Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Mad Cow

Barack Obama or John McCain?

Who's your Choice for President of the USA?  

114 members have voted

  1. 1. Who's your Choice for President of the USA?

    • Barack Obama (D - IL)
      48
    • John McCain (R - AZ)
      37
    • Ralph Nader
      3
    • Bob Barr
      3
    • Other (please note)
      23


185 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Synergy
For the most part, I like Nader. I do. But let's take a particular issue and see where the three candidates stack up. We'll look at their thoughts on poverty, in part because it was the signature issue of my (and Ralph Nader's, incidentally) favored Democrat in the primaries, John Edwards. So, on poverty:

John McCain: No plan. No thoughts.

Ralph Nader: Nader offers a seven point plan for ending poverty:

It's hard to disagree with these liberal platitudes though I'm not really sure what he intends this to encompass.

Barack Obama:

A significantly larger amount of meat there.

The bullet points Nader provided were expanded upon in separate articles on the website.

Truly Progressive Taxation:

Fair Tax Where the Wealthiest and Corporations Pay their Share; Tax Wealth More than Work; Tax Activities We Dislike More than Necessities

The complexity and distortions of the federal tax code produces distributions of tax incidence and payroll tax burdens that are skewed in favor of the wealthy and the corporations further garnished by tax shelters, insufficient enforcement, and other avoidances.

Corporate tax contributions as a percent of the overall federal revenue stream have been declining for fifty years and now stand at 7.4% despite massive record profits. A fundamental reappraisal of our tax laws should start with a principle that taxes should apply first to behavior and conditions we favor least and pinch basic necessities least, such as the clearly addictive industries (alcohol and tobacco), pollution, speculation, gambling, extreme luxuries, instead of taxing work or instead of the 5% to 7% sales tax food, furniture, clothing or books.

Tiny taxes (a fraction of the conventional retail sales percentage) on stock, bond, and derivative transactions can produce tens of billions of dollars a year and displace some of the taxes on work and consumer essentials. Sol Price, founder of the Price Clubs (now merged into Costco) is one of several wealthy people in the last century who have urged a tax on wealth. Again, it can be at a very low rate but raise significant revenues. Wealth above a quite comfortable minimum is described as tangible and intangible assets. The present adjustment of Henry George's celebrated land tax could also be considered.

Over a thousand wealthy Americans have declared, in a remarkable conflict against interest, that the estate tax, which now applies to less than 2 percent of the richest estates, should be retained. The signers of this declaration included William Gates, Sr., Warren Buffett and George Soros. Ralph Nader does not believe that "unearned income" (dividends, interest, capital gains) should be taxed lower than earned income, or work, inasmuch as one involves passive income, including inheritances and windfalls, while the latter involves active effort with a higher proportion of middle and lower income workers relying on and working each day, some under unsafe conditions, for these earnings.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/fiscal/fair-tax/

An End to huge Corporate Subsidies and Military Budget Waste:

Nader/Gonzalez would cut the bloated, wasteful military budget.

Earlier this year, President Bush announced a military budget of over $600 billion.

And that's not counting the full cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The proposed military budget represents 58 cents out of every dollar spent by the U.S. government on discretionary programs - the items that Congress gets to vote up or down on an annual basis.

The Democrats and Republicans have been silent about this rapid escalation in military expenditures, despite many critical reports by the Government Accountability Office and Pentagon auditors.

In fact, they want to increase them.

Barack Obama, for example, has said that he wants to "bump up" the military budget.

Hillary Clinton and Obama have committed themselves to increasing the armed forces by tens of thousands of troops.

John McCain would outdo them both.

As budget analyst William Hartung points out "the United States is already spending more for defense than all the other nations in the world combined."

Hartung points out that tens of billions of dollars are being wasted on systems like the F-22 fighter plane, the V-22 Osprey (a helicopter that can be transformed into a conventional aircraft), the Virginia class submarine, and an unworkable and unnecessary missile defense system.

Right now, the military budget is being used to fuel wasteful, reckless, destabilizing foreign interventions that violate constitutional and international law.

Nader/Gonzalez would cut the military budget to a level needed to protect the country.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/military-budget/

Job Creation:

Create More Jobs by Investing in America's Future

Since January 2001, 2.7 million jobs have been lost and more than 75% of those jobs have been high wage, high productivity manufacturing jobs. Overall 5.6% of Americans are unemployed while 10.5% of African Americans are unemployed. Unemployment among Latinos is nearly 30 per cent higher than January 20, 2001. By requiring equitable trade, investing in urgently needed local labor-intensive public works (infrastructure improvements), creating a new renewable energy efficiency policy; by fully funding education and redirecting large bureaucratic and fraudulent health expenditures toward preventive health care we can reverse this trend and create millions of new jobs.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/fiscal/jobs/

Living Wages for All Workers:

Expand Worker's Rights by Developing an Employee Bill of Rights

The rights of workers have been on the decline. It is time to reverse that trend and begin to give workers, the backbone of the US economy, the rights they deserve. Workers need a living wage not a minimum wage; access to health care and no unilateral reductions in medical benefits and pensions for current employees and retirees. Employers should not be able to avoid these benefits by hiring temporary workers or independent contractors. The privacy of employees needs to be vigorously protected. The notorious Taft-Hartley Act that makes it extremely difficult for employees to organize unions needs to be repealed. It has resulted in less than 10% of the private workforce being unionized, the lowest in 60 years and the lowest percentage in the western world. Non-union workers need upgraded rights against the likes of Wal-Mart.

Labor Day: A Call for Rights for Working People

Washington, DC: The Nader Campaign joins Paul Tobias of Workplace Fairness in calling for a civil rights movement for workers. Under current law, a worker's freedom is subordinated to employer property rights.

The general rule of law for employees is employment at will: an employee can be fired for any reason, no reason, or a bad reason, without recourse. Workers gained rights in the early twentieth century when the union movement developed, with workers joining together to bargain with employers. But that movement was stalled by laws that put up barriers to workers' joining together in a union. The civil rights movement for workers should seek a Bill of Rights for Workers, including the right to organize a union and the right to earn a living wage for all full-time workers.

America's working men and women have been abandoned by the corporate-dominated two-party system. The evidence is everywhere. The percentage of union members in the private economy has dropped below ten percent, the lowest in over sixty years. At the heart of this decline are labor laws which throw insurmountable barriers before organizing efforts. A professional class of public relations consultants and lawyers has evolved to counsel employers on ways to take full advantage of the Taft-Hartley Act in fendeng off organizing efforts. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives employers plenty of ways to prevent workers from exercising their supposed right of freedom of association.

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 makes it extremely difficult for employees to organize unions and should be repealed. Among the key provisions of

Taft-Hartley

* Taft-Hartley authorizes states to enact so-called 'right-to-work' laws. These laws undermine workers' ability to build effective unions by creating a free-rider problem workers can enjoy the benefits of union membership in a workplace without actually joining the union or paying union dues. Right-to-work laws increase employer leverage in resisting unions by enabling them to benefit from free riders. Vastly decreased union membership follows, dramatically diminishing the unions' bargaining power.

* Taft-Hartley outlaws the closed shop, which required that persons join the union before being eligible for employment with the unionized employer (still permitted are provisions that require any member of a bargaining unit to pay a portion of dues to that union).

* Taft-Hartley defines employee for purposes such as excluding supervisors and independent contractors. This diminishes the pool of workers eligible to be unionized. The exclusion of supervisors from union organizing activity facilitates their use by management as a buffering front line in anti-organizing efforts.

* Taft-Hartley permits employers to petition for a union certification election, thus undermining the ability of workers and unions to control the timing of these elections during the sensitive organizing stage, invariably forcing an election before the union is ready to hold one.

* Taft-Hartley requires that election hearings on matters of dispute be held before a union recognition election, thus delaying the election. Delay generally benefits management, giving the employer time to coerce workers.

* Taft-Hartley establishes the "right" of management to campaign against a union organizing drive, thereby scuttling the principle of employer neutrality.

* Taft-Hartley prohibits secondary boycotts directed to encourage neutral employers to pressure the employer with which the union has a dispute. Secondary boycotts had been one of organized labor's most potent tools for organizing, negotiating, and dispute settlement.

The president needs to appoint federal judges who are supportive of the rights of workers, not those judges who summarily dismiss employee claims, who narrowly read the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or who do not allow punitive damages. Efforts to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, to create explicit employer neutrality, and even to make modest reforms such as card check voting have been abandoned by the two-party system, with few exceptions among legislators. This systemic failure to enforce labor rights allows for retaliatory firings of organizers and even those who vote to unionize in secret elections.

With the demise of union influence, almost every aspect of workers' rights is given short shrift. The minimum wage has been allowed to languish far behind inflation as executive pay skyrockets. The gap between the wages of now two-job (or more) working families and wealth of the privileged widens, even as worker productivity rises. The average worker takes home takes home $517 per week, while the average CEO of the largest companies takes home $155,769 per week. The gap between workers and large companies is now greater than 300-to-1. In 1982 the gap was 42-to-1. Over 45 million workers one in three do not make a living wage, namely under $10 per hour gross. This is insufficient for an individual to live on and certainly not enough for a family. The Nader campaign advocates immediately increasing the minimum wage to $8 per hour, from its current $5.25 per hour. Two years after that increase, we advocate a $10 per hour living wage.

The battle for a living family wage and battles to repair the workers compensation systems to secure the rights of injured workers to treatment and re-training are fought without the steadfast support of most unions or major political parties. Universal health care, available in nearly all democracies, languishes as a movement in this country for lack of power by organized labor within the American political system. Finally, the Enron scandal showed the need for employees to be allowed to diversify their stock holdings in 401(k) accounts and the need for employees to sue under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty when employers deliberately deceive employees in matters that will affect anticipated benefits. Where employee rights are at the pleasure of management, management takes care of its own.

The marginalization of organized labor and its agenda for working people within our corporate-dominated political process is in sharp contrast to Western Europe. There unionization is industry -wide and not within a single company. The political support enjoyed by labor results in statutory rights available to union member and non union member alike. A month's paid vacation, longer sick, maternity and family leave and of course health care that is entirely portable are benefits taken for granted in other Western capitalist economic systems. Landmark legislation in 2000 prohibited companies within the European Union from discriminating against workers based on their age, disability, sexual orientation, religion in addition to racial and sex discrimination.

With every election, unions are pressed to donate and get out the vote to protect the political status quo. Yet the same candidates whom unions seek to reelect stand by passively (or actively support), trade agreements which allow vast outsourcing of skilled jobs to third world countries where labor laws are much less protective if they exist at all.

How then can working Americans transform the landscape?

One idea is to view labor rights as civil rights. Suppose workers enjoyed the same rights to form or join a union as they enjoy for other forms of discrimination? If workers seeking to unionize could sue under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (instead of depending on existing unions to press for remedies before toothless federal agencies) they could secure:

* Compensatory damages, not just back pay, but damages for serious humiliation or grave emotional distress.

* Punitive damages, to send a message to outlaw employers that behave contemptuously, whether it is Microsoft or a big city sweatshop.

* Injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions so that employers can be in court defending themselves, or at least in depositions, within days or weeks of an unlawful firing.

* Legal fees, not only to give employers an incentive to settle but to empower individuals to bring their own law suits, even start their own organizing drive, and to enlist the private bar as a new army of organizers.

For the first time every citizen would be empowered to go out and push the cause of dignity and fair pay at work.

A Worker's Bill of Rights is needed because the rights of worker's have been on the decline. It is time to reverse that trend and begin to give workers the backbone of the US economy the rights they deserve. Among the items that should be included in a Worker's Bill of Rights are:

* Workers need to be given a living wage not a minimum wage.

* Access to health care and unilateral reductions in medical benefits should not be allowed.

* A pension plan should be included for employees and pensions for current employees and retirees should not be allowed to be reduced unilaterally.

* Employers should not be able to avoid these benefits by hiring temporary workers or independent contractors.

* The privacy of employees need to be protected, e.g. the monitoring of employee email.

* When downsizing of a company is necessary, employees need to be given adequate notice and sufficient severance pay.

* The pernicious dominant employment law of employment at will that allows for an employee to be fired for any reason, no reason or a bad reason needs to be replaced with an employee's bill of rights.

When it struck down Alabama's debt peonage law in Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911), the United States Supreme Court wrote that the purpose of the Thirteenth Amendment was not simply to eliminate slavery, but to make labor free by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit without the rights to organize, strike, boycott, and picket. (at 241) Early labor law, notably, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, was grounded in this Constitutional imperative and the guarantees of speech and association flowing from the First Amendment. During the New Deal worker freedoms under the Thirteenth Amendment diminished when the U.S. Supreme Court made the Commerce Clause dominant. This interpretation even turned the pro-worker Wagner Act into a law that gave the government power to eliminate strikes. The Commerce Clause put the needs of business first asking whether labor organizing encumbers the free flow of business and led to the federal government having the power to intrude into union organizing, as well as in disputes between labor and business on the side of business to keep commerce moving. An entirely new initiative must be undertaken to ground freedoms of speech, association and an effective freedom of labor on firm constitutional grounds.

The restoration and expansion of the rights of workers are timeless principles about basic human rights, fairness and justice.

Continued at: http://www.votenader.org/issues/labor/workers-rights/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

I've many libertarian views, and one is that it's not the purview of the government to establish minimum wages private businesses pay employees. A person is worth what their worth, not some artificial level set by government. Just another example of government interference in free trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
A person is worth what their worth . . .

You know, I could use the same phrase to justify setting a wage floor independent of "market forces." I don't believe that rights come from God or some higher plane of existence. They come from man and are requisite upon what society can afford its members. But I do believe that a society that can afford it does indeed owe its members certain human rights. These were set down six decades ago by a sitting president:

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
Hartung points out that tens of billions of dollars are being wasted on systems like the F-22 fighter plane, the V-22 Osprey (a helicopter that can be transformed into a conventional aircraft), the Virginia class submarine, and an unworkable and unnecessary missile defense system.

Hartung's an idiot. The F-22 is a damn good fighter pilot, and a vital replacement for the F-15 and F-18, both of which go back to the 1970s and are in danger of hitting obsolescence. The same goes for missile defense, which (contrary to Hartung's claim) actually can and does work (Russia has an ABM system covering the immediate area around Moscow, and multiple nations beyond the US are working on them), and which would be an enormous boon for the United States (since, unlike Russia for the most part and most of our nuclear-possessing rivals, the US actually has the capability to maintain and build a competent nuclear bomber and submarine fleet).

Since January 2001, 2.7 million jobs have been lost and more than 75% of those jobs have been high wage, high productivity manufacturing jobs. Overall 5.6% of Americans are unemployed while 10.5% of African Americans are unemployed. Unemployment among Latinos is nearly 30 per cent higher than January 20, 2001. By requiring equitable trade, investing in urgently needed local labor-intensive public works (infrastructure improvements), creating a new renewable energy efficiency policy; by fully funding education and redirecting large bureaucratic and fraudulent health expenditures toward preventive health care we can reverse this trend and create millions of new jobs.

I'm in favor of reducing safety risks and abuse at third-world labor plants, but "equitable trade" usually stands for "try to delete the cheap labor advantage of foreign countries, which in essence makes them worthless economically for the most part". Labor-intensive public works are a good idea (in particular, a massive revamp of the national highways system and rail networks is in order, but be careful about trying to spend your way out of a bad economic situation; the Japanese tried to do that in the early to mid 1990s, and all it did was saddle them with a massive amount of debt (greater than their GDP per annum).

The privacy of employees needs to be vigorously protected. The notorious Taft-Hartley Act that makes it extremely difficult for employees to organize unions needs to be repealed. It has resulted in less than 10% of the private workforce being unionized, the lowest in 60 years and the lowest percentage in the western world. Non-union workers need upgraded rights against the likes of Wal-Mart.

I'd honestly be more in favor of the latter - simply making a much more aggressive effort to prosecute labor law violations rather than promoting more unionism. Although I recognize that the unions have played an important role in setting up rights for workers (my health insurance depends on my father's union), at the same time, they are a blunt instrument - they can promote their workers' welfare, but also lead to a whole host of incompetents being kept on board (my dad has a lot to say about that if you ask). If it were up to me, I would keep the ban "closed shops", as well as banning public sector unions (private sector unions at least have to come to some sort of agreement, since if they don't the company goes under and they all lose. Public sector unions can simply squeeze it out of the taxpayers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

Personally, i'd vote for neither, because I have a deep suspicion of anyone with political ambitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
Well I know a lot of people seem to love Obama, but I think they're just projecting onto him what they want to see.

In reality I think he's just a faker, a guy who talks a lot, but doesn't say much in the end. A guy who tries to make people believe he's something he's not.

And from a "skeptical" point of view, a lot of his "message" is just new-age stuff like "The Secret".. I mean remember his stuff about "We are the ones we've been waiting for"... "We are the change we seek"... It sounds a lot like phony pseudo religion along the lines of Scientology, Charlie Manson, David Koresh and the Reverend Jim Jones to me.

(Anyway, please don't attack me because I don't like Obama. Just my two cents.)

yes, that's what I'm suspicious about. He sounds suspiciously like someone who has a "vision", and "visions" usually tend to be bad news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

I know, three posts in a row is annoying, but I just found this.

His liberal base, his associations, the books he's written, all marxist communist views
So he's a commie!!!!!

oh boy, the right-wing American view of the world is priceless. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that the bumpkins who get elected as a result of this idiosyncratic view of the world outside the shores of the US then go on to, to all intents and purposes, rule the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
More corrupt than the party that allowed Halliburton and the like to over-charge Iraq and the US government on Iraqi Reconstruction, and which allowed many of the regulatory agencies to be filled by former executives of the companies supposed to be regulated? More corrupt than the party which embraced Enron until it caved in? More corrupt than the party that coddled Jack Abramoff?

Guardsman,

I'm no rabid supporter of the Republican party, though I've mostly voted for Republicans (I voted for Carter twice and Clinton the first time - until he pulled his tax switcheroo, turning the middle class tax cut that was the foundation of his campaign into the largest middle class tax increase in history,) but your statements above are causing your partisanship to show.

Please inform us of exactly how the Democratic Party's hands are clean in the above two scandals you mentioned (Abramoff and Enron)?

Also, Halliburton has been a government contractor for decades. Are you saying they didn't "overcharge" until Bush came into office? If that were so, it would indicate that the Clinton and the Bush 1 Administrations weren't doing as good an oversight job as W's administration has done in the area of contractors.

Surely you didn't mean to credit George W. Bush with doing something right?

Yes, because having a Supreme Court that actually recognizes limitations on the Executive Branch and a right to privacy, a government that attempts to do at least a modicum of what other countries have been doing for decades (competent universal health care), and a more reasonable level of progressive taxation is just so Marxist Communist. :rolleyes:

There is a legitimate argument that Congress usurped some of the power of the Executive Branch during the fallout from the Nixon Administration. Whatever point of view you take, you cannot truthfully deny this fact.

Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate any "right to privacy" in the way the phrase is used today. There is, however, a mechanism for altering the Constitution to reflect such a right. Why is it that leftists always require courts to make these decisions instead of the electorate, which is the way it was originally planned?

Oh yeah, now I remember. It's because the lefties all know what's good for the rest of us - whether we insignificant drooling mouthbreathers know it or not.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
Guardsman,

I'm no rabid supporter of the Republican party, though I've mostly voted for Republicans (I voted for Carter twice and Clinton the first time - until he pulled his tax switcheroo, turning the middle class tax cut that was the foundation of his campaign into the largest middle class tax increase in history,) but your statements above are causing your partisanship to show.

Please inform us of exactly how the Democratic Party's hands are clean in the above two scandals you mentioned (Abramoff and Enron)?

I didn't say they weren't. However, a number of prominent Republican congressmen were touched by this (Tom DeLay's aides among them), so I think it was a fair thing to bring up when something is slinging mud about the Democratic Party as a whole (not to mention Enron's campaign contributions to Bush 2000 as well).

Also, Halliburton has been a government contractor for decades. Are you saying they didn't "overcharge" until Bush came into office? If that were so, it would indicate that the Clinton and the Bush 1 Administrations weren't doing as good an oversight job as W's administration has done in the area of contractors.

No, I said that Bush coddled them right up until their collapse. Are you disputing that point?

There is a legitimate argument that Congress usurped some of the power of the Executive Branch during the fallout from the Nixon Administration. Whatever point of view you take, you cannot truthfully deny this fact.

How so? I don't consider Congress having some power to restrict a President's actions via law in times of national security to be a "usurpation", yet you get that type of crap straight from the "unitary executive" people that consider Nixonian power to be the ideal. They've seriously argued that a President can actually ignore laws passed by Congress that interfere with his capabilities if he feels he needs to. That, in part, has been why Bush has been so quick to abuse signing statements, including writing signing statements saying that he'll not bother to actually enforce the law, as is his constitutional perogative.

Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate any "right to privacy" in the way the phrase is used today. There is, however, a mechanism for altering the Constitution to reflect such a right. Why is it that leftists always require courts to make these decisions instead of the electorate, which is the way it was originally planned?

So what? The Constitution also generally defers the right of interpreting law to the judiciary, and the judiciary has decided that the Constitution includes a form of "right to privacy", even if it isn't explicitly stated (not to mention that the Constitution itself mentions rights that are not explicitly written into the Constitution).

This is all very funny, mind you, coming from someone who seems to think that Congress has usurped the President's power since Nixonian times, when arguably all they've done is help keep him in his constitutional bounds (and made sure that he remembers that he's bound by the law as well).

Oh yeah, now I remember. It's because the lefties all know what's good for the rest of us - whether we insignificant drooling mouthbreathers know it or not.

Harte

Considering that a larger number of us have educations and an empirical understanding of the world, I'd say that in many cases, we do know what's better for you than you frequently do yourself. Would you argue that a chain smoker knows better than the doctor telling him it's going to kill him via lung cancer at age 50?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
Considering that a larger number of us have educations and an empirical understanding of the world, I'd say that in many cases, we do know what's better for you than you frequently do yourself. Would you argue that a chain smoker knows better than the doctor telling him it's going to kill him via lung cancer at age 50?

Pompous much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
War Eagle

Illuminati/Global Power Elite.

By a landslide/'no competition'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
Pompous much?

It's called "pointing out the obvious". Assuming there aren't too many big words in there for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
It's called "pointing out the obvious". Assuming there aren't too many big words in there for you.

Trust me, pal, you don't know what's better for me, and it's utterly arrogant and pompous to assume so.

My vocabulary is exemplary, thank you. Your insinuation duly (and dully) noted.

Edited by Incorrigible1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

We have a new candidate. Paris Hilton, she may not know politics but she should know how to run a business. She has to be better than Obama, and she is hottier than McCain. Just have to hide the booze. Oh wait she won't be driving, so for the next 8 years we won't need to worry about her drinking and driving.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
I didn't say they weren't. However, a number of prominent Republican congressmen were touched by this (Tom DeLay's aides among them), so I think it was a fair thing to bring up when something is slinging mud about the Democratic Party as a whole (not to mention Enron's campaign contributions to Bush 2000 as well).

No, I said that Bush coddled them right up until their collapse. Are you disputing that point?

How so? I don't consider Congress having some power to restrict a President's actions via law in times of national security to be a "usurpation", yet you get that type of crap straight from the "unitary executive" people that consider Nixonian power to be the ideal. They've seriously argued that a President can actually ignore laws passed by Congress that interfere with his capabilities if he feels he needs to. That, in part, has been why Bush has been so quick to abuse signing statements, including writing signing statements saying that he'll not bother to actually enforce the law, as is his constitutional perogative.

So what? The Constitution also generally defers the right of interpreting law to the judiciary, and the judiciary has decided that the Constitution includes a form of "right to privacy", even if it isn't explicitly stated (not to mention that the Constitution itself mentions rights that are not explicitly written into the Constitution).

This is all very funny, mind you, coming from someone who seems to think that Congress has usurped the President's power since Nixonian times, when arguably all they've done is help keep him in his constitutional bounds (and made sure that he remembers that he's bound by the law as well).

Considering that a larger number of us have educations and an empirical understanding of the world, I'd say that in many cases, we do know what's better for you than you frequently do yourself. Would you argue that a chain smoker knows better than the doctor telling him it's going to kill him via lung cancer at age 50?

Sorry I don't care if you have all the knowledge in the universe. You do not know what is good for me. Nor would I ever allow you to tell me so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
Sorry I don't care if you have all the knowledge in the universe. You do not know what is good for me. Nor would I ever allow you to tell me so.

I like how you think that your gut reaction to my criticism is somehow a response. Do you scream, "You don't know MEEEE!" when the doctor tells you you've had a heart attack from clogged arteries from years of bad eating habits?

Trust me, pal, you don't know what's better for me, and it's utterly arrogant and pompous to assume so.

Are you disputing that someone with extensive education on the issues they explore, whether it be law, science, medicine, or history is better judged to determine whether a political decision affecting you than your own *SNIP* self knows? Answer the ****ing point; I don't hear you saying that the smoker in denial of the need to quit smoking is smarter than the doctor telling him it's going to kill via lung cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plainbob13
We have a new candidate. Paris Hilton, she may not know politics but she should know how to run a business. She has to be better than Obama, and she is hottier than McCain. Just have to hide the booze. Oh wait she won't be driving, so for the next 8 years we won't need to worry about her drinking and driving.

*snip*

Edited by Magikman
Removed crude & insipid remark. Bob, read the IM heading your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
General warning to all here, please watch your language. The UM discussion boards contain posters of varying ages. Basically, if you wouldn't say it in front of your child, younger sibling, grandmother, then don't say it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
I like how you think that your gut reaction to my criticism is somehow a response. Do you scream, "You don't know MEEEE!" when the doctor tells you you've had a heart attack from clogged arteries from years of bad eating habits?

Are you disputing that someone with extensive education on the issues they explore, whether it be law, science, medicine, or history is better judged to determine whether a political decision affecting you than your own *SNIP* self knows? Answer the ****ing point; I don't hear you saying that the smoker in denial of the need to quit smoking is smarter than the doctor telling him it's going to kill via lung cancer.

You make my point for me, and I thank you.

In your case, perhaps anger management might lead to a longer life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
Scratch said:

I would never vote for a democrat, Let alone a far left liberal such as the likes of obama.

The democratic party is by far the more corrupt, their agenda is based on bigger government, and more taxes so they may line their pockets.

To which Guardsman said:

More corrupt than the party that allowed Halliburton and the like to over-charge Iraq and the US government on Iraqi Reconstruction, and which allowed many of the regulatory agencies to be filled by former executives of the companies supposed to be regulated? More corrupt than the party which embraced Enron until it caved in? More corrupt than the party that coddled Jack Abramoff?

So I asked:

Please inform us of exactly how the Democratic Party's hands are clean in the above two scandals you mentioned (Abramoff and Enron)?

I didn't say they weren't. However, a number of prominent Republican congressmen were touched by this (Tom DeLay's aides among them), so I think it was a fair thing to bring up when something is slinging mud about the Democratic Party as a whole (not to mention Enron's campaign contributions to Bush 2000 as well).

Looks to me like you did imply that these were solely Republican scandals.

So, Guardsman, which party "allowed Halliburton to overcharge...," the one that never "caught" them, or the one in power when Halliburton was caught?

Which party "embraced Enron until it caved in," the party in power when Enron was running right along, or the one in power when Enron got tripped up?

Which party "coddled Jack Abramoff," the party in power when he was prosecuted, or the one in power while he was wheeling and dealing?

Your point about mud slinging at the Democrats is well taken. But my point was that, as a Bush hater, you may want to choose your examples more wisely. You know very well (or should know) that the scandals you tried to pin on Republicans are the responsibility of both parties.

There is a legitimate argument that Congress usurped some of the power of the Executive Branch during the fallout from the Nixon Administration. Whatever point of view you take, you cannot truthfully deny this fact.

How so? I don't consider Congress having some power to restrict a President's actions via law in times of national security to be a "usurpation", yet you get that type of crap straight from the "unitary executive" people that consider Nixonian power to be the ideal.

No, it comes from an understanding of the Executive's war powers under the Constitution at the time - the same powers every single president before, and including, Nixon had prior to Congress' action.

Nixon wielded no more power than JFK or LBJ did, or Teddy Roosevelt or Millard Fillmore, for that matter. Gerald Ford, on the other hand, had far less Executive power.

They've seriously argued that a President can actually ignore laws passed by Congress that interfere with his capabilities if he feels he needs to. That, in part, has been why Bush has been so quick to abuse signing statements, including writing signing statements saying that he'll not bother to actually enforce the law, as is his constitutional perogative.

What if the Congress passed a law that said that legislation no longer had to be signed into law by the Executive? Wouldn't it be true that the president would be required by his oath of office to "actually ignore" such a law?

Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate any "right to privacy" in the way the phrase is used today. There is, however, a mechanism for altering the Constitution to reflect such a right. Why is it that leftists always require courts to make these decisions instead of the electorate, which is the way it was originally planned?

So what? The Constitution also generally defers the right of interpreting law to the judiciary, and the judiciary has decided that the Constitution includes a form of "right to privacy", even if it isn't explicitly stated (not to mention that the Constitution itself mentions rights that are not explicitly written into the Constitution).

I know this about the Constitution and about the slim "right to privacy" that was manufactured to create a right to abortion.

The fact that the judiciary had to make this decision is the abortion, IMO.

The Constitution leaves to the states the things not explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Is that the phrase you're referring to when you (properly) note that "the Constitution itself mentions rights that are not explicitly written into the Constitution?"

Leftist philosophy in this area can be summed up in this phrase:

"This is far too important to leave to the people to decide."

This is all very funny, mind you, coming from someone who seems to think that Congress has usurped the President's power since Nixonian times, when arguably all they've done is help keep him in his constitutional bounds (and made sure that he remembers that he's bound by the law as well).

Careful. You are welcome to your opinion. I also note that you said "seems to think" when you referred to me. But you should know that acknowledging that a legitimate argument exists is certainly not the same as being a proponent of the particular argument in question. I am only being intellectually honest.

Oh yeah, now I remember. It's because the lefties all know what's good for the rest of us - whether we insignificant drooling mouthbreathers know it or not.

Considering that a larger number of us have educations and an empirical understanding of the world, I'd say that in many cases, we do know what's better for you than you frequently do yourself. Would you argue that a chain smoker knows better than the doctor telling him it's going to kill him via lung cancer at age 50?

Would you show me a chain smoker that claims that smoking won't kill him? I bet he votes Democratic! :lol:

Do you have statistics that show that leftists are generally more educated? Considering their constituencies, I doubt it.

You yourself provided right here at U-M an example of a so-called "highly educated" intellectual leftist being intellectually dishonest. How much better could the rule of the leftist elites be if intellectual honesty is in such short supply among them?

Harte

Edited by Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
So I asked:

Looks to me like you did imply that these were solely Republican scandals.

So, Guardsman, which party "allowed Halliburton to overcharge...," the one that never "caught" them, or the one in power when Halliburton was caught?

