|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 350 of 406:
| 
Oct 31 12:18 UTC 2000 |
THANK YOU, MASKED MAN!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 351 of 406:
|
Oct 31 21:14 UTC 2000 |
Democrat vs Republican
A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and
spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me,
can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago,
but I don't know where I am."
The woman replied, "You are in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet
above the ground. You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and
between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."
"You must be a republican," said the balloonist.
"I am," replied the woman. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact
is I am still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far."
The woman below responded. "You must be a democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are or where you are going.
You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air.
You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to
solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you
were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."
|
ashke
|
|
response 352 of 406:
|
Oct 31 22:11 UTC 2000 |
Hm. I liked this better when it was about engineers and pointy haired bosses
|
scott
|
|
response 353 of 406:
|
Oct 31 22:35 UTC 2000 |
I liked it better when it was about Microsoft tech support.
|
janc
|
|
response 354 of 406:
|
Nov 1 06:12 UTC 2000 |
I can't agree that "rights exist before the law". Certainly the desire for
the right may exist before the right actually does, but nobody had a right
to free speech until they stood up and said "I've got a right to say what I
think and anyone who tries to stop me is going to get thunked with this club"
and flexed his or her muscles enough to make it stick. That's a law, in its
most basic form - a statement of policy backed by a crediable threat. From
there its just embellishment - get a gang of your buddies together and agree
to thunk anyone who keeps any of you from saying your piece.
Legal systems gain in stability if they serve the interests of more people.
There are lots of "rights" people would like to have, including such things
as "the right to kill anyone who pisses me off". But it is hard to grant such
a right to more than a few people in a society, and and everyone else tends
to get annoyed at those few and the legal system that supports them, leading
eventually to the overthrow of that system.
However, it was found that it was possible to grant certain possible rights
to nearly everyone. In many cases this is a fairly recent discovery (freedom
of speech, freedom of religion). It used to be thought that if you allowed
such things, they would undermine the central authority so much that it would
no longer be able to pose the credible threat needed to enforce any laws.
The debate over which rights can be allowed to people while still retaining
the ability to enforce them is constant and ongoing. The right to privacy
is typical. Can we allow citizens free access to encrypted communications
on the net without undermining our central authority's ability to monitor
things and enforce the law?
The right to bear arms has see-sawed back and forth historically. Largely
this is because of changes in the weapons technology and in the way military
forces are organized. The authors of the constitution though the right to
bear arms was important, but they thought the concept of militias was also
important. Militias are no longer a key part of how the government controls
force. Instead we have a standing professional army, something that our
founding fathers would have seen as a regretable reversion to the bad old
days and a threat to individual freedom. Such a standing army places too much
power in the hands of the central government.
We feel we need such an army because of the increasing complexity of weapons
systems, and the decreased "size" of the world, in which we can be threated
with immediate harm by nations on the other side of the planet. It's a more
dangerous world than it used to be.
In a world where the federal government has access to such force, the
meaningfulness of an individual right to bear arms as a method of insuring
freedom for all is much reduced. The right has receded in the face of a
perception that the government needs control of such great forces as to make
it irrelevant.
This will, of course, continue to change in the future. The balance of what
rights can be allowed to the citizenry, and what powers must be reserved for
the government is constantly shifting. That's good and healthy.
|
mdw
|
|
response 355 of 406:
|
Nov 1 08:37 UTC 2000 |
The need for a "professional" army became clear as early as the war of
1812. A more interesting question is why do we need to be the world's
police force and arms dealer?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 356 of 406:
|
Nov 1 12:33 UTC 2000 |
it's a living.
|
bru
|
|
response 357 of 406:
|
Nov 1 12:39 UTC 2000 |
The Constitution grants no rights, it merely states "certain" rights as
pre-existing and that the government has no right to ban those rights.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 358 of 406:
|
Nov 1 16:11 UTC 2000 |
Where does the Constitution state that some rights pre-exist?
|
jp2
|
|
response 359 of 406:
|
Nov 1 17:25 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 360 of 406:
|
Nov 1 19:10 UTC 2000 |
Bruce may be thinking of the phrase in the Declaration of Independence
which reads "[men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights.." Despite the reference to a "Creator", let's please not turn
this into another reeligion debate item..
|
gull
|
|
response 361 of 406:
|
Nov 1 19:52 UTC 2000 |
#360 hits it on the head. People who claim that the Bill of Rights provides
a description of rights that existed *before* it was written must be
assuming the rights come from a higher authority, probably God. I'm not
sure which passage in the Bible says we should stockpile guns for the
purpose of overthrowing a corrupt government, though. (In fact, there are
ones that seem to indicate otherwise. "Give to Ceaser what is Ceasar's,"
comes to mind.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 362 of 406:
|
Nov 1 20:13 UTC 2000 |
Re #359: I think you might mean "implied" in the 10th. But, no: the
amendment makes no references to any specific pre-existing "rights". It
refers only to "powers not delegated to the United States ... nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively,
or to the people." But that does not even imply anything about the concept
of their existing some prior rights that are inherent without being named.
It refers only to "powers" that might be appropriated following the
ratification of the Constitution.
|
md
|
|
response 363 of 406:
|
Nov 1 20:37 UTC 2000 |
"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."
(Jefferson) This idea was popular with the Founders, but I don't think
you need to posit the existence of a god to accept it. There is an
undeniable feeling that I can do anything at all unless someone else
stops me. That's the natural state, if you will, before social
organization. So we start with liberty limited only by the laws of
nature, and then start taking away -- by force, by mutual consent, by
governments and their laws. The shalt nots outnumber the shalts 7-3 in
the Ten Comandments. Government in its simplest (some say ideal) form
is the process of taking away rights, not granting them.
|
md
|
|
response 364 of 406:
|
Nov 1 20:38 UTC 2000 |
Sorry for the drift. I'm still voting for Nader as long as he's in the
race.
|
brighn
|
|
response 365 of 406:
|
Nov 1 20:54 UTC 2000 |
#360/361: The rights to bear arms isn't a Creator-given one, and the
Declaration doesn't have the force of law in this country. The unalienable
rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and possibly more),
which is one of the major foundations of the Libertarian Party (as well as
the Natural Law Party, I believe).
A Creator need not be conscious, and need not be a specific agent, although
Jefferson, Madison, et al, probably thought in those terms, so the religious
argument is moot (i.e., an atheist could also defend those inalienable rights
as "rights of birth").
|
mdw
|
|
response 366 of 406:
|
Nov 1 23:43 UTC 2000 |
The declaration of independence is just a piece of paper, and means
nothing under the law (except perhaps that it's a very *valuable* piece
of paper). A few years back, someone went around trying to get people
to sign the declaration of independence, and most people not only did
not recognize the principles enumerated therein, but thought it was some
sort of communist plot and refused to associate their john hancock with
the thing. Presumably, that means the declaration of independence
hasn't even the force of customary law.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 367 of 406:
|
Nov 2 00:51 UTC 2000 |
Re #363: people talked like that in those days. It wasn't long before
that the three branches of power in a nation were the Royalty, the
Military and the Church. Jefferson helped remove the last from our
government, but couldn't very well change the way he was brought up.
|
bru
|
|
response 368 of 406:
|
Nov 2 13:31 UTC 2000 |
Re #366
Kind of a sad comentary on our education system if people don't even recognize
the Declaration of Independence.
the Bill of Rights grants no rights, it merely tells the state(government)
what it cannot do.
Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion...
...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered...
...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital...unless, on presentment of
indictment or of a Grand Jury...
...the accused shall have a right to a speedy and public trial...
...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved...
excessive bail shall not be required...
IX The enumertation in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparrage others retained by the people.
right here in plain English it says the "Enumeration" of "certain rights":
This was not a document to grant people rights, it only "listed" certain
rights. It does not deny nor disparrage "others retained by the people".
X Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectivly, or
to the people.
So powers not delegated to the US or to my state, are also mine to use.
(whatever they may be)
You have to look at the document as a whole, not just small snippets here and
there. the 5th also bears on the right to keep and bear arms, as do parts
of the constitution proper list the army and navy and the militia and what
it can amd must do.
My rights, and your, are not their to be granted by anybody, they are a part
of our natural life from birth. No citizen has the right to take them away
without the consent of the governed. Thats why we have laws. To put limits
on peoples rights when they conflict with other peoples rights.
|
brighn
|
|
response 369 of 406:
|
Nov 2 16:07 UTC 2000 |
(Wow, a potential religious gauntlet that Rane and I not only chose not to
get into, but actually said similar things about. Heh. ;} )
|
rcurl
|
|
response 370 of 406:
|
Nov 2 16:37 UTC 2000 |
(He only left out the part about a "well regulated militia". I wonder why?)
|
brighn
|
|
response 371 of 406:
|
Nov 2 18:20 UTC 2000 |
(selective amnesia. Strikes a lot of NRA folks)
|
brighn
|
|
response 372 of 406:
|
Nov 2 19:02 UTC 2000 |
BTW, the latest Reuter polls show Gore up 9 in Michigan (according to Yahoo).
Even if Bush wins, a Gore victory in Michigan would just about guarantee that
whatever chance Engler had for a cabinet post (esp. after Bush's loss in the
primaries) is completely gone. A ray of sunshine. =}
(Gore and Bush are statistically tied in the electoral tally, 215 to 217
[resp.]).
|
janc
|
|
response 373 of 406:
|
Nov 3 06:27 UTC 2000 |
I'm endlessly baffled by people who claim Gore and Bush are interchangable.
They just aren't. Some of the ones I care about:
Environment - Gore talks more environment than he actually does, but he
is still a million miles from Bush, who appears to oppose almost all
regulations which might interfere with corporate appetites for
resources. As governer, he pushed for making air pollution regulations
"voluntary." As president he promises to drill in Alaskan Wildlife
preserves. Like too many Republicans, he is opposed to any environmental
regulation that might inconvenience anyone who is out to make a quick buck.
Rich & Poor - When I observe the world, I see that Democracy really only
works in countries where wealth is not excessively concentrated. In
south american nations where a few families control almost everything
Democracy just doesn't seem to work somehow. I think it is a great
danger to the health of the nation if the gap between the Rich and Poor
in this nation continues to spread at the rapid rate it has in recent
years. Bush's tax plan is designed to accelerate that spread, Gore's
to decellerate it.
Campaign Finance - I think it is bad that our politicans have to raise so
much money from private interests. It interferes with their ability to
honestly serve their constituents. The McCain-Feingold Campaign
Finance Reform bill isn't a complete solution to the problem, but it's
currently the most viable first step. Gore has promised to work to
get it passed. Bush would veto it.
Courts - I think the courts are currently my favorite branch of government.
They do remarkably few stupid things (maybe because they aren't spending
all their time raising corporate money for their next campaigns). I like
the liberal stance that the courts have taken during this century. I like
it a lot better than the "Strict Constructionist" stance that Bush hopes
to favor in his appointees. That kind of shift in the courts could
endanger not only abortion rights, but nearly every other kind of right
too, including gay rights, free speech on the internet, privacy rights,
etc.
|
bru
|
|
response 374 of 406:
|
Nov 3 12:44 UTC 2000 |
Sir and madam, I didn't mention militia because you and I ARE the militia in
this state. If you take the time to read the ENTIRE document, you will notice
that the militia is mentioned in more than just the 2nd ammendment, and is
defenitely distinct from the regular military of which the national guard is
a part.
|