See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Source:
Ideas With Consequences
URL Source: http://ideaswithconsequenses.wordpr ... bama-in-portland-a-first-take/
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Michael Beaton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 14:24:20 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 2519
Comments: 182
Obama In Portland. A first take. I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly. I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks. Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there. Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created. My first take on the speech follows. Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American. It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better. Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change. We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”. I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications. It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change - change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge. My favorite line in the speech: In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change. He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation. Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs? Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles. Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes. Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression. Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression? Or maybe not. But these are the propositions that are before us now. What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken. It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different. A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.” I know this post needs a good editing, and I will do that in subsequent posts. For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to. What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again, to not choose, or make a default choice of the known; even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past - our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out - just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made. I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past. Excerpts from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Portland. As a final note: When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea. Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender. “We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-62) not displayed.
.
.
.
#63. To: James Deffenbach (#54)
:/
You're most welcome.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. What you are doing is interpreting the words the way you want them to read. However, we know that the intention of the 2nd amendment is not what you claim. We know this because every amendment in the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd amendment, was vigourously debated by the founding fathers and each state legislative body. These words were recorded and have been preserved.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Tocqueville, writing in the 1830's on the U.S. Constitution, explained how valuable a feature of that Constitution was that it gave the power to interpret it to the federal courts. Of course, that's basically just what John Marshall had already said.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. So? As a person whose first language is English do you feel the need to have some government whore in a black dress tell you what plain English words mean? That's pretty sad but then I can understand why you might think that the lawyers who graduate to the cult of the black robe are God or at least sit by his side and make all the important decisions.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. How people close to the events (or, in John Marshall's case, living at the time) interpreted the words tells us a lot more about what the writers of the words intended to convey than what somebody now, like me, or you, may choose to believe.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
When Tocqueville wrote that, was anyone in America confused as to the intent of the 2A? It wasn't about the state granting a right to a farmer so he could shoot a turkey. The Amendment's intent then, and now, is a warning to our government should it go rogue. Alteration, modification and ultimate change if necessary is a right of the people.
I don't know. There's been very little case law, then or now, on the Second Amendment. Why don't you look at the scholarly literature, if you want to know? There's been a lot written in the law reviews on the Second Amendment the past few years. I read some of it when I was in law school, but I've forgotten most of what I read, and I'm sure a good deal has been written since then.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
What a picture..... A golden ring is not the prize.
Little or no case law, by your own Tocqueville example, indicates little or no contention.
You mean that you can't read the plain English in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and understand them? Surely you are not saying that you don't understand that simple English, it is not like Chaucer or even Shakespearean English. And some of us even understand those.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Hillbillies understand it. I guess some lawyers need help.
He's a liar. How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
Well, let's examine your premise. By that thinking, how can one "obey the Constitution" and be in favor of ROADS?
Seems a bit late in the game for those still asleep.
#64. To: FormerLurker (#62)
Lord Acton
#65. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#51)
I am only reading the second amendment. What is the the purpose of 'A' other than justify 'B' as a neat and useful thing to have.
#66. To: James Deffenbach (#61)
I know what every word in it means and don't need anyone to "interpret" it for me.
#67. To: Peppa (#63)
:/
Lord Acton
#68. To: aristeides (#66)
Tocqueville, writing in the 1830's on the U.S. Constitution, explained how valuable a feature of that Constitution was that it gave the power to interpret it to the federal courts. Of course, that's basically just what John Marshall had already said.
Lord Acton
#69. To: James Deffenbach (#68)
#70. To: aristeides, Tocqueville (#66)
#71. To: Jethro Tull (#70)
When Tocqueville wrote that, was anyone in America confused as to the intent of the 2A?
#72. To: James Deffenbach (#67)
#73. To: aristeides (#71)
There's been very little case law, then or now, on the Second Amendment.
#74. To: aristeides (#69)
Lord Acton
#75. To: James Deffenbach (#74)
You mean that you can't read the plain English in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and understand them? Surely you are not saying that you don't understand that simple English, it is not like Chaucer or even Shakespearean English. And some of us even understand those.
#76. To: aristeides (#0)
#77. To: Critter (#76)
He's a liar. How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#78. To: aristeides (#66)
Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that the federal courts have the power to "interpret" the Constitution?
Tocqueville, writing in the 1830's on the U.S. Constitution, explained how valuable a feature of that Constitution was that it gave the power to interpret it to the federal courts.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#79. To: Elliott Jackalope (#77)
Article 1, section 8: To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#80. To: Peppa (#75)
How did you'ns know I wuz a hillbilly? ahaha.
Hillbillies understand it. I guess some lawyers need help.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#81. To: James Deffenbach (#80)
You mean, we iz cuzn's?? Shooooot.. I better put on a cake. :)
How did you'ns know I wuz a hillbilly? ahaha.