Which party "embraced Enron until it caved in," the party in power when Enron was running right along, or the one in power when Enron got tripped up?

Which party "coddled Jack Abramoff," the party in power when he was prosecuted, or the one in power while he was wheeling and dealing?

Your point about mud slinging at the Democrats is well taken. But my point was that, as a Bush hater, you may want to choose your examples more wisely. You know very well (or should know) that the scandals you tried to pin on Republicans are the responsibility of both parties.

Did you not notice the part about how Halliburton was (and is) overcharging was placed in the context of Iraqi Reconstruction, which happened primarily under Republican oversight in the Congress and Presidency (particularly when all these no-bid contracts were being passed around early on in the post-war period)?

Moreover, as you refuse to respond to, I pointed out that the Republicans in power coddled Enron right up until the point it collapsed, and Enron was a large contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign - are you disputing that? It's not necessarily exclusive to the point that Democrats may have been benefitting from this, but it doesn't change the fact that it was under Republican watch that the **** finally came crashing down, and that before that period, Enron had been a heavy contributor to a Republican George Bush.

No, it comes from an understanding of the Executive's war powers under the Constitution at the time - the same powers every single president before, and including, Nixon had prior to Congress' action.

Nixon wielded no more power than JFK or LBJ did, or Teddy Roosevelt or Millard Fillmore, for that matter. Gerald Ford, on the other hand, had far less Executive power.

Care to explain how Nixon not being the sole possessor of that power somehow makes it not excessive? It was excessive under prior Presidents as well - Wilson, in particularly, heavily abused his war powers.

What if the Congress passed a law that said that legislation no longer had to be signed into law by the Executive? Wouldn't it be true that the president would be required by his oath of office to "actually ignore" such a law?

Don't be dense (particularly since such a hypothetical would directly violate a Constitutional Article). We're talking about how Bush would more or less attach signing statements saying he was simply going to ignore laws that, say, banned torture, or attempted to boost regulatory agencies? Are you seriously arguing that a President has the right to simply ignore any type of laws Congress passes that he disagrees with? That's rather . . . monarchical, but that's just me.

I know this about the Constitution and about the slim "right to privacy" that was manufactured to create a right to abortion.

Answer the question. The judiciary has had the right to interpret the Constitution since essentially the very beginning, and they interpreted it as having the right to privacy - so what is your problem, constitutionally speaking? You don't really have a leg to stand on other than b****ing about how it wasn't decided by a legislature, even if the Constitution doesn't hold up your view of how things ought to be.

The fact that the judiciary had to make this decision is the abortion, IMO.

I suppose you think the Brown v. Board of Education decision was an "abortion", as well? Since we all know how effective waiting for the legislature to bother enforcing the 14th and 15th Amendments were from the 1880s to 1940s (which is to say, they weren't particularly effective). That is an analogy, by the way; I don't see you arguing that judiciary decisions like the above are an abortion, yet you seem to think that the judiciary interpreting the Constitution, as is their perogative, somehow is - at least on pet issues that you don't like.

The Constitution leaves to the states the things not explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Is that the phrase you're referring to when you (properly) note that "the Constitution itself mentions rights that are not explicitly written into the Constitution?"

No, I was referring to the 9th Amendment, which states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That's a clear statement that there are other rights beyond those specifically listed in the Constitution. Nice try.

Leftist philosophy in this area can be summed up in this phrase:

"This is far too important to leave to the people to decide."

No, it can be described as "rational thought and government can actually be useful tools in furthering human prosperity." It's better than "my religion tells me to persecute you", "Don't you lay a hand on my gun!", or "Go screw off, IRS!"

Careful. You are welcome to your opinion. I also note that you said "seems to think" when you referred to me. But you should know that acknowledging that a legitimate argument exists is certainly not the same as being a proponent of the particular argument in question. I am only being intellectually honest.

So are you saying that you don't hold the view that Congress has usurped the power of the Executive since Nixonian times? It would have been nice had you been clearer about that earlier.

Would you show me a chain smoker that claims that smoking won't kill him? I bet he votes Democratic! :lol:

Do they not have analogies in your part of the world?

Do you have statistics that show that leftists are generally more educated? Considering their constituencies, I doubt it.

College professors tend to lean liberally, along with most economists, as two examples of what I'm talking about. Supposedly, though, educated businessmen tend to lean more Republican, but I'm still digging around for some decent polling information.

You yourself provided right here at U-M an example of a so-called "highly educated" intellectual leftist being intellectually dishonest. How much better could the rule of the leftist elites be if intellectual honesty is in such short supply among them?

Harte

Care to point out one example of where I was being intellectually dishonest? I responded to every point you made, and I pointed out that, for example, the fact that Democrats might have had a piece in the Enron pie doesn't change the fact that Republicans coddled the company, and that Halliburton's corruption in Iraq (I specifically used Iraq) began under Republican watch, and largely continued that way for nearly 3 years, then continued onward because Bush was still shielding the company. I brought those up in response to the claim that Democrats were the party of corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
Did you not notice the part about how Halliburton was (and is) overcharging was placed in the context of Iraqi Reconstruction, which happened primarily under Republican oversight in the Congress and Presidency (particularly when all these no-bid contracts were being passed around early on in the post-war period)?

Should I google up the numerous other occasions where Halliburton, and multiple other government contractors, were overcharging the government for services rendered?

You are aware, aren't you, that contracts from the government are quite complex and it's not like buying a loaf of bread. A company like Halliburton keeps an entire department on salary just to ensure conformity to the methodology of bidding on a contract.

And a no-bid contract is not as unusual as it may seem. After all, Halliburton was providing the same services in Kuwait at the time under a contract they won through the usual bidding process.

Moreover, as you refuse to respond to, I pointed out that the Republicans in power coddled Enron right up until the point it collapsed, and Enron was a large contributor to Bush's 2000 campaign - are you disputing that? It's not necessarily exclusive to the point that Democrats may have been benefitting from this, but it doesn't change the fact that it was under Republican watch that the **** finally came crashing down, and that before that period, Enron had been a heavy contributor to a Republican George Bush.

I suppose it depends on your definition of coddling. But it doesn't matter, as I was only trying to ensure fairness. That is, Enron lined the pockets of politicos from both parties. That is alwaysthe way such things work. Don't look to me to defend W. and his cronies. But I also am aware that they didn't invent the practices they are accused of.

Care to explain how Nixon not being the sole possessor of that power somehow makes it not excessive? It was excessive under prior Presidents as well - Wilson, in particularly, heavily abused his war powers.

What you have stated here is another, similarly legitimate, argument. That's all I maintained, that there was a legitimate argument, right? As I said, you are welcome to your opinion.

As an aside, it should be noted that every president since Nixon has been on the same side of this debate as Bush is.

Don't be dense (particularly since such a hypothetical would directly violate a Constitutional Article).

Do they not have analogies in your part of the world? :D

We're talking about how Bush would more or less attach signing statements saying he was simply going to ignore laws that, say, banned torture, or attempted to boost regulatory agencies? Are you seriously arguing that a President has the right to simply ignore any type of laws Congress passes that he disagrees with? That's rather . . . monarchical, but that's just me.

I haven't read them all (the signing statements), but the ones I have read state words to the effect that the President considers this or that section of the bill to be more advisory than mandatory.

It is not the President saying he will ignore them. It is the president laying out the arguments against the constitutionality of the named sections of the bill in question. IOW, giving a preview of the argument he will make to the Supreme Court if such a contingency arises.

Answer the question. The judiciary has had the right to interpret the Constitution since essentially the very beginning, and they interpreted it as having the right to privacy - so what is your problem, constitutionally speaking? You don't really have a leg to stand on other than b****ing about how it wasn't decided by a legislature, even if the Constitution doesn't hold up your view of how things ought to be.

Except that such a right cannot be found in the Constitution without an extreme twisting of meaning.

But I happen to be pro-abortion. My position is that there would be far less problems associated with this issue if it were left up to the states. Consider - if tomorrow Roe V. Wade was overturned, what do you think would happen? Can you imagine the re-election of any state legislator that actually outlawed all forms of abortion? Do you realize that you can legally obtain an abortion the day you are supposed to deliver?

Now, Roe V. Wade is truly in danger of being overturned. On the other hand, if we had a Constitutional Amendment granting even a narrow right to privacy, the right to abortion would be far safer. Do you disagree?

I suppose you think the Brown v. Board of Education decision was an "abortion", as well? Since we all know how effective waiting for the legislature to bother enforcing the 14th and 15th Amendments were from the 1880s to 1940s (which is to say, they weren't particularly effective). That is an analogy, by the way; I don't see you arguing that judiciary decisions like the above are an abortion, yet you seem to think that the judiciary interpreting the Constitution, as is their perogative, somehow is - at least on pet issues that you don't like.

You'd definitely have a long wait if you're waiting for the Legislature to enforce the law, since that is the duty of the Executive Branch. Also, such "hands on" enforcement is usually left to state and local authorities. But you may recall (if you're as old as me) that it was the Executive Branch, under JFK, that began enforcing civil rights law, and not the legislature.

But your argument is spurious anyway. Regardless of what the Judiciary or the Legislature decides, the Executive is responsible for enforcement. I acknowledge the sorry record on the 14th and 15th amendments. But there is nothing in the powers of any branch that can force the other two to do their jobs. The real power (theoretically) lies with the people. It was this power the framers were relying on to see that the work of the three branches would get done.

Anyway, what I don't like is the variables in the "interpretations" of the Constitution. Of course, some are to be expected. After all, things change. But the danger of activist courts is the upheaval that happens when activist jurors of a different mind replace the former ones as they retire.

No, I was referring to the 9th Amendment, which states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That's a clear statement that there are other rights beyond those specifically listed in the Constitution. Nice try.

Did I argue that no rights existed that were not laid out by the Constitution? The ninth amendment applies to rights not delineated by the Constitution. It grants no such rights, merely preventing the fact that they are not mentioned from being a legal argument against the existence of the rights in question.

There is nothing to prevent States from usurping such rights, short of an explicit "No" in the Constitution, however. That is exactly what the Judicial claimed to have found in Roe V. Wade.

No, it can be described as "rational thought and government can actually be useful tools in furthering human prosperity." It's better than "my religion tells me to persecute you", "Don't you lay a hand on my gun!", or "Go screw off, IRS!"

Is it better than "Screw you King George - no taxation without representation?" Do you imagine that the revolutionists had clear-cut and legitimate reason to rebel?

So are you saying that you don't hold the view that Congress has usurped the power of the Executive since Nixonian times? It would have been nice had you been clearer about that earlier.

Sorry to be so unclear. I think that Congress has done so. But not to the extent that W apparently thinks. I figure that a little moderation in all things is good. Of course, that's only an opinion.

Care to point out one example of where I was being intellectually dishonest?

I thought I had. Three, in fact:

More corrupt than the party that allowed Halliburton and the like to over-charge Iraq and the US government on Iraqi Reconstruction, and which allowed many of the regulatory agencies to be filled by former executives of the companies supposed to be regulated? More corrupt than the party which embraced Enron until it caved in? More corrupt than the party that coddled Jack Abramoff?

I responded to every point you made, and I pointed out that, for example, the fact that Democrats might have had a piece in the Enron pie doesn't change the fact that Republicans coddled the company, and that Halliburton's corruption in Iraq (I specifically used Iraq) began under Republican watch, and largely continued that way for nearly 3 years, then continued onward because Bush was still shielding the company. I brought those up in response to the claim that Democrats were the party of corruption.

I'd like to see your evidence for Bush "shielding" the company.

Also, I said your point that you were responding to a slur on the Democrats was well taken. Should I have taken up their side as well? You appeared to be handling that side - so I took the other for balance.

No, I only meant to point out that things are rarely as black and white as your post (or the post you were responding to as well) seemed to indicate.

Also, there are several other scandals that are virtually home-grown Republican - I wanted to point out that you should have probably used these for your examples. It is disingenuous to pretend that Enron, Halliburton and Abramoff are merely Republican scandals. Particularly Halliburton. How many government contractors have overcharged the nation?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass
Should I google up the numerous other occasions where Halliburton, and multiple other government contractors, were overcharging the government for services rendered?

You are aware, aren't you, that contracts from the government are quite complex and it's not like buying a loaf of bread. A company like Halliburton keeps an entire department on salary just to ensure conformity to the methodology of bidding on a contract.

I'm not disputing that they do - my point was that Halliburton began much of the Iraqi contract distortion under Republican oversight.

And a no-bid contract is not as unusual as it may seem. After all, Halliburton was providing the same services in Kuwait at the time under a contract they won through the usual bidding process.

Were there any significant differences between the services rendered? I'm not saying that "no-bid contracts" automatically equal corruption and over-charging.

I suppose it depends on your definition of coddling. But it doesn't matter, as I was only trying to ensure fairness. That is, Enron lined the pockets of politicos from both parties. That is alwaysthe way such things work. Don't look to me to defend W. and his cronies. But I also am aware that they didn't invent the practices they are accused of.

I'm not disputing that, and I'll concede the point - both parties had a hand in the Enron pie. It was a reaction on my part to the claim that the Democrats were the party of corruption.

What you have stated here is another, similarly legitimate, argument. That's all I maintained, that there was a legitimate argument, right? As I said, you are welcome to your opinion.

As an aside, it should be noted that every president since Nixon has been on the same side of this debate as Bush is.

I don't necessarily agree with that. You didn't see Clinton using signing statements in the same manner as Bush has used, at least not most of the time. And neither Clinton nor Carter, for example, surrounded themselves with the type of "unitary executive" ideologues that you saw promoting this type of thing.

Do they not have analogies in your part of the world? :D

There are analogies and then there are analogies.

I haven't read them all (the signing statements), but the ones I have read state words to the effect that the President considers this or that section of the bill to be more advisory than mandatory.

Unless he says outright that he doesn't plan on actually following the law. Read Takeover by Charlie Savage; he goes into great detail about this type of thing on Bush's part.

It is not the President saying he will ignore them. It is the president laying out the arguments against the constitutionality of the named sections of the bill in question. IOW, giving a preview of the argument he will make to the Supreme Court if such a contingency arises.

That doesn't change the fact that he then proceeds to ignore them, even if he is constitutionally challenged on it later.

Except that such a right cannot be found in the Constitution without an extreme twisting of meaning.

But I happen to be pro-abortion. My position is that there would be far less problems associated with this issue if it were left up to the states. Consider - if tomorrow Roe V. Wade was overturned, what do you think would happen? Can you imagine the re-election of any state legislator that actually outlawed all forms of abortion? Do you realize that you can legally obtain an abortion the day you are supposed to deliver?

You're missing my point, which was that A)the Constitution specifically describes rights other than those not specified directly in the Constitution, and B)that the Judiciary has the right to interpret the law as to whether or not a right exists in the laws as ascribed. You may not like that type of thing, since it can occasionally go against what the voting public wants, but that doesn't change the fact that they are doing nothing wrong constitutionally speaking (and personally, I'm not against it; I have a low view of majority rule. Majority rule is what kept Segregation alive after Reconstruction, and is the reason why harmless gay marriage continues to face an uphill battle).

As for your second point, where the Supreme Court to reverse the 1973 decision tomorrow and default it down to the states, then yes, you would probably not see a total ban on abortion in all states - there were a number of states that had legalized abortion before the 1973 decision (and rather interestingly enough, the activism against it by the Christian right did not start right away - it began years later). I don't think this is a better thing than what we have right now, though, because defaulting it to the states means that in many states, it would not be available in-state. Aside from being pointless (since people would simply go over the state borders, and anti-abortion protestors have never had the stomach to actually punish the women getting abortions), it would disproportionately punish poorer people with unwanted pregnancies, as well as push some of what would be early abortions in the first term to second term abortions.

It absolutely mystifies me why the anti-abortion activists somehow think this is better. Most of them must know that they have very little chance of getting anything like a national abortion ban passed - even Bush, that favorite of right-wingers everywhere, was careful not to target abortion overall until relatively recently (when the health department tried to take the idiotic step of naming certain forms of contraception as abortion).

Now, Roe V. Wade is truly in danger of being overturned. On the other hand, if we had a Constitutional Amendment granting even a narrow right to privacy, the right to abortion would be far safer. Do you disagree?

Of course.

But your argument is spurious anyway. Regardless of what the Judiciary or the Legislature decides, the Executive is responsible for enforcement. I acknowledge the sorry record on the 14th and 15th amendments. But there is nothing in the powers of any branch that can force the other two to do their jobs. The real power (theoretically) lies with the people. It was this power the framers were relying on to see that the work of the three branches would get done.

They could impeach the President for it. This is de facto what almost happened to Andrew Johnson in his presidency.

Anyway, what I don't like is the variables in the "interpretations" of the Constitution. Of course, some are to be expected. After all, things change. But the danger of activist courts is the upheaval that happens when activist jurors of a different mind replace the former ones as they retire.

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. Obviously, you don't want some things to change - but in many cases, the interpretation of a right or law may no longer be relevant in the society in which it exists. I think the Court should at least take this into account.

Did I argue that no rights existed that were not laid out by the Constitution? The ninth amendment applies to rights not delineated by the Constitution. It grants no such rights, merely preventing the fact that they are not mentioned from being a legal argument against the existence of the rights in question.

Which is tantamount to saying that unnamed rights do exist, since presumably the inability to restrict against such rights implies that they exist.

Like I said, I'll concede that I was wrong on the Enron example; the blame for not dealing with the company's problems falls on both parties, and neither party has entirely clean hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

Hillary Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustavo

I am a Libertarian at heart and Republican by registration. Bob Barr is good but this isnt about making a statement. If it were I would vote for Barr. Unfortunately a vote for Barr equates to a vote for Obama since most Libertarians would vote Republican rather than Democratic. Therefore I am voting for McCain.

One very rarely mentioned factor, which to me is the biggest thing to be said in US politics in as long as I can remember is the fact that McCain hasnt added any earmarks the last couple years. He and a small BIPARTISAN group of Senators, have realized that the corruption in our government is facilitated through earmarks, yes folks thats how they grant favors. The constitution said no treasure will be spent that has not been voted on. Well back in the day when the corruption won and they made a rule to allow earmarks our country became a whole new level of corrupt. This is HUGE! McCain will not sign a bill with earmarks... GET IT? This is HUGE!!! It is the only way to begin stopping the corruption. This is a more long term problem than almost anything else. Remember Mr Smith goes to Washington? That was made in 1939 and the subject is this exact thing. My point is McCain is the first to say he is dismantling it. Contrast that with Obama who is all for earmarks just like 95% of these politicians. We all must vote for McCain if we care about ending the corruption in Washington.

Best,

Gustavo

Edited by Gustavo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.