" Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline
University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, wrote about the
2000 Presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush:
Population of counties won by Gore 127 million -- by Bush 143
million.
Square miles of country won by Gore 580,000 -- by Bush
2,427,000.
States won by Gore 19 -- by Bush 29.
Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore 13.2 -- by
Bush 2.1 (not a typo).
Professor Olson adds: "The map of the territory Bush won was
(mostly) the land owned by the people of this great country.
NOT the citizens living in cities in tenements owned by the
government and living off the government." "
101 responses total.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It
can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote
themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment
on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the
most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a
democracy
always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always
followed by a dictatorship."
No doubt Olson has become embittered from living in a "tenement owned by the government" (I'm just assuming, since he's living in the most densely populated part of a "blue" state..)
Professor, eh? Of what? Manipulation of Statistics?
I profess, therefore I am. I profess that I am Eric R. Bassey of Ann Arbor, Michigan, therefore I am Professor Eric R. Bassey of Ann Arbor, Michigan. The above represents the semantic equivalent of #0.
Ok, so refute the statistics in #0. Its very simple.
Refuting the statistics is like trying to prove you're a liberal by demonstrating that the sky is blue.
yeh, right . the sky is NOT blue adn you know it! you are much more well educated than a liberal.
I'm not convinced that the statistics show that either set of land is either "that owned by the people who make the country great" OR "those sponging of the state" (yes, i'm paraphrasing).
Because we all know that *no one* who lives in a city owns land...yup...New York, Chicago, Detroit...every block is gummint property. A-yup. I'magonna move into the woods an' hole up so I kin resist when the UN takes over.
Certainly Gore won more urban counties than Bush, and urban counties
generally have more crime. So the direction of the "murder rate"
comparison stated in #0 is no surprise, but I would question the alleged
magnitude.
(I myself prefer to use the much more accurate "death rate from
homicide" than the FBI's much cruder "murder rate", but let's
pretend they're equivalent.)
Of the 14 states with the highest murder rates, 11 went to Bush
(Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana). Only three went to
Gore (New Mexico, Maryland, Illinois).
Notice that most of the states with high murder rates are in the South,
where Gore ran poorly. The states of the Deep South, including Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, have ranked near the top in homicide
statistics for decades. The South, taken as a whole, invariably has a
higher murder or homicide rate than the East or West or Midwest.
Why does that happen? As documented in "Culture of Honor" and other
studies, white men from the South are far more likely than white men from
the non-South to respond to affronts with physical force. It is also a
traditional cultural norm in the South that deadly force is an appropriate
response to marital infidelity.
This response has been erased.
(Scribbled 11 due to typo.) Also, among the states with the LOWEST murder rates, ranking 40 to 50 (all this is based on 1998 FBI stats btw, since that's what I found quickly), Gore won eight (Iowa, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Delaware), and Bush only three (North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire). The urban/crime:rural/safe truism is challenged by the fact that urban Massachusetts and Rhode Island generally rank in the bottom 10 states, with the lowest murder rates, and rural Alabama and Mississippi generally rank in the top 10, with the highest murder rates.
I thought it was the farmers, not city dwellers, who were government subsidized. Such as given cheap water and grazing rights.
Indeed, the "red states" are net consumers of federal dollars, and the "blue states" are net providers.
"the non-South"? Is "the North" politically incorrect, or something?
re #15: > "the non-South"? Is "the North" politically incorrect, or something? When Americans talk about "the South" they practically always mean the part of the southeastern United States containing the states that seceded during the American Civil War (or, as the residents of the area have taken to calling it, "The War of Northern Aggression.") "The North" is more vaguely defined but clearly doesn't include states like Arizona and New Mexico, which are would be parts of Mexico if they were any further south. They're generally considered parts of "the West" or "the Southwest." As a result, "the non-South", while it sounds clumsy, is probably a much better term than "the North" for Larry to use to specify the area he means to include.
Ah. that clears it up nicely; thanks. Never occured to me that the Ex-Mex territories might not be part of "the South"...
resp:0 :: One Acre, One Vote, I always say.
Re #18: And when we're back to having a 'landed gentry' controlling everything, can we have another revolution? ;>
every citizen of the united states has equal rights, whetehr they live in the city or in the country, in a tenement or in a farmhouse. That is a fact. And what is also a fact is that more citizens of the United States, many thousands more in fact, voted for Al Gore than for George Bush. In my opinion that election showed that the electoral college is archaic and outdated. If the electoral college does not reflect the popular vote, then it has outlived its usefulness
re #20: > If the electoral college does not reflect the popular vote, then it has > outlived its usefulness The whole reason for the existence of the electoral college is to provide a way to have an election result that differs from the popular vote. How, then, can you argue that it has "outlived its usefulness" by performing its only function?
of course it is outdated every time one of your candidates loses. But not when they win, right?
Re #21: Because at its inception, the technology to conduct a reasonably accurate count of the popular vote wasn't available, and now it is.
Actually, at the inception, a "popular vote" wasn't part of the system: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors" (US Constitution, Article II, Section 1).
(So many forget that the US is a federal system, not a pure democracy. The States, per se, have independent rights, for which they get votes in the Senate, and many other perogatives. Their role in the election of the president is one of those.)
re #23: > Because at its inception, the technology to conduct a reasonably > accurate count of the popular vote wasn't available, and now it is. I suppose such technology is available. Of course "available" and "in use" aren't the same thing..
re #24: You're right about the original electoral latitude allowed the states but I'm still reasonably certain that allowing an override of the popular selection is one of the things that the electoral college was designed for. It's certainly a fair question to ask whether it was ever a good idea but to argue that it has outlived its usefulness *because* it has functioned as designed (as richard is doing) strikes me as a really off-base argument.
re #22...no I have thought the electoral college was outdated for a long time before the 2000 election. One reason is that the system is set up so that whoever wins the popular vote in each state gets ALL of that state's electoral votes. The people of Florida in 2000 were clearly evenly divided, and half the population in Florida voted for Gore. But Bush as the certified winner, even if he won by one vote or ten votes out of millions, got ALL the state's electoral votes. Why can't the state's electoral votes be apportioned according to the break down of the vote, so that if somebody gets forty percent of the vote, they get forty percent of that state's electors? Because it would make too much sense to do it that way. States theoretically have more leverage in the electoral college if ALL of their electors vote the same way. So Gore got half the vote in Florida and zero electoral votes from Florida. Is that right? They could at least allocate electors based on each congressional district won, so that if a candidate wins the 2nd district, he gets the second district's electoral vote and so on. But that makes too much sense too I guess. And I say that knowing it wouldn't always help my candidates. In 2000, Gore got all 54 of California's electoral votes, but under a system where he only got the votes of those congressional districts he carried, he might have only won 30 or so electors. But like I said, Gore would have gotten maybe half the electors in Florida and electors in other states where he lost by close margins. The results would probably have been the same. But it would seem a lot fairer then awarding ALL the state's electors to a candidate who only got half the state's popular vote.
Re: 21: It's outdated because allowing a check on the popular vote is less acceptable now than it was in the 1700s.
Each state decides for itself how its electoral votes shall be cast. If New York, for instance, wants to go to a porportional system, or any other (by county, for instance), it can.
Winner-take-all by congressional district is not really very different from winner-take-all by state. The Electoral College is one of many institutions and incentives in this country which uphold the two-party system. There is enormous focus on the Presidency, and the only way to win it outright is by winning a majority in the Electoral College. In a parliamentary or proportional representation system, a party that could get 18% of the vote is a power center and will have seats and maybe even a cabinet minister or two; in our system, such a small party would be powerless and meaningless in presidential elections, which means there is little incentive to create or join such a thing. As I mentioned in item #30, I'm opposed to the total abolition of the Electoral College, but I do advocate changing it so that at least some of the electors (one or two per state) are awarded to the winner of the national popular vote.