#82. To: Peppa (#81)
Yep, daz rat! We iz cuzzin's and I have a powerful hankerin' for some good cake.
Shooooot.. I better put on a cake. :)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#83. To: James Deffenbach (#82)
Allllllllllriiiiiiiiight!! I better make a ham just in case. ;)
Yep, daz rat! We iz cuzzin's and I have a powerful hankerin' for some good cake.
#84. To: Peppa (#83)
Now you're talkin'! Your cuz likes ham mighty fine. And sum of them thar homemade rolls and a apple pie wouldn't go amiss neither. ahaha.
I better make a ham just in case. ;)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#85. To: James Deffenbach (#84)
Cake and pie? I kin tell right now, you from mom's side. LOL!
Now you're talkin'! Your cuz likes ham mighty fine. And sum of them thar homemade rolls and a apple pie wouldn't go amiss neither. ahaha.
#86. To: Critter (#78)
Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". Obviously, to decide such cases, a court has to interpret the Constitution. John Marshall explains all this much better than I could in Marbury v. Madison.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#87. To: Critter (#76) (Edited)
Given the way the courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause, socialized medicine would clearly be constitutional. You guys obviously interpret the Constitution very differently from the way the courts do. But why don't you give that disagreement a rest for a while? The Bush regime is presently threatening rights that virtually all lawyers would agree are constitutionally guaranteed. Why don't you ally yourselves with us lawyers until we and you can get those rights back? Once that is done, then you can resume your disagreements with the lawyers and the courts.
How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#88. To: aristeides, Jethro Tull, christine (#0) (Edited)
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party. That awesome quote is enough to My favorite line in the speech:
get keep my vote. Viva Obama!
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#89. To: Peppa (#85)
Well yeah, you got to have apple pie with ham. It's agin the way not to have it together! And you don't want to do stuff agin the way, do you?
Cake and pie? I kin tell right now, you from mom's side. LOL!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#90. To: Arator (#88)
P.T. Barnum had folks like you in mind when he said there was a sucker born every minute. And Obummer is so proud of you dupes too.
That awesome quote is enough to get my vote. Viva Obama!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#91. To: Arator (#88)
How does releasing muzzies back to the caves they came from help me get through the day :P
#92. To: James Deffenbach (#90)
While Obama is promising to restore habeas corpus, McCain is promising no such thing. Why is that, do you suppose?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#93. To: Jethro Tull, christine (#88)
October 3, 2000 The First Gore-Bush Presidential Debate Excerpt: BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well- equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute. GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there. BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, how should the voters go about deciding which one of you is better suited to make the kinds of decisions, whether it's Milosevic or whatever, in the military and foreign policy area? GORE: Well, they should look at our proposals and look at us as people and make up their own minds. When I was a young man, I volunteered for the Army. I served my country in Vietnam. My father was a senator who strongly opposed the Vietnam War. I went to college in this great city, and most of my peers felt against the war as I did. But I went anyway because I knew if I didn't, somebody else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee, would have to go in my place. I served for eight years in the House of Representatives and I served on the Intelligence Committee, specialized in looking at arms control. I served for eight years in the United States Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee. For the last eight years I've served on the National Security Council, and when the conflict came up in Bosnia, I saw a genocide in the heart of Europe with the most violent war on the continent of Europe since World War II. Look, that's where World War I started. My uncle was a victim of poisonous gas there. Millions of Americans saw the results of that conflict. We have to be willing to make good, sound judgments. Incidentally, I know the value of making sure our troops have the latest technology. The governor has proposed skipping the next generation of weapons. I think that's a big mistake, because I think we have to stay at the cutting edge. MODERATOR: Governor, how would you advise the voters to make the decision on this issue? BUSH: I think you've got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. Whether or not it's -- the same in domestic policy as well. Whether or not you have the capacity to convince people to follow? Whether or not one makes decisions based on sound principles or whether or not you rely upon polls or focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is. We have too much polling and focus groups going on in Washington today. We need decisions made on sound principles. I've been the governor of a big state. I think one of the hallmarks of my relationship in Austin, Texas, is that I've had the capacity to work with both Republicans and Democrats. I think that's an important part of leadership. I think what it means to build consensus. I've shown I know how to do so. Tonight in the audience there's one elected state senator who is a Democrat, a former state-wide officer who is a Democrat, a lot of Democrats who are here in the debate to -- because they want to show their support that shows I know how to lead. And so the fundamental answer to your question, who can lead and who's shown the ability to get things done? GORE: If I could say one thing. MODERATOR: We are way over three-and-a-half minutes. Go ahead. GORE: One of the key points in foreign policy and national security policy is the need to establish the old-fashioned principle that politics ought to stop at the water's edge. When I was in the United States Congress, I worked with former President Reagan. When I was in the United States Senate I worked with former President Bush, your father. I was one of only a few Democrats in the Senate to support the Persian Gulf War. I think bipartisanship is a national asset. We have to find ways to reestablish it in foreign policy and national security policy. MODERATOR: Do you have a problem with that? BUSH: Yeah. Why haven't they done it in seven years? MODERATOR: New subject. New question. Should the voters of this election, Vice President Gore, see this in the domestic area as a major choice between competing political philosophies? GORE: Oh, absolutely. This is a very important moment in the history of our country. Look, we've got the biggest surpluses in all of American history. The key question that has to be answered in this election is will we use that prosperity wisely in a way that benefits all of our people and doesn't go just to the few. Almost half of all the tax cut benefits, as I said under Governor Bush's plan, go to the wealthiest 1%. I think we have to make the right and responsible choices. I think we have to invest in education, protecting the environment, health care, a prescription drug benefit that goes to all seniors, not just to the poor, under Medicare, not relying on HMOs and insurance companies. I think that we have to help parents and strengthen families by dealing with the kind of inappropriate entertainment material that families are just heart sick that their children are exposed to. I think we've got to have welfare reform taken to the next stage. I think that we have got to balance the budget every single year, pay down the national debt and, in fact, under my proposal the national debt will be completely eliminated by the year 2012. I think we need to put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox. The governor will not put Medicare in a lockbox. I don't think it should be used as a piggy bank for other programs. I think it needs to be moved out of the budget and protected. I'll veto anything that takes money out of Social Security or Medicare for anything other than Social Security or Medicare. Now, the priorities are just very different. I'll give you a couple of examples. For every new dollar that I propose for spending on health care, Governor Bush spends $3 for a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Now, for every dollar that I propose to spend on education, he spends $5 on a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Those are very clear differences. MODERATOR: Governor, one minute. http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
And days after taking office, war plans were on the desk.
#94. To: James Deffenbach (#89)
Well, you gots a point. Long as you got good coloresterall...;)
Well yeah, you got to have apple pie with ham. It's agin the way not to have it together! And you don't want to do stuff agin the way, do you?
#95. To: Jethro Tull (#91) (Edited)
Where anyone's rights are threatened, so in the end are yours. For someone who claims to believe in the Constitution, you seem strangely eager to deprive some people of their constitutional rights. Habeas corpus, by the way, need not mean release. The government has the right to bring the people to trial. If it can prove guilt, the party is not released. And, if it's not able to prove guilt, then, for all we know, they're innocent. Especially when it's the Bush regime that is doing the charging. You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
How does releasing muzzies back to the caves they came from help me get through the day?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#96. To: James Deffenbach (#56)
Whether you believe in God or not, do you or do you not believe in an inherent right to defend your life and your property? Yes or no? Again, and again, and again. This discussion is about the second amendment. Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted because it benefited the security of the state, not because it was a God-given right. Do you want me to quote it again? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is the reason stated in the bill of rights. As for what I believe? I believe that you TAKE your rights. No one gives them to you, not even God. And you get to keep them for as long as you exercise them and for as long as you defend them.
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#97. To: aristeides (#95)
My rights are threatened daily by both govt. and geeks who claim I'm sitting in a tree with a scoped out rifle. So, eff the magic carpet riders at Gitmo. Once gas hit $4 a gallon, I lost my compassion. As a complete hedonist, they can go stroke camels for all I care.
Where anyone's rights are threatened, so in the end are yours.
#98. To: Jethro Tull (#97)
So why should anyone else care what you say, then, if all you care about is yourself?
As a complete hedonist, they can go stroke camels for all I care.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#99. To: FormerLurker (#57)
Wrong. The state cannot "grant" a right, a right is self-evident and inheritent for all men (and women). You can call it "God given", "a natural right", or whatever terminology you wish, but it is not granted by other men. Fine. Please interpret 'A' for me. A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Why didn't the text of the second amendment begin with 'B'? The second amendment could have been formulated thusly: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. But it is not. Why not? Remember, we are discussing the second amendment. Not the first. Not the declaration of independence.
The right to arms is granted by the State because it benefits the State.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#100. To: Hayek Fan (#65)
Please respond to #99. It's not so hard.
What you are doing is interpreting the words the way you want them to read.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
#101. To: aristeides (#98) (Edited)
With the current state of the economy, each and every one of us is going to become a hedonist in time. This notion of a United States died years ago. I'm beyond being insulted by anything this government does, or by the lies our politicians use to gin up faux patriotism.
#102. To: Jethro Tull (#101)
Do you really think everyone in Depression America was a hedonist?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#103. To: aristeides (#95)
you guys? who is you guys?
You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
.
.
.
Comments (104 - 182) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest