Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Classic-Xer]

(10-07-2018, 11:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What we have is one side that is trying as hard as it can to destroy voting rights, human rights, workers rights, consumer rights and environmental rights and to protect big business bullies as fully as possible, and the other side trying in a last-ditch effort to hold on to and expand those rights and keep the bullies at bay. McConnell says that the mob has given him a victory this November, and the polls in Texas and Tennessee seem to bear that out for the moment. What that means, without any question, and demonstrated by his behavior and that of his red supporters and voters, is that protest against an appointment of someone dedicated to destroying all our rights will be suppressed.

There are not two sides here now; there is only one right side. Not because I say so, but because the evidence is unimpeachable that this is so. The red side has forced upon us a sexual predator and a violent lying maniac whose proven record and that of his Court allies is clear evidence and proof of their desire to destroy our democracy and all our rights and values. That could not be more clear, and nothing should obfuscate that, especially any claims about intolerance on MY part Mr. Butler.

I am just stating the unfortunate facts. From here on, it is either fight or flight. The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast. The slow one now will later be fast. And the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a changin'. Classic Xer and his buddies are the enemy. We are in a civil war 4T, and the fight is on. At the ballot box for now, but in the future, who knows. The question now is not whether we can unite as a country and get along. The only question is which side will win. The other side does NOT play nice. They are ruthless. If we play nice, we lose. They have forced their way upon us, just like Kavanaugh when he put his hand over Blasey Ford's mouth. That is exactly what is happening. The reds and their voters are putting their hands over our mouth while they rape us. Should we just let ourselves be crushed?

I don't think we in California can tolerate the reactionaries in DC stomping all over our affairs. But that is what the Kavanaugh SCOTUS will do, you can take that to the bank. We will fight back; we won't take it lying down.

Yes. I'm the enemy and I'm glad to see that you're beginning to see things my way and sense the change of attitude towards those referred to as the blues. I'm on the right side, what side are you on? I'm on the American side, what side are you on? If you play nice, you loose. If you play fair, you loose. If you play dirty, you loose. If you leave it up to democracy, you loose. If you leave it up to the laws of the land to determine, you loose. If you start a fight with America and start attacking US citizens, you loose. You're in a tough spot. Fight or flight position, as you say. Of the two, flight would be viewed as the easier and less painful option that blues would choose for themselves.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-08-2018, 02:35 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I don't reject science or education. I don't worship it. I don't view it as being the all mighty or a guiding force of mankind or morality. I don't view it as the governing body that has the power to dictate, determine the course of action and decides what gets eliminated or drastically changed and determines the means and determines the instruments that will be used to enforce its laws that get imposed to address issues relating to lives of people and all of  mankind either.

So, you can say what you want to say about reds based on limited knowledge or the limited knowledge that most blues today seem to have of the reds these days but when you do that you shouldn't be offended or upset when the majority of them reject you or your ignorant/arrogant view of them or the blues worldview. I find it funny that I have teach the blues about the values that the vast majority have that aren't for sale or negotiable. Right now, you're being painted as a nasty left wing party by a large group of US citizens who are most likely more powerful, more believable and more persuasive than any blue could ever hope to be or seem to be in real life. If greater Minnesota decides its time to show up, if blue collar Democratic Minnesota decides it time to return to the basics and opt to stay home or switch sides, you can kiss a couple of Democratic bitches who seems place more value on their vagina's, people with vagina's than they place on the use of their brains and other voters who are now judging them on their use of them good bye. The blues have a serious problem. The Democrat who are closely affiliated and financially attached to them have a serious problem too. I'm reddish as you say.

On values, I have a simple model.  One can place values in a series in order of priority, in order of precedence.  For example, I see my own values as scientific first, political second, and religious third.  Thus, while I hold Jefferson's self evident truths with high regard, they are political values which should properly be cross checked by science as best one can.  If an aspect of politics is conflict with what can be observed, then science trumps politics.

Now some people merrily draw pictures of Jesus riding a dinosaur.  To someone whose scientific values are higher than their religious, this is absurd.  To someone whose religious values are of a certain type, believing the Bible is absolutely literally True more than they believe in science, it makes sorta sense.  A world view determines what is perceived as True.  Thus, if someone is into Jesus riding a dinosaur, I sort of give up on that person.  His values are religious over scientific.  I am able to communicate with that person poorly, and the conversation, if possible at all, depends on pretending for the moment that the religious values are true.

Now, not all reds are into Jesus riding a dinosaur, but some reds are.  In forming an opinion of reds, you cannot assume they are all evangelicals, but some are.  You cannot assume that all reds reject whole branches science, but some do.

There seems to be something to economic values.  If you put a person with strong economic values at monetary risk, it can effect what he perceives big time.  Now, if the threat of raising taxes effects how one perceives climatology, this becomes compatible to me to Jesus riding a dinosaur.  Do economic factors cause one to throw away a whole branch of science?

In general, among a red population, it often does.  Some reds seem to have higher economic values than scientific.  Most, even.  They place their pocketbook above what they can observe.

Now I do see a separation between science and government.  I agree with you there.  But if you are throwing away a whole branch of science because of strong economic values, you will find me and many blues getting upset.  Government should respect reality.  Many reds don't.

This is especially true with modern economic theory being so partisan.  A while ago, I watched Mike Alexander and Warren Dew attempt to communicate.  They failed, of course.  The basic premises of the conflicting schools of modern economics do not match reality, so they could not agree on basic premises.  This is part of why I am no economics person, do not even put economics on my list of prioritized values.  Scientific, political and religious values are there, but not economics.

But many people are into the unproven economics.  They value economics over science even though economics is currently garbage.  They will reject whole schools of science on the basis of this failed school of economics.

And, again, it is a chronic red problem.

Now this in my opinion does not mean everything red is automatically bad, that every idea presented by a red person should be rejected without listening, of giving it thought.  There are many good ideals to be preempted.  If you acknowledge them, incorporate them in your platform, you lessen the divide.  The blues have a lot to learn about doing this.  Red complaints that blues close their ears ring true.

But when you have Jesus riding a dinosaur, or you reject a whole branch of science, you have lost me.  Your values tree is so upside down and unlikely to change that communication becomes nigh on impossible.  I can understand, build a model, see why it is happening, sometimes respect it.  Agree with it, no.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-08-2018, 04:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yes. I'm the enemy and I'm glad to see that you're beginning to see things my way and sense the change of attitude towards those referred to as the blues. I'm on the right side, what side are you on? I'm on the American side, what side are you on? If you play nice, you loose. If you play fair, you loose. If you play dirty, you loose. If you leave it up to democracy, you loose. If you leave it up to the laws of the land to determine, you loose. If you start a fight with America and start attacking US citizens, you loose. You're in a tough spot. Fight or flight position, as you say. Of the two, flight would be viewed as the easier and less painful option that blues would choose for themselves.

Win one election with a distinct minority, and you start thinking you can impose the past indefinitely?

The electoral college, the Senate giving small rural states out of proportion power, gerrymandering...  There were many promises made to originally bring the slave states into the United States.  Our constitution reeks of it.  The reds exploit it.  It won't last forever.

I still would like to see another constitutional convention.  I would strip the old slavery compromises out.  I would give the People a direct networked veto over the representative Congress with its support for elites.  I would enumerate rights, strip off the legislation from the Supreme Court bench, make the powers of Congress enumerated again, make the states sovereign again, and do a little more.

But we are not ready for it yet.  We are too disunited right now.  It is not yet time.

[pbrower2a]

(10-08-2018, 02:35 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I don't reject science or education. I don't worship it. I don't view it as being the all mighty or a guiding force of mankind or morality. I don't view it as the governing body that has the power to dictate, determine the course of action and decides what gets eliminated or drastically changed and determines the means and determines the instruments that will be used to enforce its laws that get imposed to address issues relating to lives of people and all of  mankind either.

So, you can say what you want to say about reds based on limited knowledge or the limited knowledge that most blues today seem to have of the reds these days but when you do that you shouldn't be offended or upset when the majority of them reject you or your ignorant/arrogant view of them or the blues worldview. (stereotypes and sexist material redacted)

Science solves problems. Educated people fare better in work and even in enjoying leisure than do people with lesser education. I might not have done as well vocationally as my educational level might suggest, but I can certainly choose inexpensive ways to entertain myself. I go to museums and parks instead of to casinos and strip clubs. That's not a moral choice; that is a rational assessment of cost and benefit. I recognize the emptiness of glitz. I can spend less on a vacation and enjoy it. Should I go to Hawaii some time I will not stay at the most expensive hotels, but instead at one within walking distance from an accessible beach. I can walk, dammit, and if a resort area  is so great I am not going to spend much time in a hotel or guzzling over-priced mass-market beer at the bar! Now if I am in a dreary place where there is nothing to do I might stay cooped up in the hotel and spend money on somewhat better beer.

But nonetheless -- the right-wing political operatives are mostly well-educated people knowledgeable about the dark techniques of psychological manipulation of unsophisticated people. Those operatives know that someone like I can see through it. When President Trump says, "I love low-information voters!" he practically confesses that he depends upon gulling people. Trump's people know that they are doing a con job, and the questions are how long they can get away with the con job and how much they can get out of it.

Polls suggest that most Americans are sick of President Trump and the Republican party. Of course we will get definitive proof in November.

Am I arrogant about being better educated than others? Hardly! I would prefer that people be more aware -- that they know more about economics, psychology, philosophy, and history. They would then be less vulnerable to demagogues of the Right and the Left. Many Trump voters seem like just the types to fall for an Hugo Chavez.

Science and education do not need worship. It's ignorance that demands undue reverence.

[Eric the Green]

(10-08-2018, 04:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-07-2018, 11:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What we have is one side that is trying as hard as it can to destroy voting rights, human rights, workers rights, consumer rights and environmental rights and to protect big business bullies as fully as possible, and the other side trying in a last-ditch effort to hold on to and expand those rights and keep the bullies at bay. McConnell says that the mob has given him a victory this November, and the polls in Texas and Tennessee seem to bear that out for the moment. What that means, without any question, and demonstrated by his behavior and that of his red supporters and voters, is that protest against an appointment of someone dedicated to destroying all our rights will be suppressed.

There are not two sides here now; there is only one right side. Not because I say so, but because the evidence is unimpeachable that this is so. The red side has forced upon us a sexual predator and a violent lying maniac whose proven record and that of his Court allies is clear evidence and proof of their desire to destroy our democracy and all our rights and values. That could not be more clear, and nothing should obfuscate that, especially any claims about intolerance on MY part Mr. Butler.

I am just stating the unfortunate facts. From here on, it is either fight or flight. The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast. The slow one now will later be fast. And the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a changin'. Classic Xer and his buddies are the enemy. We are in a civil war 4T, and the fight is on. At the ballot box for now, but in the future, who knows. The question now is not whether we can unite as a country and get along. The only question is which side will win. The other side does NOT play nice. They are ruthless. If we play nice, we lose. They have forced their way upon us, just like Kavanaugh when he put his hand over Blasey Ford's mouth. That is exactly what is happening. The reds and their voters are putting their hands over our mouth while they rape us. Should we just let ourselves be crushed?

I don't think we in California can tolerate the reactionaries in DC stomping all over our affairs. But that is what the Kavanaugh SCOTUS will do, you can take that to the bank. We will fight back; we won't take it lying down.

Yes. I'm the enemy and I'm glad to see that you're beginning to see things my way and sense the change of attitude towards those referred to as the blues. I'm on the right side, what side are you on? I'm on the American side, what side are you on? If you play nice, you loose. If you play fair, you loose. If you play dirty, you loose. If you leave it up to democracy, you loose. If you leave it up to the laws of the land to determine, you loose. If you start a fight with America and start attacking US citizens, you loose. You're in a tough spot. Fight or flight position, as you say. Of the two, flight would be viewed as the easier and less painful option that blues would choose for themselves.

I loose? Yes, I do as best I can to stay loose. That is the way to win.

We are losing right now. So, we must fight, or flight, because we are in the right, and we must stand for the right.

[Eric the Green]

(10-08-2018, 08:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-08-2018, 04:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yes. I'm the enemy and I'm glad to see that you're beginning to see things my way and sense the change of attitude towards those referred to as the blues. I'm on the right side, what side are you on? I'm on the American side, what side are you on? If you play nice, you loose. If you play fair, you loose. If you play dirty, you loose. If you leave it up to democracy, you loose. If you leave it up to the laws of the land to determine, you loose. If you start a fight with America and start attacking US citizens, you loose. You're in a tough spot. Fight or flight position, as you say. Of the two, flight would be viewed as the easier and less painful option that blues would choose for themselves.

Win one election with a distinct minority, and you start thinking you can impose the past indefinitely?

The electoral college, the Senate giving small rural states out of proportion power, gerrymandering...  There were many promises made to originally bring the slave states into the United States.  Our constitution reeks of it.  The reds exploit it.  It won't last forever.

I still would like to see another constitutional convention.  I would strip the old slavery compromises out.  I would give the People a direct networked veto over the representative Congress with its support for elites.  I would enumerate rights, strip off the legislation from the Supreme Court bench, make the powers of Congress enumerated again, make the states sovereign again, and do a little more.

But we are not ready for it yet.  We are too disunited right now.  It is not yet time.

Not time yet. But it could be time soon, at least to an extent. 4Ts are the time! Especially at the end of 4Ts. The constitution was written at such a time, and Lincoln got the 13th amendment passed at such a time. We joined the new United Nations at such a time. Parliamentary rule came to Britain at such a time. And it may extend into the early 1T, depending on how you draw the line. It took 3 more years to get the 14th amendment done.

What I would do will not be what happens. But it's fun to dream. I would strip those slavery compromises out. These outdated provisions are also the legacy of the time when only old rich white men were considered capable of governing. Abolish the electoral college for a start. Gerrymandering is not in the constitution of course, but it must go; that could be added. Provide that states must use independent commissions to draw legislative boundaries. The senate's construction needs to change. That would be more difficult, but perhaps it should just be a smaller version of the House. That's how it's done in the California legislature. Our senate districts are just two assembly districts cobbled together, so the body is half the size, and a senator has a term twice as long.

Our current system favors entrenched party duopoly. Suggestions have been made to add at large districts represented by political parties who get a certain portion of the vote (proportional representation). Most democracies have this, and it works. A change to a parliamentary system, in which the leader is not the president but the majority party leader in the legislative branch, would update our system to what most democracies have, and which we ourselves set up in a country we conquered: Iraq. Our system of an elected king with huge powers gives too much power to the president to start wars, and locks in an unpopular president who is not doing his job to the satisfaction of the people. Ranked choice voting has been added in some local CA districts. It might be cumbersome on a national level. But if we want more representation by more than one party, in order to not be locked in by the Establishments of the two parties, such measures like these will be needed.

The whole second amendment issue might come up, but it might not; we are probably not ready for that one in this 4T. The first question is whether we can add a couple of justices, and impose term limits. If so, then perhaps the Heller interpretation could be overturned, and we go back to seeing gun rights as belonging only to members of well-trained militias, which in our time means the national guard and the cops, and end the interpretation that provides individual gun rights. That would be fine with me. It depends on how people will feel 10 years from now about the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence unleashed by today's permissive laws. There's nothing constitutional that can be done about justices legislating from the bench that I can see. The constitution already defines their job, and they must mediate and adjudicate what the law means and apply the constitution and precedent to it and to today's needs in specific cases, rather than imposing strict literalism.

As of now I see no need to further enumerate rights or the powers of congress in the constitution. How could we guarantee the right of citizens not to be unfairly shot by police, for example? Or the right to be represented by a union at work? Or fair wages, or equal pay for equal work? Or a constitutional limit on spending and debt? Probably legislation can handle these things. Talk of term limits for congress might come up. But a more direct democracy might be a good idea. Not sure about that one though. We still have representative government, and most people don't have the time or knowledge to conduct the state's business. However, some states do have citizen initiative, referendum and recall thanks to the progressive movement. That could be nationalized. Whether such initiatives could be done by computer is a thorny issue; hacking is a problem.

However, the issue of money in politics remains a huge one which would affect this process, if put into effect. Spending doesn't always determine outcome. Citizens can sometimes see through the flim flam. But citizens would be better served with information rather than propaganda, which we in CA are flooded with in every election and its citizen initiatives, which have been taken over by paid operatives. This should not be allowed on a national level; citizens alone should gather petition signatures. Whether it's in the constitution or not, the full change we need is to take money out of politics and have public taxpayer funding of campaigns, with media requirements to put out the information and allow candidates and advocates to speak and debate. A new supreme court will be needed to enact all this in this 4T. The Kavanaugh Court will not do it.

Other suggestions have been made. Should business charters require corporations to serve public needs? Could this be in the constitution? Should requirements be made about how democratic boards of directors must be, and who can serve on them? Something like this has already been passed in CA.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-08-2018, 04:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-08-2018, 04:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-07-2018, 11:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What we have is one side that is trying as hard as it can to destroy voting rights, human rights, workers rights, consumer rights and environmental rights and to protect big business bullies as fully as possible, and the other side trying in a last-ditch effort to hold on to and expand those rights and keep the bullies at bay. McConnell says that the mob has given him a victory this November, and the polls in Texas and Tennessee seem to bear that out for the moment. What that means, without any question, and demonstrated by his behavior and that of his red supporters and voters, is that protest against an appointment of someone dedicated to destroying all our rights will be suppressed.

There are not two sides here now; there is only one right side. Not because I say so, but because the evidence is unimpeachable that this is so. The red side has forced upon us a sexual predator and a violent lying maniac whose proven record and that of his Court allies is clear evidence and proof of their desire to destroy our democracy and all our rights and values. That could not be more clear, and nothing should obfuscate that, especially any claims about intolerance on MY part Mr. Butler.

I am just stating the unfortunate facts. From here on, it is either fight or flight. The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast. The slow one now will later be fast. And the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a changin'. Classic Xer and his buddies are the enemy. We are in a civil war 4T, and the fight is on. At the ballot box for now, but in the future, who knows. The question now is not whether we can unite as a country and get along. The only question is which side will win. The other side does NOT play nice. They are ruthless. If we play nice, we lose. They have forced their way upon us, just like Kavanaugh when he put his hand over Blasey Ford's mouth. That is exactly what is happening. The reds and their voters are putting their hands over our mouth while they rape us. Should we just let ourselves be crushed?

I don't think we in California can tolerate the reactionaries in DC stomping all over our affairs. But that is what the Kavanaugh SCOTUS will do, you can take that to the bank. We will fight back; we won't take it lying down.

Yes. I'm the enemy and I'm glad to see that you're beginning to see things my way and sense the change of attitude towards those referred to as the blues. I'm on the right side, what side are you on? I'm on the American side, what side are you on? If you play nice, you loose. If you play fair, you loose. If you play dirty, you loose. If you leave it up to democracy, you loose. If you leave it up to the laws of the land to determine, you loose. If you start a fight with America and start attacking US citizens, you loose. You're in a tough spot. Fight or flight position, as you say. Of the two, flight would be viewed as the easier and less painful option that blues would choose for themselves.

I loose? Yes, I do as best I can to stay loose. That is the way to win.

We are losing right now. So, we must fight, or flight, because we are in the right, and we must stand for the right.

Well, you one this won fair and square that's for sure. Me feel so stupid and you seem so smart right now.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-08-2018, 08:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Win one election with a distinct minority, and you start thinking you can impose the past indefinitely?

The electoral college, the Senate giving small rural states out of proportion power, gerrymandering...  There were many promises made to originally bring the slave states into the United States.  Our constitution reeks of it.  The reds exploit it.  It won't last forever.

I still would like to see another constitutional convention.  I would strip the old slavery compromises out.  I would give the People a direct networked veto over the representative Congress with its support for elites.  I would enumerate rights, strip off the legislation from the Supreme Court bench, make the powers of Congress enumerated again, make the states sovereign again, and do a little more.

But we are not ready for it yet.  We are too disunited right now.  It is not yet time.

You're political views and values are more associated with those of the past than mine.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-08-2018, 11:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-08-2018, 08:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Win one election with a distinct minority, and you start thinking you can impose the past indefinitely?

The electoral college, the Senate giving small rural states out of proportion power, gerrymandering...  There were many promises made to originally bring the slave states into the United States.  Our constitution reeks of it.  The reds exploit it.  It won't last forever.

I still would like to see another constitutional convention.  I would strip the old slavery compromises out.  I would give the People a direct networked veto over the representative Congress with its support for elites.  I would enumerate rights, strip off the legislation from the Supreme Court bench, make the powers of Congress enumerated again, make the states sovereign again, and do a little more.

But we are not ready for it yet.  We are too disunited right now.  It is not yet time.

You're political views and values are more associated with those of the past than mine.

Maybe.  I do call myself a Whig.  I do identify with Enlightenment values.  I do credit the founding father's generation with looking for a reasonable constitution rather than power and wealth.  I do see that generations since have done much damage in setting greedy law, law that favors the already rich.  I have read a little of history.  I am concerned with legislation from the bench.

I see the modern reds as much more shortsighted, considering themselves and their tribe rather than wider concerns.  They cling to the past in a different way.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-08-2018, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The whole second amendment issue might come up, but it might not; we are probably not ready for that one in this 4T. The first question is whether we can add a couple of justices, and impose term limits. If so, then perhaps the Heller interpretation could be overturned, and we go back to seeing gun rights as belonging only to members of well-trained militias, which in our time means the national guard and the cops, and end the interpretation that provides individual gun rights. That would be fine with me. It depends on how people will feel 10 years from now about the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence unleashed by today's permissive laws. There's nothing constitutional that can be done about justices legislating from the bench that I can see. The constitution already defines their job, and they must mediate and adjudicate what the law means and apply the constitution and precedent to it and to today's needs in specific cases, rather than imposing strict literalism.

This likely belongs in a Second Amendment thread, but you don't seem to understand how the law is written.

The founding fathers were against privilege, were for rights. They often used the justification - implementation method of writing law in state constitutions. You justify creating a privilege for a small group which clearly needed it, then implemented a Right of the People. You give the protections that would have gone to a privileged few to all. That is how reading the 2nd becomes crystal clear.

It illustrates the many tweaks I would try to make. You could not misinterpret the 2nd if the justification clause were removed. By using the justification - implementation format, they opened the door for the Jim Crow Supreme Court to effectively remove a Right of the People. They went after the whole Bill or Rights at that time, legislating Jim Crow law from the judicial bench, effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights. They did not want the federal government to protect the blacks from the local establishment.

Now, they glorified violence much more during the age of revolutions and civil wars. Firearms have become much more deadly. Values have shifted enough that the Second might be looked at someday.

But not soon. Enough people have held on to the old values to skewer the result of the constitutional convention. I think you would go further honoring the old values rather than to try to coerce a change.

[Galen]

(10-09-2018, 04:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-08-2018, 04:52 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: The whole second amendment issue might come up, but it might not; we are probably not ready for that one in this 4T. The first question is whether we can add a couple of justices, and impose term limits. If so, then perhaps the Heller interpretation could be overturned, and we go back to seeing gun rights as belonging only to members of well-trained militias, which in our time means the national guard and the cops, and end the interpretation that provides individual gun rights. That would be fine with me. It depends on how people will feel 10 years from now about the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence unleashed by today's permissive laws. There's nothing constitutional that can be done about justices legislating from the bench that I can see. The constitution already defines their job, and they must mediate and adjudicate what the law means and apply the constitution and precedent to it and to today's needs in specific cases, rather than imposing strict literalism.

But not soon.  Enough people have held on to the old values to skewer the result of the constitutional convention.  I think you would go further honoring the old values rather than to try to coerce a change.

That sums up progressive.  In their own way they are every bit the dictatorial assholes the Jerry Falwell crowd ever were.

Pat Buchanan has a pretty good idea about why the Dims are so freaked out about the Supreme Court.  It was their ultimate weapon in getting their agenda through and they don't what to do without the Court dictating to the rest of us.  Buchanan is no libertarian but he still makes good points that are worth considering.

The left has always been a nasty bunch of authoritarians.

[pbrower2a]

No -- the problem is that Donald Trump and the GOP are so intent on winning that they willingly debase the game that they play as they satisfy themselves by 'winning'. Trump has introduced Machiavellian politics to the American process.

[David Horn]

(10-09-2018, 07:05 AM)Galen Wrote: Pat Buchanan has a pretty good idea about why the Dims are so freaked out about the Supreme Court.  It was their ultimate weapon in getting their agenda through and they don't what to do without the Court dictating to the rest of us.  Buchanan is no libertarian but he still makes good points that are worth considering.

The left has always been a nasty bunch of authoritarians.

The court hasn't had a liberal tilt for over 50 years.  It's been center right for all but two years, and then only barely less so:



I have a bit of a problem seeing Rehnquist as a more conservative jurist than Scalia, Alito and Thomas, even at the height of his ideological period,

[Eric the Green]

The problem with a right wing court is not that they don't impose liberal policies on us anymore; it's that they stop liberal actions by the congress and the states from taking effect or make them weaker. An example is the clean power plan, voting rights, and the citizens united ruling. The new conservative court will be the most authoritarian institution in the nation.

I think this chart probably reflects the tilt to the right even in the definitions of conservative and liberal today.

[Eric the Green]

(10-09-2018, 04:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-08-2018, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The whole second amendment issue might come up, but it might not; we are probably not ready for that one in this 4T. The first question is whether we can add a couple of justices, and impose term limits. If so, then perhaps the Heller interpretation could be overturned, and we go back to seeing gun rights as belonging only to members of well-trained militias, which in our time means the national guard and the cops, and end the interpretation that provides individual gun rights. That would be fine with me. It depends on how people will feel 10 years from now about the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence unleashed by today's permissive laws. There's nothing constitutional that can be done about justices legislating from the bench that I can see. The constitution already defines their job, and they must mediate and adjudicate what the law means and apply the constitution and precedent to it and to today's needs in specific cases, rather than imposing strict literalism.

This likely belongs in a Second Amendment thread, but you don't seem to understand how the law is written.

The founding fathers were against privilege, were for rights.  They often used the justification - implementation method of writing law in state constitutions.  You justify creating a privilege for a small group which clearly needed it, then implemented a Right of the People.  You give the protections that would have gone to a privileged few to all.  That is how reading the 2nd becomes crystal clear.

It illustrates the many tweaks I would try to make.  You could not misinterpret the 2nd if the justification clause were removed.  By using the justification - implementation format, they opened the door for the Jim Crow Supreme Court to effectively remove a Right of the People.  They went after the whole Bill or Rights at that time, legislating Jim Crow law from the judicial bench, effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights.  They did not want the federal government to protect the blacks from the local establishment.

Now, they glorified violence much more during the age of revolutions and civil wars.  Firearms have become much more deadly.  Values have shifted enough that the Second might be looked at someday.

But not soon.  Enough people have held on to the old values to skewer the result of the constitutional convention.  I think you would go further honoring the old values rather than to try to coerce a change.

Possession and use of firearms is imposition of violence on the people, and support for the arms industry. It hasn't the slightest thing to do with any human rights, and only American conservatives think it does. The second amendment was put in place so that southerners would have arms to suppress a slave rebellion.

But I didn't say I thought changes to the 2nd were likely soon. Interpretation depends on the make-up of the Court, which will not change unless the Court itself is changed due to wholesale block of progress in all fields by the Kavanaugh Kangeroo Court. But that's not a constitutional change to the 2nd amendment itself, if it happens.

Oh and btw, this IS a second amendment thread. It's back on topic

[Galen]

(10-09-2018, 02:16 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: The problem with a right wing court is not that they don't impose liberal policies on us anymore; it's that they stop liberal actions by the congress and the states from taking effect or make them weaker. An example is the clean power plan, voting rights, and the citizens united ruling. The new conservative court will be the most authoritarian institution in the nation.

Only Eric the Obtuse would consider a reduction in government power to be authoritarian.  You are still proving to be a complete idiot.

[Galen]

(10-09-2018, 02:24 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(10-09-2018, 04:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-08-2018, 04:52 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: The whole second amendment issue might come up, but it might not; we are probably not ready for that one in this 4T. The first question is whether we can add a couple of justices, and impose term limits. If so, then perhaps the Heller interpretation could be overturned, and we go back to seeing gun rights as belonging only to members of well-trained militias, which in our time means the national guard and the cops, and end the interpretation that provides individual gun rights. That would be fine with me. It depends on how people will feel 10 years from now about the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence unleashed by today's permissive laws. There's nothing constitutional that can be done about justices legislating from the bench that I can see. The constitution already defines their job, and they must mediate and adjudicate what the law means and apply the constitution and precedent to it and to today's needs in specific cases, rather than imposing strict literalism.

This likely belongs in a Second Amendment thread, but you don't seem to understand how the law is written.

The founding fathers were against privilege, were for rights.  They often used the justification - implementation method of writing law in state constitutions.  You justify creating a privilege for a small group which clearly needed it, then implemented a Right of the People.  You give the protections that would have gone to a privileged few to all.  That is how reading the 2nd becomes crystal clear.

But not soon.  Enough people have held on to the old values to skewer the result of the constitutional convention.  I think you would go further honoring the old values rather than to try to coerce a change.

Possession and use of firearms is imposition of violence on the people, and support for the arms industry. It hasn't the slightest thing to do with any human rights, and only American conservatives think it does. The second amendment was put in place so that southerners would have arms to suppress a slave rebellion.

The mere existence or use of a firearm is no more an act of violence than possession and use of a knife or hammer unless you start using them on people.  You only have to look at London now to see how far the idiocy of blaming objects for the actions of individuals will go.  You might want to spend some time reading about the Militia Acts of 1792 which gives a much better sense of the purpose of the Second Amendment.  They specifically made firearms ownership an individual right because they understood perfectly well that one of the first things a tyrannical government does is disarm the target population.  It was what they experienced under the British.  In fact this is already happening in South Africa.

[Eric the Green]

The Left always represents freedom; the right-wing represents authority.

These days, of course, authority uses slogans of freedom to deceive the people into voting to enslave themselves.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-09-2018, 01:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-08-2018, 11:06 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-08-2018, 08:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Win one election with a distinct minority, and you start thinking you can impose the past indefinitely?

The electoral college, the Senate giving small rural states out of proportion power, gerrymandering...  There were many promises made to originally bring the slave states into the United States.  Our constitution reeks of it.  The reds exploit it.  It won't last forever.

I still would like to see another constitutional convention.  I would strip the old slavery compromises out.  I would give the People a direct networked veto over the representative Congress with its support for elites.  I would enumerate rights, strip off the legislation from the Supreme Court bench, make the powers of Congress enumerated again, make the states sovereign again, and do a little more.

But we are not ready for it yet.  We are too disunited right now.  It is not yet time.

You're political views and values are more associated with those of the past than mine.

Maybe.  I do call myself a Whig.  I do identify with Enlightenment values.  I do credit the founding father's generation with looking for a reasonable constitution rather than power and wealth.  I do see that generations since have done much damage in setting greedy law, law that favors the already rich.  I have read a little of history.  I am concerned with legislation from the bench.

I see the modern reds as much more shortsighted, considering themselves and their tribe rather than wider concerns.  They cling to the past in a different way.

You identify with Enlightenment values but don't seem to hold them up in as high regard like me. What you refer to as Enlightenment values, I refer to as modern day libertarian values. Where would you be without me or them? Would you be able to speak openly about your personal view of the 2nd Amendment, your continued support of the 2nd Amendment and your educated understanding of the 2nd Amendment like you're able to do freely today without concerns of being viciously attacked, mocked and slandered by members of Eric's and Kiff's liberal groups. If you support the 2nd Amendment, you are now the enemy of every liberal group that's currently to the left of you.

You better be able identify with them and defend them because all your freedoms are attached to them and attached to the old historical document and its historical records  that clearly identifies the American arrow of progress that's associated which for some reason??? You claim to be interested editing, striking from the nations historical record and and essentially removing them as a historical reference and eliminating them from the futures knowledge relating to American heritage as a nation. I assume that you and other blues will be doing that for New America and the citizens of New America and the future New Americans who will be coming there to live after New America is formally established as a new nation of its own, separate from ours and formally recognized as an independent country by the UN and so forth. Well, that's fine with me if our leaders are able to negotiate and reach amicable terms. 

BTW, I don't view science as being able to accomplish much of anything significant on its own without economics being involved and playing a significant role these days. How much American capital is directly involved with the scientific study of global warming/ issues related to climate change and lots of other things these days? How many scientist receive paychecks or government grants or private donations and financial backing or a piece of the profits for whatever it is that they do or are currently doing, accomplishing or discovering for someone, something, some where for some reason or another? I assume you're not being paid for following certain scientific study and promoting its ideas and beliefs and promoting awareness of its findings and supporting politicians and political who seem to believe them and support their views so I doubt economics is involved with your views.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-09-2018, 04:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Left always represents freedom; the right-wing represents authority.

These days, of course, authority uses slogans of freedom to deceive the people into voting to enslave themselves.

Did the Soviet Union represent freedom? Do any of the communist nations that are still left represent freedom? Do you represent freedom when compared to me? Come on dude, think like a liberal before you blurt out something stupid like a person who claims to be liberal does.