I don't see the absolute relevance of the "national popular vote". We live locally, not nationally, for one thing. It seems to be a fetish more than a necessity, especially because of our being a federation of States. Do those advocating abolishing the electoral college also advocate abolishing States and their independent perogatives? If not, why not?
We live locally, but often end up getting regulated nationally, more than was originally intended. It was supposed to be States' rights, though in the context of the States representing the interests of their resident individuals. States don't have a lot of the original independence mentioned by #32 anymore. For my part, I still support the concept of independent polities within a federation, though I think the base independent polity should by strong preference be large enough to encompass the average daily commute. But if we *are* going to be regulated nationally, the votes for the leader should likewise be counted nationally to the same extent.
I would rather be able to elect a national Green party candidate than a Michigan Democrat.u
agreed.
Mr. richard: If you were willing to equally vent your anger at the minority of the U.S. Senate that is preventing a floor vote on President Bush's Appeals Court nominees, then we might be able to consider taking you seriously.
And we might take you more seriously if you felt the same about the 53 Clinton nominees that the Republicans would not even allow out of committee.
klg, different situation entirely. one situation is an election in a democratic country where every voter is supposed to have equal rights. If each voter's vote is not counted equally, is that equal rights? The Senate is entirely different. The democrat senators are playing by the rules. If you don't lik that, change the rules btw, klg why do you always refer to yourself in the plural. You are NOT "We", you are an "I", a lone isolated voice. don't flatter yourself by doing this "we" crap anymore when you are only voicing one opinion
Multiple personality disorder.
more like 'absent personality' disorder.
Mr. richard, As you may possible be aware, up to this point the Senate minority party has not prevented a nominee cleared by committee from receiving the benefit of a floor vote. Your Democrats are using Senate rules for the first time to do this. When the Democrats regain control of the body, do you believe that the precedent they have set will have been forgotten by the minority Republicans? Once again, we see that a particular party is doing permanent damage to the American democracy for blatent partisan gain. It is time, do you not think, that the Democrats reconsider their strategy and allow the body to play the traditional "advise and consent" role that it has done for over 200 years. We repeat: If you were willing to equally vent your anger at the minority of the U.S. Senate that is preventing a floor vote on President Bush's Appeals Court nominees, then we might be able to consider taking you seriously. klg
Oh, Mr. richard, Yes. We are voicing one opinion. However, it would seem that this that to which we are entitled. Does this bother you? It appears you wish to avoid the fact that others exist. (We note, as well, that you are voicing one mere opinion and we have no qualms with your doing so.) klg
Re #41: Paraphrase: "It's okay to block a Democrat's nominees but not a Republican's. But I can't come out and say that I feel this way, so I'm going to argue a technicality about the procedure used to block them."
it isn't that they oppose the nominationan and are blocking it. It is how they are blocking it. The Republican leadership still hasn't done everything they could do to bring this to a vote. They do not want to use those tactics that the democrats have fallen to using because they don't want to set that precedent.
Anytime someone asks me to believe that Tom Delay has refrained from using a tactic that will work to his political advantage out of fear that it will set a bad precedent, my first reaction is to think: what have I done or said to make this person think I'm a gullible idiot?
The senate minority is just doing what they should be doing, stopping very bad nominations from proceeding. The senate has approved some 160+ nominations, and the minority seems to find only 4 to be untenable. The majority party should take this opinion more seriously, and accept that viewpoint. The Republican record when the appointments were being made by a Democrat was MUCH worse. They stopped some 63 nominations from proceeding in committee - not even permitting full Senate debate, as the Democrats are now allowing.
Re #46: Last I heard it was 168 nominations passed, 4 blocked, which is something like a 97% success rate. If you ask me Bush is being a bit of a whiner here, especially considering the Republicans' record under Clinton. Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate is supposed to automatically rubber-stamp all his nominees without question.
Mr. mcnally- You may be interested to learn that Mr. Delay is not a member of the U.S. Sentate. Mr. rcurl- What you fail to admit is that it is quite clear that the nominations which the minority is currently filibustering would be certain to win a clear majority in a vote of the full body. This cannot be said of the other nominations to which you refer.
It may be that the Democrats fear these four particular nominations because they would be in position to be nominated to the Supreme Court. I have heard that arguement used, but it doen't follow to me because as far as I know, nayone can be appointed to teh supreme court.
a.. adn that great dui-driver just labled a balck, female circuit (??) judge 'neanderthal' including her with three other judges ... teddy-dear ought to be on espn!
looks like bru has caught tsty-spelling-itis.
Re #50: How many times are you going to parrot that Rush Limbaugh remark in one conference? I find it highly interesting that the same Republicans who oppose affirmative action are arguing that the Democrats should treat a nominee differently because she happens to be black...
Fishy...
I could have spelled it NE1. The point is that the democrats are treating her differently , not because she is black, but because she is a black conservative.
I don't think race comes into it at all. They're treating her like they would any other far-right conservative.
(Although to most people her rulings appear to be main-stream American.)
Apparently, in klg's world, opposing whistle-blower protections and suggesting companies have a right to lie to consumers are mainstream positions. Not to mention this: "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. ...The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." Oh, and she's also taken the "mainstream position" that state governments are not bound by anything in the Bill of Rights.
So, klg's an archist, huh? In that case, I claim the right to viciously murder all Republicans in klg's Amerrica, with impunity. This means you.
I am holding tsty's spelling ability hostage. If he doesn't pay for my guitar, he'll never see it again.
Mr. gull The quotation you provided makes perfect sense. Your apparent failure to agree with the assertion that government encroachment into our society and culture is quite lamentable and demonstrates either ignorance of or disregard of to the principles upon which our nation was established. klg
Rather than "encroahing" into our society and culture, government is the cement that holds it together. The founding document is the Constitution, and if there has ever been a more powerful and uniting governmental document, I would like to know about it.
If you don't like government, go live in Iraq. I'm sure they're enjoying their lack of law and order.
My, my. Love it or leave it??? Where have we heard that one before? Mr. rcurl, Do you really believe that the Constitution, as currently applied, is the same document (in terms of meaning) as that adopted by the founders? Or has it been vastly distorted by "umbras and penumbras" that have since been "discovered"?
The Constitution has been amended a few times, mostly to enlarge upon the principles upon which it was founded. Would you care to enumerate what you call "umbras and penumbras" that you think distort these principles? I don't know of any. I think the Constitution has been most distorted by *ignoring* its principles.
(Was it not Roe v. Wade that was decided upon "rights" that were
referred to as umbras and penumbras emanating from the rights actually
defined within the Constitution? Ah, yes. Here is a reference:
"the made-up "right to privacy" that Justice Blackmun and Douglas came
up with in 1973 after examining the shadier portions ('umbras and
penumbras') of the ... www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/636772/posts -
60k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages"
Let's go back to a strict interpretation, then. We can start by admitting the First Amendment doesn't apply to what I'm writing right now, since I'm neither speaking nor using a press. ;>
Incidentally, do you agree with Brown's position that the states should not have to honor the protections in the Bill of Rights?
I think Roe vs Wade was properly decided, on the basis of individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution. There being NO protection of fetuses guaranteed in the Constitution, but there is plenty of protection of adults.
re #68: > I think Roe vs Wade was properly decided, on the basis of individual > rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Which ones?
Why, the umbras and penumbras rights, of course! (Don't all constitutionally-protected rights have them, as well? Take, for instance, the freedom of religion. We wonder what its umbras and penumbras ought to be - the right to display religious symbols on public grounds, for sure.)
Amendments 4, 9 and 10.
Notice that klg is dodging my question about whether he agrees with Brown's position on state and local governments.
>>> I think Roe vs Wade was properly decided, on the basis of individual >>> rights guaranteed in the Constitution. >> >> Which ones? > > Amendments 4, 9 and 10. For the record, amendments IV, IX, and X are as follows: Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Astute observers will note that none of these explicitly mention any right to an abortion, or even spell out in clear terms a right to privacy. Amendment IX is a disclaimer that the list of enumerated rights is not exhaustive but it doesn't introduce any additional rights by name, nor does it imply that the people possess all rights that do not expressly conflict with the government's powers as enumerated elsewhere in the main text of the Constitution, or Rane would have a hard time explaining why the Constitution protects the right to an abortion but not the right to use marijuana or to do a million other things that laws have prohibited subsequent to the ratification of Amendment IX. And Amendment X is an odd one for Rane to appeal to, since it's an almost absolute certainty that he rejects the power of the states to prohibit abortion individually. Amendment IV, as anyone who can read can clearly see, is chiefly concerned with issues of search and seizure, at least as far as the literal text is concerned. However in modern interpretation, jurists have read a "right to privacy" and other implied rights into Amendment IV. Unfortunately for Rane's article, this assumption of rights implied but not explicitly spelled out is what klg is talking about when he uses the term "penumbra." To the extent that there is a right to privacy in the constitution and that it supports Roe v. Wade, the penumbra is what we're talking about. But since Rane insists that the rights are out there in plain view and not in the penumbra, perhaps he can elaborate on where exactly we are to find them in the text of the amendments above.
(note: I'd encourage legally knowledgable Grexers, of whom I am not one, to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure I've probably mangled something in the preceding post, but I'm also pretty confident that Rane's talking out of his ass again.. (figuratively, if not literally.))
Certainly, I am not a "constitutional scholar", so I will defer to Justice Blackmun to speak for me: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ You believe, I presume, that Jutice Blackmun was also speaking out of his ass - which would clearly make him your spokesperson.
Mr. gull, Please provide Justice Brown's position for me. Thank you. klg
> Certainly, I am not a "constitutional scholar", so I will defer to Justice > Blackmun to speak for me: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ Before you delegate Justice Blackmun to speak for you, hadn't you better read what he's written? The idea of penumbrae that you expressed skepticism about in #64 can be found explicitly in his majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. It makes *no* sense to dismiss the idea of penumbrae and then appeal to Roe v. Wade as your authority. > You believe, I presume, that Jutice Blackmun was also speaking out of > his ass - which would clearly make him your spokesperson. I'm not wild about the reasoning that underlies the Roe v. Wade decision but better legal minds than mine have discussed it for years and not yet found consensus, so I'll not presume to inflict my uninformed opinion on the rest of you. But being uninformed on a subject has never stopped Rane. Having mastered one esoteric discipline, he seems to presume himself to be a master of all of them. When I accuse him of "speaking out of his ass" it's because he expresses skepticism about "penumbras" in #64: > The Constitution has been amended a few times, mostly to enlarge upon > the principles upon which it was founded. Would you care to enumerate > what you call "umbras and penumbras" that you think distort these > principles? I don't know of any... and then when challenged by klg insists that Roe v. Wade was properly decided on the basis of rights guaranteed in the Constitution (and by implication, not by "penumbra"-style extrapolations of those rights) > I think Roe vs Wade was properly decided, on the basis of individual rights > guaranteed in the Constitution. and then, to support his argument, appeals to Justice Blackmun's majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, which he clearly cannot have read ahead of time or he'd be aware of Blackmun's writing about penumbrae in the very item he chooses to support his anti-penumbra position. We've seen it before, including recently when he presumed to "correct" Sindi Keesan about Slavic languages, a field about which Rane knows almost nothing and which Sindi makes her livelihood. His ego simply won't seem to allow him to admit it publicly when he's wrong.
Sindi has recently (in another item) pointed out that there may be many transliteration schemes for Russian to the Latin alphabet. That is all I was pointing out in that discussion. I had not read Roe vs Wade, and indeed thought the reference to umbra and penumbra was that of the person that entered that response. So yes, I was ignorant of that subtlety. Still, having now read Blackmun, I support his conclusion as being based in the Constitution as far as possible. That, of course, is the role of the Supreme Court: to base decisions on the Constitution and subsequent interpretations, as far as possible. But the real heart of the Blackmun decision seemed to be that the Constitution gives rights to persons while, by any rational measure, a zygote is not a person, while the woman is. The only room left to maneuver, then, is a plan for compromising on the terms during which a pregnant woman may and may not abort a fetus. While I agree that there is no specific right to an abortion in the Constitution, there is also no specific stricture against an abortion. Therefore the Supreme Court could only answer the question on the basis of when a woman may exercise personal rights over her body given the intent of the Constitution to protect persons. Which brings me to my original conclusion, that the Supreme court did the right thing.
Sounds perfectly logical to me.
The United States has traditionally been a bit slow to implement social changes that occur in Europe, such as abolition of slavery and abortion rights and same-sex marriages. The trick is to find some way to justify making these changes legal. I hope some day everyone here will also be entitled to affordable or free health care like the rest of the civilized world.
In _Gone With the Wind_ (the book, not the movie), there is a mention of an Atlanta newspaper advertising, among other things, abortifacients.
re: "The United States has traditionally been a bit slow to implement social changes that occur in Europe" And let's keep it that way!
Why? England abolished slavery considerably before we did. Twenty one foreign countries had women's suffrage before we did. I suppose that if you had lived then, you would have opposed both?
This response has been erased.
Is that the gospel according to saint klg?
Sindi - unfortunately, it looks like Germany (soon) and Britain (later) will before too long be looking to implement some sort of quasi-American health plan, because the number of retired people is getting too high for the rest of us to be able to support a National Health Service.
Mr. tweenex- Inasmuch as prices determined by the market are the only method of efficiently allocating resources tp their best uses, this would not be "unfortunate."
What exactly is Germany proposing to eliminate?
I don't know the full details, but it looks as if their health and pension schemes are going to be vastly reduced, OR there'll be much more involvement from privatre businesses.
No matter what health plan is used, the many-retired-people problem is still going to be there.
Gosh, you think a ponzi scheme of receiving more than you paid in will ever work in the long run?
Well, it might for a while if we have about 10 or 12 kids per couple. But then we run into the sardine-can problem...
Re #76: From http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/Brown%20Report%20FINAL.p df: "In a 1999 speech, Brown disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment, which made it applicable to the states. Early in the nation's history, the Supreme Court held that the protections embodied in the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Beginning in the 1920s and 1930s, the Supreme Court decided that sections of the Bill of Rights necessary to maintain a "scheme of ordered liberty" applied to states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Brown disagreed with these decisions and wrote: 'The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming that [the Bill of Rights is] probably not incorporated.' Therefore, in her interpretation, the Constitution does not protect freedom of speech, religion and the press, the right of an accused to counsel, freedom from unwanted searches and seizures, prohibitions against double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment from abridgement by the states. Brown's views that the federal courts should not protect these rights against state abuses is yet another example of the threat her confirmation would pose to the courts' long-understood role as protector of the basic rights in the Constitution." The footnote cites the source as "Janice Rodgers Brown, 'Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion to the Public Square,' Speech to the Pepperdine Bible Lectureship(1999). So, do you agree with the above position?
Brown's position is incorrect. The Bill of Rights, except in the first amendment, addresses generally the rights of individuals anywhere in the nation. Only the first amendment speaks specifically to the federal government (Congress), and this is what has been extended to the States by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. It would be a pretty sorry country if the first amendment did not also protect citizens from actions of the separate States.
How is one (except for Mr. rcurl, we suppose) able to determine Justice Brown's position from a single sentence quoted (without context) by a far-left organization?? (Note: We checked the membership listing on the "Independent Judiciary" website. Very revealing.) Perhaps you can obtain the full text of her remarks to attempt to substantiate your position.
This response has been erased.
Re #95: What do you expect to see in context? "Just kidding!" as the next sentence? At any rate, I'm not aware of anywhere the speech is available online. If you find it, feel free to post it and show us what Justice Brown *really* meant by saying the Bill of Rights is "probably not incorporated."
(In other words, Mr. gull, you are unable to prove your assertion. I shan't do it for you.)
I'm not going to play the "your source isn't good enough" game with you, thanks.
(Which is fine with us. But it truly is not, and you ought to realize it.)
whores.
You have several choices: