much you disagree with the politics of the moment, or hate the politicians or think we are going to hell in a handbasket, you will never storm Washington with your gun. You will never fight your imaginary tyranny, or shoot your way to some new and glorious ideology. You would be dead, or in prison for life. But probably dead. And so will any of your friends who follow you, or any army of freedom fry loving patriots who only collect an arsenal of weapons to protect 'us' from tyranny...really really.:moon:
Nothing so lurid as that. I was referring as the rule of law. Such as we've seen in recent ACA cases thwarting Administration efforts to misappropriate funds and force an order of nuns to "accommodate" to practices they want no part of. We have a constitutional system of checks on power to prevent the need for the violence you're imagining.
Hummm, really? Now who is it that refuses to do their CONSTITUTIONAL JOB? anyone? Bueller?
Well, here's your 'tyranny' Alan. Here's your 'patriot' who stands ready, gun cocked, evil doers in sight.
I'm guessing williamsmith has his own private arsenal at the ready to water that tree of liberty.
So who is in charge of deciding which politician/party is the tyrannical one? By what williamsmith says, Hillary is the anti-christ come back to destroy all that is good and holy and American. According to him, she will literally discard everything we hold dear and install, what? funny how we have been livin g under the threat of liberal destruction for quite some time now but...nothing!
Where is the Sharia law they were supposed to install? From where I sit it's only republicans who are trying to rule by religion. Deny women body autonomy, or loving adult couples to marry. Or actually control when and who can procreate by controlling birth control. But I guess that doesn't count since it's republicans doing it so it must be right.
I think I see part of the problem now, you're insistent on only seeing part of each issue. No one wants to deny women body autonomy, when there are two lives involved that body is not autonomous. We are not concerned with the lives of loving adult couples, the concern was in changing the definition of marriage, and no one wants to control when and who can procreate by controlling birth control, the issue only comes up when the government decrees that others must violate their religious principles by being forced to provide it to others. If you wanted to start another thread, I'd be happy to discuss all sides of those issues with you.
Where are the swarms of liberals prying the guns from your hands? For a party that's been 'trying to take your guns' for 30 years, they really aren't very good at it.
Yes, it's difficult to overcome the Constitution, although I give your side props for trying as hard as you do.
Again Alan, who are you gonna shoot? I really want to know. Do you seriously believe swarms of government agents (under the orders of liberals I suppose) are coming to your neighborhood to round you up?
History tells us it's happened lots of times. Again, why do you insist on diminishing your own right to stand against it?
Autonomy is defined as independence or free will, a characteristic that by definition doesn't apply to clumps of human cells. It's clear that pro-forced birthers do aim to abridge women's right to control their own reproduction. In other words, what goes on inside another person's body is nobody's business but theirs.
And one of the stated goals of the far-right political fringe is to do away with many forms of birth control, as well. The Handmaid's Tale, anyone?
Jane, I agree. The Handmaid's Tale was the scariest book I've ever read...I think of it every time I use the ATM machine! Someday my card will be swallowed.
QUOTE=Williamsmith;241406]Peggy,
You are an entertaining gal for sure. Anytime I read your posts I can be guarenteed a laugh or two. There is not a blood thirsty maniac patriot hiding in every bush ready to overthrow the government.
I'm pretty sure Alan spent a good chunk of his life in the military always prepared to sacrifice his life for your Liberty. I spent 25 years in law enforcement carrying a firearm and the responsibility to lay down my life for you rather than swerve from the path of duty. If you ever travelled through Pennsylvania I might have been there to protect your safety. Without good people with arms, bad people would have an easy time victimizing the unarmed.
I havent carried a firearm regularly since I retired. I know the responsibility involved. I don't like the way you stereotype firearms owners as if they are ignorant, hillbillys waiting to be led against the government. I own 18 firearms. One my grandfather used to shoot rabbits during the depression to feed his family. The rest are either deer, turkey or small game hunting tools or handguns I used on duty that have special significance to me. A few are primitive flintlock muzzleloaders.
In the course of my career, I have had to rely on my firearm to keep me alive and I have had to take life. I have seen my fellow officers shot down, I have seen plenty of citizens slaughtered, intentionally and accidentally. I have seen one of my own family members killed. No one knows the seriousness of the misuse of firearms more than I do and no one has been more professional in their possession and use than I have. So redirect your rants to someone who will put up with it.[/QUOTE]
Williamsmith, I have no problem with you or other reasonable people having guns. the many scenarios you lay out are certainly legitimate. By the way, not sure if Alan spent 'many' years in the military. Maybe one tour but I don't think he was a career military. On the other hand, my husband did spend 30 years in the military so you can't play that 'defending YOUR freedom' card with me.
*And just so you know, the military hasn't actually defended the freedom of US citizens in a couple of generations, so that doesn't fly either. They are defending no-bid contracts and oil. Lets be honest about it.
But, the ones I have question with are the so called patriots who keep insisting they need an arsenal to fight off government tyranny. Surely you must know that as a cop YOU were a part of that tyranny they're talking about. You and federal agents and BLM and regulators and pretty much anyone else who doesn't fit into their libertarian-but-only-after-I-get-mine world view. That's who I direct my questions to. And after listening to this rhetoric for far too long i just wanna know. Which government representative or which state house or which hall of evil in Washington are they planning to storm? Who are they gonna shoot with their arsenal of guns they keep just to fight tyranny?
Let's be honest here. These guys only want to walk around armed everywhere simply because they think it makes them bad-ass or important or they harbor some hero fantasy where they swoop in and save the day. I am just sick to death of this 'watering the tree of liberty' BS. hat's not what it's about and it never was. And if anyone actually really believes it, well that's the person I really don't want to have guns, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. Again, you and your fellow cops are/were the target of these patriots who believe the BS that many on the right feed them only to get them spun up to vote a certain way.
They feed them this crap over and over and over then act surprised when one of these guys goes off and shoots someone.
And these guys are armed. Well armed. And the right is feeding into that too because, reasons..(mainly it's a wedge issue used to spin them up) And the rest of us have to suffer the consequences.
Tell me, as a former cop, do you really like the idea of guns everywhere? Average, or actually below average in many cases, people walking around armed? In grocery stores? Churches? Schools? Bars? Malls? Does it really help the cops to have all these armed Rambos at the ready?
And the ones who believe they must be armed at all times are usually the very ones who should never be within spitting distance of a gun.
* I only directed some comments to you because of the rhetoric you used to describe what would happen if Clinton were elected. I'm pretty sure you were just talking, exaggerating for effect. But that's how it happens. That's the same rhetoric the right uses to get people spun up, and some believe it. Way more than is comfortable to imagine. Look at a Donald Trump rally. Or a Sarah Palin rally. Or a Glen Beck, or Rush Limbaugh or Fox News crowd. And they are armed.
1. Liberals, Hillary, Obama, etc...are literally destroying your country. They hate you, love terrorist, kill babies, and will destroy everything that is good and holy and American.
2. You have the right to be armed to the teeth and carry your gun everywhere you go in order to be at the ready to fight government tyranny.
Now, who knows how to do math?
Ultralight
5-18-16, 11:30am
The Handmaid's Tale Utopia in right-wing circles.
Nothing so lurid as that. I was referring as the rule of law. Such as we've seen in recent ACA cases thwarting Administration efforts to misappropriate funds and force an order of nuns to "accommodate" to practices they want no part of. We have a constitutional system of checks on power to prevent the need for the violence you're imagining.
Gee, I didn't realize filling out forms was against religious practice! LOL See, here's the 'rest of the story'. They weren't being 'forced' to do anything. They wanted to be out of the loop in regards to birth control. Fine, the ACA allows for this Special Privilege to US labor laws (just for religion...imagine that). But, in order for their employees to get full health coverage, as they deserve, the nuns needed to fill out a paper saying they were taking advantage of this Special Privilege. That's all they needed to do and they could wash their hands of responsible family planning.
But no. That wasn't enough for these caring, compassionate ladies. They didn't want their employees to have access to it, period. They in fact wanted to control these ladies lives, at work and in their homes/bedrooms. They wanted to 'own' them, so to speak.
So, they were the ones who were trying to force an agenda.
But, they still managed to do it without guns.
So, tell me again about watering the tree of liberty?
*It's way past time to do away with tax exempt status for religion.
By the way, not sure if Alan spent 'many' years in the military. Maybe one tour but I don't think he was a career military. On the other hand, my husband did spend 30 years in the military so you can't play that 'defending YOUR freedom' card with me.
No, not many years in the military, but many years armed. Four years as a law enforcement specialist in the Air Force, two years as a police officer in Alaska and twenty seven years in corporate security specializing in executive/dignitary protection. That's 33 years of carrying a weapon each and every day including hundreds (or more) protection details involving persons of note including celebrities, garden variety politicians and several Presidents. In 2003, I was also called to testify for the Plaintiff in a court case which directly led to the State of Ohio's requirement to change the way county Sheriff's issued carry permits from 'may issue' to 'shall issue' as well as nullifying the state law requiring all persons found to be in possession of a concealed weapon, regardless of circumstance, be arrested and provide an affirmative defense less they risk criminal prosecution. You might say I know a little bit about the subject.
I think I see part of the problem now, you're insistent on only seeing part of each issue. No one wants to deny women body autonomy, when there are two lives involved that body is not autonomous. We are not concerned with the lives of loving adult couples, the concern was in changing the definition of marriage, and no one wants to control when and who can procreate by controlling birth control, the issue only comes up when the government decrees that others must violate their religious principles by being forced to provide it to others. If you wanted to start another thread, I'd be happy to discuss all sides of those issues with you.
Yes, it's difficult to overcome the Constitution, although I give your side props for trying as hard as you do.
History tells us it's happened lots of times. Again, why do you insist on diminishing your own right to stand against it?
Oh, I see the problem. You're a man who knows you will never have to be forced to 'share' your body with anyone else.
(sigh) This is an old argument, but one with a pretty simple answer...if you're willing to be honest.
One body, two entities. One a fully functioning, independently living breathing owner of the body, the other a parasite incapable of independent life, non breathing, non functioning. Who gets to rule the body? The owner does not want to share. Who has a say in that?
and, another question.
A man and woman have a one night stand. She gets pregnant, doesn't tell him. Ten years later, the kid needs a kidney and the father is the only match. Question...Should the State be able to legally force this guy to donate his kidney? Should the state be able to legally force you to donate blood? or tissue? or bone marrow?
Whose definition of marriage? The constitution doesn't define marriage. The bible? I don't think so. Your definition? Sorry, many have a different one. The dictionary? Well, the dictionary changes all the time. History? 'Cause everything is the way it was a hundred years ago or 500 years ago or 1000 years ago? And is it really about 'the definition of marriage', or is it more about those icky gays and what they do in their bedrooms. Yeah, you are trying to control them. Really.
Whose definition? I'd really like to know. Tell us this and then we can start our discussion.
Here you go again...no one was trying to make those nuns do anything 'against' their religion, unless filling out paper work is against their religion. They are employers, they have employees. In the US. Those employees deserve the protections and perks of being US citizens working in the US. The nuns were offered Special Privilege in this matter and all they needed to do was fill out a paper declaring that they were taking advantage of this Special Privilege so their employees could still get the coverage they deserve...being US citizens in the US, and presumably still having sex and wanting to control when they have a family. The nuns weren't satisfied with that. They wanted total control over their workers lives.
No, democrats have not tried to take away your guns. Please provide evidence of this...and some blogger from Jersey doesn't count.
And yes, I am fighting against tyranny. That's why I'm voting blue no matter who. From where I sit, it's only republicans who are trying to take away my rights or control my body. Or reform the government in their biblical view.
And yes, I am fighting against tyranny. That's why I'm voting blue no matter who. From where I sit, it's only republicans who are trying to take away my rights or control my body. Or reform the government in their biblical view.LOL, Peggy you know I've always admired the way you can consistently see only what you want to see and justify your narrow view on any issue of interest in no less than 500 words per post. You Rock!
Gee, I didn't realize filling out forms was against religious practice! LOL See, here's the 'rest of the story'. They weren't being 'forced' to do anything. They wanted to be out of the loop in regards to birth control. Fine, the ACA allows for this Special Privilege to US labor laws (just for religion...imagine that). But, in order for their employees to get full health coverage, as they deserve, the nuns needed to fill out a paper saying they were taking advantage of this Special Privilege. That's all they needed to do and they could wash their hands of responsible family planning.
But no. That wasn't enough for these caring, compassionate ladies. They didn't want their employees to have access to it, period. They in fact wanted to control these ladies lives, at work and in their homes/bedrooms. They wanted to 'own' them, so to speak.
So, they were the ones who were trying to force an agenda.
But, they still managed to do it without guns.
So, tell me again about watering the tree of liberty?
*It's way past time to do away with tax exempt status for religion.
It was "fill out these forms so we have access to your plan to incorporate these things you find abhorrent" Not "OK we'll handle it outside your plan". The nun's held that this was not a reasonable accommodation, and the Court agreed that they should go back to the drawing board.
How this conjures up such bloody imagery in your mind is beyond me.
In 2003, I was also called to testify for the Plaintiff in a court case which directly led to the State of Ohio's requirement to change the way county Sheriff's issued carry permits from 'may issue' to 'shall issue' ....
humm...so let's see. If a baker baking a cake for a gay wedding is in fact his 'participation' in that wedding, doesn't this make you a participant in crimes committed by some of these people who are blanket issued gun permits? I'm just following the logic here...
humm...so let's see. If a baker baking a cake for a gay wedding is in fact his 'participation' in that wedding, doesn't this make you a participant in crimes committed by some of these people who are blanket issued gun permits? I'm just following the logic here...
I don't see the parallel. No one forced me to violate my beliefs in order to testify.
It was "fill out these forms so we have access to your plan to incorporate these things you find abhorrent" Not "OK we'll handle it outside your plan". The nun's held that this was not a reasonable accommodation, and the Court agreed that they should go back to the drawing board.
How this conjures up such bloody imagery in your mind is beyond me.
It is the health care plan they carry! They don't have to pay for the birth control rider, for heavens sake! But how else are these employees supposed to get this coverage? Are you really suggesting that not only do these nuns get special privilege to not carry what these folks need, but that the employees should have to go buy a second plan just for coverage? Wow! Does their belief in an imaginary friend really deserve all this special privilege? I don't think so.
They don't want to pay for birth control? Well I don't want to pay for religious special privilege. That's not patriotism. That's theocratic control.
Let them pay taxes. They should have to pay to play. The rest of us do.
I don't see the parallel. No one forced me to violate my beliefs in order to testify.
Violating your beliefs has nothing to do with it. It's only participation if you're forced to do it? (and why doesn't this outrage/reasoning apply to women who are 'forced' to participate in a pregnancy?) How does that work? Participation is participation. If selling a cake is participation in an event then selling a gun, or blanket issuing permits, is participation in crime committed with that gun.
*actually, participation should only be applied if you WILLINGLY participate. You're all about issuing guns to anyone so that really is the definition of participation.
LOL, Peggy you know I've always admired the way you can consistently see only what you want to see and justify your narrow view on any issue of interest in no less than 500 words per post. You Rock!
OK Alan, I'll take you link for link. You give evidence/links to where democratic leaders are trying to take away freedoms, any freedoms, or control your personal body, or relationships and I'll post the same for republican leaders. We can start our own thread on this. Let's see who is trying to take freedom or diss the constitution.
Wanna play? ;)
You're all about issuing guns to anyone so that really is the definition of participation.
No, I think everyone should own their own, as many as they like. No issuing of guns here.
OK Alan, I'll take you link for link. You give evidence/links to where democratic leaders are trying to take away freedoms, any freedoms, or control your personal body, or relationships and I'll post the same for republican leaders. We can start our own thread on this. Let's see who is trying to take freedom or diss the constitution.
Wanna play? ;)Sure, start a thread. Just know that I have an appointment soon and it may be later this evening before I can get to it.
Sure, start a thread. Just know that I have an appointment soon and it may be later this evening before I can get to it.
Actually i have things to get to as well, but we will do this.
Williamsmith
5-18-16, 1:25pm
Ding! Ding! Okay shake hands and come out fighting!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.