I thought this was the new Democratic Underground!


PDA






DonP
December 25, 2002, 04:28 AM
Hey wait a minute, a lot of you guys look like that bunch of far right wing wacko's at the old Firing Line!

Could someone tell me where the Hillary for Prez/Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for Veep thread is?

Hi guys. Good to see so many familiar names.

Glad to be here. I guess the lesson is we may be ocassionally sidetracked but we 2nd amendment believers will go on somehow. Thanks Oleg.

Merry Christmas one and all.

Don P.

If you enjoyed reading about "I thought this was the new Democratic Underground!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Don45cal
December 25, 2002, 06:56 AM
I would guess that they are over at:

www.leftwingloosers.com

Just a guess.:D

stellarpod
December 25, 2002, 08:09 AM
Welcome DonP.

We do have a tendacy to take things for granted, don't we? Thanks again to Oleg and the crew for providing this new home.

And the really great thing is that it's thehighroad.ORG , not .COM .

dd-b
December 25, 2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by DonP
Hey wait a minute, a lot of you guys look like that bunch of far right wing wacko's at the old Firing Line!

Could someone tell me where the Hillary for Prez/Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for Veep thread is?


Most gun forums do steep in a miasma of right-wing extremism. One of the many nice things about TFL was that it was less true there than many places. I hope this one turns out to be similar -- less unconsidered belief than most places, and more respect for people who hold differing beliefs, than is usual. More ability to discuss some of these beliefs civilly.

At least by local standards, I'm sure I qualify as a liberal. (I think of myself as more libertarian, myself). I've never voted for a Republican for national office in my life. I'm in favor of public education. I think it's important to keep religion out of public life (the *other* important thing in the First Amedment). I'm militantly pro-choice. I think the ACLU is a much more important and valuable organization than the NRA (that happens to be wrong on one crucial issue). I think civil rights laws have been crucial to making this country the wonderful place to live that it is. I think women, gays, transgendered people, and lots of other groups need government protection from the bigotry of the majority of the population for a while longer. And so forth.

I'm also a strong supporter of the second amendment and firearms rights in general, including right-to-carry (and hope we'll get it in in MN this year; it's the only possible good outcome from the otherwise-disastrous election this fall). I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility for many things, especially including self-defense.

One of the problems that the firearms lobby has, politically, is that too many firearms supporters assume that support for firearms rights comes only as part of a package including lots of other political beliefs. By speaking and behaving as if this is true, they tend to make it true, by alienating people who do or might support firearms but don't support the other beliefs.

Let's not let that divisive assumption become the norm here!

2nd Amendment
December 25, 2002, 12:56 PM
dd-b and I are going to have many interesting exchanges...

Sleeping Dog
December 25, 2002, 01:10 PM
Wrong board.

You're obviously looking for http://www.thehighhorse.com

:)

Regards.

cdbeaver
December 25, 2002, 01:15 PM
I'm with dd-b, for the most part. Probably not quite so liberal, but not an absolute redneck, either.

It has distressed me quite often to see bigots-in-disguise use the gun forums to spread their venom of intolerance. We all have our opinions, and we should all have the right to express them . . . but, gently, please, gently.

Calling people with whom we differ philosophically by ugly names does nothing to get a point across, and frequently only offends. I realize some folks don't give a whit about offending those they disagree with, but civilized people do.

Schuey2002
December 25, 2002, 01:16 PM
Don't worry. It won't be long before we get our first "Euro troll" or rabid,tree-hugging,all things Clinton lovin' liberal over here..:D

HS/LD
December 25, 2002, 02:03 PM
I'm so far to the right it seems that I have snuck up behind the left, and here I sit gun in hand.

HS/LD

stellarpod
December 25, 2002, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by cdbeaver
I'm with dd-b, for the most part. Probably not quite so liberal, but not an absolute redneck, either.

It has distressed me quite often to see bigots-in-disguise use the gun forums to spread their venom of intolerance. We all have our opinions, and we should all have the right to express them . . . but, gently, please, gently.

Calling people with whom we differ philosophically by ugly names does nothing to get a point across, and frequently only offends. I realize some folks don't give a whit about offending those they disagree with, but civilized people do.

Oh, you mean like "bigots-in-disguise "?

Hmmm... Oh well, Merry Christmas anyhow. (hope I didn't offend anyone with that)

stellarpod

Blackhawk
December 25, 2002, 02:08 PM
TFL was never a "right wing" board. Seemed like it had as many Libertarians as Conservatives, and the glue that kept them together is an aversion to those who would take away our liberties. That latter group is most often associated with Democrats since that organization's leaders hijacked it into being a socialist party.

Any organized political party will try to mold the citizens into a frame of mind that keeps the party in power, and none of them are to be trusted.

Why do we NEED political parties? It's because they have made themselves indispensible just like a doctor who has a contagious crony spread a disease all over town.

The Democrats are far worse than the Republicans right now regarding our liberties, but that's like saying the effluent doesn't smell so bad when a little perfume is added.

The irony is that Americans actually think they're capable of self rule and other "third world" countries aren't all the while oblivious to the fact that the U.S. is a republic not a democracy. We're barely capable of keeping the wheels on this thing the way it is much less being able to solo without political parties, odious as they are.

Rangerover
December 25, 2002, 03:45 PM
Hmmmm...what is the definition of "absolute redneck"?

cdbeaver
December 25, 2002, 05:00 PM
Some one who is a bit to the left of Lenin and/or a bit to the right of Atilla the Hun.

redneck2
December 25, 2002, 05:29 PM
you made redneck sound like some kind of a bad thing:eek:

I personally am HIGHLY offended by your bigotry and short sightedness.

OK, I'm over it...move on...

Remember, redneck does not necessarily reflect intelligence nor upbringing.....redneck defines a way of life and values. Many tend to confuse redneck with what I would call, for a lack of better terms "white rubbish". When I go to the sporting clays shoots, I see lots of rednecks...some are doctors and other professionals. Cracks me up that the self-rightous "non-bigots" are just as bad, but since it's in their own way and serves their own values, they can justify it.

and about lumping things together...yeah, I have two issues that are litmus tests for any candidate. Pretty well tells you where they stand on everything else.

Oh, about the Constitution....the most terrifying thing I've probably ever heard is Al Bore and Hillary talking about the Constitution being a "living document". In liberal-speak this means something you can slaughter and devour. The Constitution is just a few pages long...what, maybe 14 or 15 total.

Think what it would be like if politicians tried to write it today.

cd..may want to go back to re-read your post. I think you got 'em backwards

charlie d
December 25, 2002, 06:01 PM
2nd amendment,

Now you've made me change my user cp to not show signatures. It's kind of a waste of space when your signature is five times longer than your message. :rolleyes:

bastiat
December 25, 2002, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by stellarpod
Welcome DonP.

We do have a tendacy to take things for granted, don't we? Thanks again to Oleg and the crew for providing this new home.

And the really great thing is that it's thehighroad.ORG , not .COM .

Maybe that's just because .com was already taken?

.com, .net and .org are pretty much meaningless nowadays. It's just 'get the best domain name you can get', regardless of the suffix

stellarpod
December 25, 2002, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by bastiat
Maybe that's just because .com was already taken?

.com, .net and .org are pretty much meaningless nowadays. It's just 'get the best domain name you can get', regardless of the suffix

I think it's obvious what I was implying. The fact that we're not innundated with bandwidth-choking popups and banner ads is certainly not "meaningless" to me.

Somehow Rich, and now Oleg, have managed to put these sites together without having to submit to such supplemental tactics and I for one appreciate it. And for what it's worth, if there is any way I can help I'd be glad to do so.

stellarpod

2nd Amendment
December 25, 2002, 10:28 PM
Charlie, I feel your pain. :rolleyes:

So, are those extra pixels showing up on your AMEX, or what?

Shmackey
December 25, 2002, 11:14 PM
I'm with dd-b--and I'm impressed to hear what he had to say. I'm a brutal, take-no-prisoners liberal (I just made that up, and I like it), but I don't adhere to one bit of the party line just because it's there. You can imagine the discussions I have with milquetoast Democrats when firearms come up.

eap
December 25, 2002, 11:29 PM
it's nice to see the general forum on top.

charlie d
December 26, 2002, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by 2nd Amendment
Charlie, I feel your pain. :rolleyes:
So, are those extra pixels showing up on your AMEX, or what?

No, just all that needless scrolling. Whew, need a rest, my thumb's tired.
As someone on another thread said, they don't even read the long ones. Besides that, who cares?
No matter, got 'em turned off now.

I don't want to give ideas to anyone but one site I used to frequent had lots of people using animated gifs in their avitars and sigs. Had to have both turned off there. I hate things crawling around on a page I'm trying to read.

2nd Amendment
December 26, 2002, 12:50 AM
Don't know what to tell ya. I'm not only NOT the first person to use that quote but probably not the first person to use it here. In fact, I shamelessly stole it from another TFLer who is here...but using a different sig line. I think.

And scrolling? What have you got your screen resolution set on? Anyway, turn 'em off...but you'll miss a lot of interesting things that way.

dd-b
December 26, 2002, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by 2nd Amendment
dd-b and I are going to have many interesting exchanges...

I shall look forward to it -- really. I like a good argument that's actually about the issues.

dd-b
December 26, 2002, 01:00 AM
Oh, about the Constitution....the most terrifying thing I've probably ever heard is Al Bore and Hillary talking about the Constitution being a "living document". In liberal-speak this means something you can slaughter and devour. The Constitution is just a few pages long...what, maybe 14 or 15 total.

To each his own. To me, the thought of the constitution being a dead document, locked irrelevantly in the past, is even more scary. Imagine if the first amendment didn't apply to any technology other than assembly in person and the printing press. Wouldn't mean much, would it?

charlie d
December 26, 2002, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by 2nd Amendment
And scrolling? What have you got your screen resolution set on? Anyway, turn 'em off...but you'll miss a lot of interesting things that way.

1600 x 1024 on a 22"
I know I'll miss good stuff but will have to put up with it. Good stuff being things like Oleg's url, not five lines of something that's interesting only to the poster and is repeated with every comment he makes.

BTW, as was requested of one of the "brass" of this new forum (not by me), he didn't think there was a way of limiting the lines of sigs. The other forum I mentioned completely eliminated them due to abuse.

I'm done now. Sorry to have been off topic, but your one line post and 5 line sig got me started.

dave
December 26, 2002, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by dd-b
Imagine if the first amendment didn't apply to any technology other than assembly in person and the printing press. Wouldn't mean much, would it?



I like some of your post sir, but isn't that the very arguement used by those who say the 2nd Admendment is out dated and of no use to "modern" man?

I, by no means, think the Constitution is a "dead" document, but I do believe we should give a great deal of thought to what the framers intended when writting it. Just as the 1st isn't, and shouldn't be, diminnished by the advent of technology and "progress", neither should the the 2nd. Yet that is the very reason some give for wanting it dismissed or redefining it's meaning.

Oleg Volk
December 26, 2002, 01:51 AM
dd-b is the sysadmin of my personal web sites. He is also the guy who got me into gun ownership. A few years ago, I helped him move and teased him about the weight of two cases of ammo. More recently, he helped me move and teased me about the weight of twenty cases of ammo.

I can get along well with his version of liberal thought...bordering on libertarian much of the time. It is my hope that this forum becomes a home for folks from all political corners...united in the eventual realization that not treading on the rights of others is a good start.

dave
December 26, 2002, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Oleg Volk
dd-b is the sysadmin of my personal web sites. He is also the guy who got me into gun ownership. A few years ago, I helped him move and teased him about the weight of two cases of ammo. More recently, he helped me move and teased me about the weight of twenty cases of ammo.

I can get along well with his version of liberal thought...bordering on libertarian much of the time. It is my hope that this forum becomes a home for folks from all political corners...united in the eventual realization that not treading on the rights of others is a good start.



Well said.

provalov
December 26, 2002, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by Rangerover
Hmmmm...what is the definition of "absolute redneck"?

I suggest you turn to one of America's current favorite sons for a full definition. Alan Jackson has a song called: "It's alright to be a redneck." Great fun, and gives examples of the simple virtues of redneck life. At the risk of perpetuating stereo-types, my favorite line is: "It's alright to be a redneck, it's alright to have a girl named Thelma Lou, who doesn't mind a little kiss when you've got a little chew."

MitchSchaft
December 26, 2002, 02:51 AM
And the really great thing is that it's thehighroad.ORG , not .COM .

Why is that good? Just curious.

Rangerover
December 26, 2002, 03:11 AM
I'm a little rusty on internet lingo I guess, but, what exactly is a "troll" (besides the guy that hangs out under bridges stealing the "gruffs" from billie-goats, etc.)?

Seriously. I guess I'm stupid, but, how does one know if one is being a "troll" or not? I tried to find it on google, but all it said was something about perverts trying to hook up with little girls and such.

They seem to have a bad reputation (nearly as bad as Mall Ninjas!), so I want to avoid it at all costs, but how will I know what to avoid if I don't know what it is? :p

Schuey2002
December 26, 2002, 03:24 AM
Rangerover,

Here is an example for you.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=140651&highlight=guns

Rangerover
December 26, 2002, 03:41 AM
OOOhhhhh! I see, I see! That was HILARIOUS! It all makes sense, now! Thanx!:D

Janitor
December 26, 2002, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by dd-b
*snip*
One of the problems that the firearms lobby has, politically, is that too many firearms supporters assume that support for firearms rights comes only as part of a package including lots of other political beliefs. By speaking and behaving as if this is true, they tend to make it true, by alienating people who do or might support firearms but don't support the other beliefs.

Let's not let that divisive assumption become the norm here!

Here, here dd-b. Very well said.

/randy

2nd Amendment
December 26, 2002, 01:53 PM
One of the reasons people see 2A support coming as a package deal is because it fits in much better with the general individualist, personal responsibility mind-set of Conservatism than with the collective, group-think ideology of the Left. That's a big part of the reason so few on the left of the spectrum have anything but contempt for the 2A, as well as property rights in general.

Because one views the BoR and Constitution as being above simplistic change doesn't mean one views them as 'dead". they are pertinent to our lives and freedom and so very much alive. they are not, however, what the likes of Goron and Ms Klinton call "living documents". Your analogy of the 1A isn't accurate because nobody has ever sought to change it to mean a limitation to only assembly or hand presses. The meaning is apparent in the original text without any need for a "living' aspect. The living document tripe shows up when they want to creat restrictions on the 2A, or find excuses for political goals like "Separation of Church and State or "Rights to privacy".

btw, Charlie, I've now counted the total number of all lines from all my posts and they total more than the number of lines in my sig repeated each time, so it's OK, you can turn your sigs back on. :D

Blackhawk
December 26, 2002, 02:08 PM
One of the problems that the firearms lobby has, politically, is that too many firearms supporters assume that support for firearms rights comes only as part of a package including lots of other political beliefs. By speaking and behaving as if this is true, they tend to make it true, by alienating people who do or might support firearms but don't support the other beliefs. True.

That's the same problem guys have when they get married. They just wanted the girl and got the whole family. Same problem for the girls.

Same way, and more on point, with the Libertarian Party as well as the Republicrats and Demolicans. They all come with the good, the bad, and the downright ugly.

dd-b
December 27, 2002, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by dave
I like some of your post sir, but isn't that the very arguement used by those who say the 2nd Admendment is out dated and of no use to "modern" man?

I, by no means, think the Constitution is a "dead" document, but I do believe we should give a great deal of thought to what the framers intended when writting it. Just as the 1st isn't, and shouldn't be, diminnished by the advent of technology and "progress", neither should the the 2nd. Yet that is the very reason some give for wanting it dismissed or redefining it's meaning.

The fact remains that if the constitution meant only and precisely what the signers thought it meant, it wouldn't cover all sorts of important things. That's simply not a workable position. Besides that, I believe we could prove that the signers already disagreed on what some things meant, and other things we couldn't find conslusive evidence of exactly what they meant. Any way you look at it, constitutional literalism is unworkable.

People will, of course, attempt to use any argument they can find to further their aims. I'm not prepared to abandon every useful idea every time somebody finds a way to make an argument I don't like with it. I'll only abandon them in the face of mounds of evidence and a good deal of thought.

In the case of the second amendment, I see the situation as simple in some ways and complex in others. It's nonsense to suggest that the 2A was only meant to protect muzzle-loading weapons, for example.

I think that, indeed, what a judge should do is give considerable thought to what was intended, and then follow up on that intention even if they don't like it. If significant changes are needed, that should be left to the mechanism outlined in the constitution. I understand how it's rarely possible for people with strong opinions, trained in finding strange arguments to support the conclusions they favor, to hold themselves back when they see a chance to do a good deed for the country, though.

dd-b
December 27, 2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by 2nd Amendment


Because one views the BoR and Constitution as being above simplistic change doesn't mean one views them as 'dead". they are pertinent to our lives and freedom and so very much alive. they are not, however, what the likes of Goron and Ms Klinton call "living documents". Your analogy of the 1A isn't accurate because nobody has ever sought to change it to mean a limitation to only assembly or hand presses. The meaning is apparent in the original text without any need for a "living' aspect. The living document tripe shows up when they want to creat restrictions on the 2A, or find excuses for political goals like "Separation of Church and State or "Rights to privacy".



The text of the 1st Amendment specifically refers to freedom of the press. Interpreting that to refer to broadcasting on the radio is exactly the sort of progressive reading you're objecting to, and I'm claiming is necessary. There were, of necessity, decisions finding for the first time that freedom "of the press" included radio and television broadcasts.

Have you actually studied the history of established religions, in Europe, and in the middle east? Iran and Saudi Arabia are now experiencing the joys of that. In Europe, it's become vestigial; the law is still there, but like the Queen of England, has no remaining force. We had their experience to draw on, and avoided making that particular mistake.

grampster
December 27, 2002, 10:13 PM
IMHO the conservative view is that the beauty of the Constitution and B of R is that as society evolves and changes it (the Constitution and B of R) remains grounded as an immutable document that is totally applicable to the circumstances that it is defining. The liberal view is the opposite, the document is defined by the circumstance. (I wonder if what I just said makes sense to anyone else other than me??!!)
grampster:confused:

2nd Amendment
December 27, 2002, 11:05 PM
The word "press", even in the 18th century, was accepted to refer to media, not specifically a machine for stamping out leaflets. News reporting, of whatever fashion. Though some fool may have chalenged this at some point or three is merely a reflection of that individual/groups foolishness.

Your second paragraphhas nothing to do with what I said or what the BoR says. The 1st guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROm religion. It denies the establishment of an official State Church. That's it. The end. "Separation" is a means to a political and social engineering end.

dd-b
December 28, 2002, 12:04 AM
Freedom of religion must include the freedom to not practice one.

As to "establishment", the act of picking a religion for the state to endorse is precisely the forbidden establishment of religion. Which we're wildly in violation of already.

dd-b
December 28, 2002, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by grampster
IMHO the conservative view is that the beauty of the Constitution and B of R is that as society evolves and changes it (the Constitution and B of R) remains grounded as an immutable document that is totally applicable to the circumstances that it is defining. The liberal view is the opposite, the document is defined by the circumstance. (I wonder if what I just said makes sense to anyone else other than me??!!)
grampster:confused:

Well, um, not exactly, no :confused:.

The liberal view as I understand it is that it is necessary to figure out how the constitution applies to things that are new since it was written.

I don't actually understand what the various other views are. I mean, you can't very well argue that the constitution magically foresaw everything that was going to happen and therefore contains literal instructions for those situations, can you? I mean, with a straight face?

2nd Amendment
December 28, 2002, 12:21 AM
Where?

grampster
December 28, 2002, 12:36 AM
dd-b,

Regards your last paragraph: Your view, then, seems to infer that I believe (albiet with a straight face) that the Constitution was a magical document that was in essense a "soothsayer" with respect to the future. To this I say yes, emphatically!!

I would submit the founders had a keen understanding of how this nation would evolve, its potential that is. They created a document that is the foundation that our liberty stands upon. That liberty was freedom. With freedom, s**t happens.

The direction toward which we, as Americans, are headed are in no way predictive of whether the Constitution should change to accomodate us. Rather we should wonder if we should change to accomodate its principals on the basis of the history of its existance and the impact it has had on human behaviour. We, I believe, rest upon that foundation, with a firm belief in it. For we know that if the foundation shifts, the whole shebang is in danger and could fall. If the foundation is secure, the building is safe.

For Liberty,
Grampster

dd-b
December 28, 2002, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by 2nd Amendment
Where?

Everything from prayers in congress to religious holidays. Basically every time you turn around you're smashed in the face with enforced christianity.

dd-b
December 28, 2002, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by 2nd Amendment
The word "press", even in the 18th century, was accepted to refer to media, not specifically a machine for stamping out leaflets. News reporting, of whatever fashion. Though some fool may have chalenged this at some point or three is merely a reflection of that individual/groups foolishness.


The earliest citation I can find for that meaning of "press" is 1797, which is at the *very* end of the 18th century, and, more important, after the use of the phrase in the constitution.

The more familiar use of "freedom of the press" and closely related phrases goes back to at least 1644.

So I don't believe that the general news media is what was meant by the use in the 1st Amendment.

Furthermore, it was understood from the beginning to protect political opinion and polemic at least as much as news reporting, empirical evidence that the founders didn't think it meant what you say.

grampster
December 28, 2002, 12:49 AM
dd-b, Sigh............................................

dd-b
December 28, 2002, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by grampster
dd-b,

Regards your last paragraph: Your view, then, seems to infer that I believe (albiet with a straight face) that the Constitution was a magical document that was in essense a "soothsayer" with respect to the future. To this I say yes, emphatically!!



I don't think we're communicating accurately here, somehow. The constitution doesn't say a word about "freedom of all media of communication", it talks about only the ones that existed when it was written (in-person talk, and printed stuff). (See my separate message to 2nd Amendment about his contention that "press" meant "news media" at the time the 1st Amendment was passed).

And yet it's clearly important that that freedom be extended to new media as they are invented. I believe we're in agreement on that?

So the choices are to amend the constitution as it comes along, or to recognize that the intention was broader than the wording. Both approaches have their problems. Really strict construction leads to frequent amendments, which leads to a very dangerous level of "messing with" for such a basic document.

The direction toward which we, as Americans, are headed are in no way predictive of whether the Constitution should change to accomodate us. Rather we should wonder if we should change to accomodate its principals on the basis of the history of its existance and the impact it has had on human behaviour. We, I believe, rest upon that foundation, with a firm belief in it. For we know that if the foundation shifts, the whole shebang is in danger and could fall. If the foundation is secure, the building is safe.

Notice how the foundations of the former World Trade Center are still there, and are in fact included in some of the memorial proposals? A firm foundation is unfortunately not a sufficient guarantee of long-term stability.

grampster
December 28, 2002, 01:12 AM
dd-b
But I don't think ideas and buildings are comparable except as alliterations of description for convenience sake. To say that even tho the World Trade Center has been destroyed, the foundation remains and that is somehow a good thing, is perplexing. Wouldn't it be better that the Trade Center remained? The implication being something else can be built on that foundation. But, there is no guarantee that what will come will be better.
If we accomodate the "idea" (read Constitution) in order to construct the "things", those "things" are guaranteed to be better. History is the evidence that reinforces that proposition.

You and I have some sort of a bastard agreement. We both agree in the imprtance of the Constitution. Our views part company with respect to ascenancy. Should man rule or Law? It comes to that basis in the end.

History has proven that the rule of Law transcends the dealings of men and is prefferable as the rule of law is based on the equality of men under the law.

45-auto
December 28, 2002, 03:00 AM
Well, I regard myself as a middle of the road kinda guy. But then I regard Teddy Kennedy as a commie.

I suppose most folks in Seattle would label me as two steps to the right of Attila the Hun. But then, most folks in Seattle prefer fish to people, so what the hey.

rifleman
December 28, 2002, 04:46 AM
Freedom is my religion.

Hehe, just wanted to say that. It sounds neat. :D

dd-b
December 28, 2002, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by grampster
dd-b
But I don't think ideas and buildings are comparable except as alliterations of description for convenience sake. To say that even tho the World Trade Center has been destroyed, the foundation remains and that is somehow a good thing, is perplexing. Wouldn't it be better that the Trade Center remained? The implication being something else can be built on that foundation. But, there is no guarantee that what will come will be better.


You said "if the foundation is secure, the building is safe". I was giving a (rather emotionally loaded) example of a case where the foundation was secure, and in fact survived, yet the building was not safe.

I think you overestimate the importance of foundations.


If we accomodate the "idea" (read Constitution) in order to construct the "things", those "things" are guaranteed to be better. History is the evidence that reinforces that proposition.

You and I have some sort of a bastard agreement. We both agree in the imprtance of the Constitution. Our views part company with respect to ascenancy. Should man rule or Law? It comes to that basis in the end.

History has proven that the rule of Law transcends the dealings of men and is prefferable as the rule of law is based on the equality of men under the law.


So long as men disagree on what the law says, pure rule of law is impossible, though. Men wrote the laws, men interpret the laws, men change the laws.

DonP
December 28, 2002, 01:55 PM
Wow, I post a "howdy" with a mild tongue in cheek comment about the Democratic Underground and about how nice it is to see so many familiar names etc.

The next thing I know its a three page long thread with detailed, intelligent, and above all "polite" discussions about the B of R.

Yup this isn't the DU.

Good work Oleg.

Don P.

redneck2
December 28, 2002, 02:19 PM
that the 1st referred to "mass media"...whatever that was at the time. Back-up to this line of reasoning would be the right to assembly

the liberals have somehow twisted it to mean pornography.

Since many of the founding fathers were ministers, and regular Sunday church services were held in (gasp!) the Capitol Building (presided over by the writers of the Constitution), I can't see it as a big stretch when Christmas programs are held today on public property.

You still have freedom of religion. Go to church, mosque, temple, whatever you want or not go at all. Amazing that so many non-Christians still have tons of lawn ornaments, lights, and presents under Christmas trees, but they don't want religious holidays "forced" on them.

According to the Indiana Constution, I am a member of the Indiana Militia. Seems pretty clear that my right to firearms shouldn't be infringed, though that's not the liberals way of thinking because it doesn't support their end goal.

The real telling moments came during the last election, when the liberals replaced Torcelli in NJ and put Fritz in Minn. Absolute total and complete violation of the law, but as long as they have a majority, the "law" is whatever they want.

It amazes me that John Ashcroft is so vehemently attacked by the liberal media, yet he has to be one of the most sincere, honest, and caring individuals in public service.....oops, forgot, he's a devout Christian so of course he's suspect. Compare him to Janet Reno....man what a piece of work she was.

grampster
December 28, 2002, 02:23 PM
dd-b,
Enjoyed our reparte'. I think we will just agree to disagree on whether the Constitution is a "Living" document. I believe it is only within the parameters that it describes regarding the ability to modify it. I do not believe it is a document to loosely intrepret and go around with court decisions or legislation that obliquely changes its intent, or to somehow misinterpret to allow for things that are not contained within it. The Constitution is sometimes regarded as a "framework" which alludes to the fact that it "contains" things as a picture frame "contains" the art. Framework can be made larger to contain a larger piece of work, but one needs to follow the instructions that are contained in the original "art" . Imho the original framers left instructions within their work of art to change, enlarge or enhance it. Those instructions should be followed. An example that would be germain are all the thousands of gun laws, many of which skirt or outright violate the 2A. Attempts to control ammo would fall in this category as well.

If the 2A is distastefull to the majority of our citizens, then work toward the passage of a revocation or modification of it. It takes 2/3's of the states to ratify an amendment, which tells me the high regard that the framers had for the general satisfaction for their work and worry that it could be easily undone. But it still can be undone if most of us agree. I object to the lack of regard given the importance of this "foundation" by many citizens today. I do not at all overestimate its importance. I do think that many underestimate it.

Best wishes for you and yours for the New Year.
Grampster

rifleman
December 28, 2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by redneck2
Since many of the founding fathers were ministers, and regular Sunday church services were held in (gasp!) the Capitol Building (presided over by the writers of the Constitution), I can't see it as a big stretch when Christmas programs are held today on public property.

You still have freedom of religion. Go to church, mosque, temple, whatever you want or not go at all. Amazing that so many non-Christians still have tons of lawn ornaments, lights, and presents under Christmas trees, but they don't want religious holidays "forced" on them.


Weren't most of our Founding Fathers Masons? :D

Anyhow, I do agree, even as a non-religious person, that our freedom of religion is pretty much intact. I believe that the current amount of religion being "pushed" upon us is mostly society, and that is something you can't escape. I do not feel that the government is endorsing any religion; however it is obvious that most of our officials are Christians (or at least claim to be... practice? heh, no). Is that bad? Nah, not really. Other than Jehova's witnesses and an occasional Mormon at my door, I don't feel religion is being pushed on me. ;)

2nd Amendment
December 28, 2002, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by dd-b
Everything from prayers in congress to religious holidays. Basically every time you turn around you're smashed in the face with enforced christianity.

Does a congressional prayer in any way affect or control your personal religious choice? No. Thus it has nothing to do with an Official State Religion.

You only have two types of holidays: Religious and government. The religious ones are the only ones that garner any public interest. If the government failed to recognize these holidays(and you might want to consider the word "holiday" itself) there would be hell to pay. Plus, again, does the recognition of these Holy Days in any way determine YOUR personal choices? Again, no and thus they have nothing to do with the issue.

Again, it is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. noplace and in no way can you in any fashion whatsoever demonstrate in the vaguest fashion that Christianity is being enforced on you or any of the other relatively small number of non-Christians. you're free to do what you will. Sadly, though, you have taken that freedom to mean you have the right to control what the majority of us do.

Since it is the leftists who keep referring to the Constitutional Republic as a mob-rule Democracy it appears to me there's a serious dose of hypocricy here, since we're the far bigger "mob" than you.

2nd Amendment
December 28, 2002, 10:11 PM
Furthermore, it was understood from the beginning to protect political opinion and polemic at least as much as news reporting, empirical evidence that the founders didn't think it meant what you say.

Perhaps I missed something or perhaps you left out a piece of your post. How is the fact the Founders intended the 1st to protect a broad range of speech evidence they didn't think it went beyond a simple press? And where is most political speech offered? The media, which was progressing then and which you would have to assume the Founders were ignorant of, of course.

If you enjoyed reading about "I thought this was the new Democratic Underground!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!