Democrats win big on House. Senate... a toss-up

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
You have your interpretation and I have mine.  I'm a strict constructionist, meaning I believe in the letter of the law.  This is an opposing view to the concept of a "Living Constitution" and "legislative intent", philosophies which, in my view, have been tearing the Constitution apart.  Ex: the "right to bear arms" means just what it says.  period.  any regulation of that right, limiting the arms I can bear to those of a certain type, or having to apply for a license, is an infringement.

But you see that was my whole argument.  All Constitutional rights have always had limits on them.  This is not new and it's only part of the "living Constitution" argument (which btw, I don't agree with either).  I wonder though if you realize the significance of your own use of Supreme Court rulings as proof that the Constitution does in fact contain the right to privacy (a right, as I said before, I agree with).  By using that argument, you are admitting that the beginning and end of all rights is not the direct written word of the Constitution since finding a privacy right took an act of judicial interpretation.  The same is said about limitations on those rights.  

Someone once said that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" and I have to agree with that.  Denying for instance the governments ability to use supposedly "illegal" wire taps for overseas phone calls is one such case of being willing to commit suicide rather than deal with the real world.  Can you imagine someone in WWII worrying about the constitutionality of the government listening in to German or Japanese radio broadcasts aimed at spies (and yes, many German and Japanese spies were US citizens) in the US?  This is exactly the same thing.  Who's going to take the blame the next time some terrorist gets on board a US airline because someone was wringing his hands over the constitutionality of searching passengers?  I doubt you'll raise your hand and say "it was my fault".

The bottom line is a certain amount of distrust and scepticism regarding anything as powerful as the US government is healthy; however, we reach a point where absolutists and handwringers do far more damage than anything the government is currently doing.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, you have a point, but at what point to you stop borrowing. I own a house, and that's good. But if I keep borrowing more before paying what I have borrowed already, I could not afford to pay my mortgage and I would default.

OK, I have my house, but it needs to be painted, so I borrow money to paint it...then I borrow to put up a fence, then I borrow for new sod for my yard, then I borrow for a pool, then I borrow to have the fence stained, then I borrow to put an addition on, then I borrow to have the basement finished, then I borrow to have a new bathroom put in, then I start cashing those checks in the mail, you know "deposit this check for an instant loan", the one with the rediculous interest rate?

Well, guess what, I am on my way to bankruptcy. So if you borrow responsibly, yes, it can work for you, but can you honestly say we have borrowed responsibly? I don't have to ask you that, you already know.

Like that tax cut check we got, it was added to our debt, it was like cashing one of those checks for loans you get in the mail, we are paying compound interest on it.

Now, is Lazs right for saying we have too many social programs? Of course he is. Is he right for saying that is the primary cause of our debt? No way in hell. Welfare is welfare, if you are paying a contractor $3000 for hammers and $20,000 for toilet bowls, that's welfare. If you are creating government jobs for people who got you elected and their friends(bigger government), that's welfare, it's a free ride. Our tax dollars get raided on a daily bases and get added to our debt.

As one religious conservative put it "they were just as bad as the democrats when they got their snout in the trough"

And it has become a cycle of spenders, throw one bum out the other spends, throw that bum out and the other bum is back spending.

If the dems do the same, I think you might actually see these 3rd(4th, 5th?) parties start to gain strength. They need to ally with the bigger parties now, but people, as shown in this last election, will do what they have to for change. And if the dems spend away, it could be used as a rallying cry for an independent party. It may not win, but it could gain enough strength to make it a legit power and bring winds of change.

Actually sixpence, I continue to agree with a lot of your arguement; however, your example is not necessarily valid.  If you continue to borrow and invest in your home and therefore it's value increases then the investment is sound.  If on the other hand, you borrowed the money and then, instead of investing it, you blew it all on beer then you wouldn't be very smart.  There's little disagreement that the government and industry (or any special interest group for that matter) have a strong tendancy to wash each others hands but I'd be willing to bet you that the amount of money wasted this way by DoD is trivial compared to the grand total of entitlements by the time you add up the spending of Health and Human Services, HUD, Education, Social Security, etc.  Also remember that all of these other entitlement based organizations have their own versions of corporate welfare and fraud.

Besides, I've mentioned it before on the boards but the mythical $600 hammer and $10,000 toilet seat are just that, myths and have nothing whatsoever to do with corporate welfare.  I can explain if you're really interested in the facts.  Again, not denying that there aren't problems but I do disagree with the urban myth method of exemplars.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Mace2004
I wonder though if you realize the significance of your own use of Supreme Court rulings as proof that the Constitution does in fact contain the right to privacy (a right, as I said before, I agree with).  By using that argument, you are admitting that the beginning and end of all rights is not the direct written word of the Constitution since finding a privacy right took an act of judicial interpretation.  The same is said about limitations on those rights.

actually, I included the SCOTUS bit for the benefit of the reader, not for my own.  Some people won't bnelieve anything without a Gov't stamp of approval.  Regarding the origen of rights, I did not intend to imply that they are or aren't "the direct written word of the Constitution."  The Constitution and BoR simply enumerate SOME rights, admonishes the FedGov to not mess with said rights, defines the scope of the Federal Government and leaves everything else up to the states.  It even recognizes that the list of rights it's covering isn't exhaustive, as a saftey net.  It does not create rights, nor do SCOTUS rulings.  It simply RECOGNIZES them.  Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being.  That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal".  I own them.  So do you.  They're ours.  Gov't doesn't "give" them to us, nor can it take ANY of them away.  Furthermore, accepting any Gov't interference with my exercising my rights (permits, licenses, ID checks) is akin to having to ask permission.  If you have to ask permission to do something, you're not truely free to do it.

Someone once said that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" and I have to agree with that.  Denying for instance the governments ability to use supposedly "illegal" wire taps for overseas phone calls is one such case of being willing to commit suicide rather than deal with the real world.  Can you imagine someone in WWII worrying about the constitutionality of the government listening in to German or Japanese radio broadcasts aimed at spies (and yes, many German and Japanese spies were US citizens) in the US?  This is exactly the same thing.  Who's going to take the blame the next time some terrorist gets on board a US airline because someone was wringing his hands over the constitutionality of searching passengers?  I doubt you'll raise your hand and say "it was my fault".

What you describe is different from Gov't FISHING through DOMESTIC records, looking for FOREIGN  connections, which the Patriot Act permits.  Even "sneak and peek" warrants are authorized.  On American citizens.  with no evidence.   and they don't have to tell you about it. This bothers me.

[john9001]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
actually, I included the SCOTUS bit for the benefit of the reader, not for my own.  Some people won't bnelieve anything without a Gov't stamp of approval.  Regarding the origen of rights, I did not intend to imply that they are or aren't "the direct written word of the Constitution."  The Constitution and BoR simply enumerate SOME rights, admonishes the FedGov to not mess with said rights, defines the scope of the Federal Government and leaves everything else up to the states.  It even recognizes that the list of rights it's covering isn't exhaustive, as a saftey net.  It does not create rights, nor do SCOTUS rulings.  It simply RECOGNIZES them.  Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being.  That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal".  I own them.  So do you.  They're ours.  Gov't doesn't "give" them to us, nor can it take ANY of them away.  Furthermore, accepting any Gov't interference with my exercising my rights (permits, licenses, ID checks) is akin to having to ask permission.  If you have to ask permission to do something, you're not truely free to do it.

have to agree with bsdaddict.

[Hap]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being.  That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal".  I own them.  So do you.  They're ours.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Actually, Jefferson, if he meant what he wrote, and those who pledged their lives to the Declaration disagree bsaddict.

Regards,

hap

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Hap
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Actually, Jefferson, if he meant what he wrote, and those who pledged their lives to the Declaration disagree bsaddict.

Regards,

hap

Creator, nature, whatever you call it.  It's not an institution of man.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
actually, I included the SCOTUS bit for the benefit of the reader, not for my own.  Some people won't bnelieve anything without a Gov't stamp of approval.  Regarding the origen of rights, I did not intend to imply that they are or aren't "the direct written word of the Constitution."  The Constitution and BoR simply enumerate SOME rights, admonishes the FedGov to not mess with said rights, defines the scope of the Federal Government and leaves everything else up to the states.  It even recognizes that the list of rights it's covering isn't exhaustive, as a saftey net.  It does not create rights, nor do SCOTUS rulings.  It simply RECOGNIZES them.  Rights aren't "created" by anything, other than me being a living, breathing human being.  That's the concept behind "inalienable rights" and "All men are created equal".  I own them.  So do you.  They're ours.  Gov't doesn't "give" them to us, nor can it take ANY of them away.  Furthermore, accepting any Gov't interference with my exercising my rights (permits, licenses, ID checks) is akin to having to ask permission.  If you have to ask permission to do something, you're not truely free to do it.

What you describe is different from Gov't FISHING through DOMESTIC records, looking for FOREIGN  connections, which the Patriot Act permits.  Even "sneak and peek" warrants are authorized.  On American citizens.  with no evidence.   and they don't have to tell you about it. This bothers me.

I never once mentioned the "creation" of rights either by the Constitution or the courts. Without getting into metaphysical arguments I agree with you that the rights, as enumerated in the Constititution, are an attempt to capture those rights which we, as a society, believe are proper.  Since; however, I haven't debated the origins of rights your argument is irrelevant.  I simply pointed out the very accurate fact that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, as the Supreme Court has done in many cases including its recognition of privacy as a right.  It proves my point that even a strict constructionist as you claim to be (and as I am also) cannot limit the scope of the Constitution to only the very specific words within it.

Also, while I do not agree with the idea of the Constitution as a "living document" it is foolish to believe that its authors anticipated every future contingency so some recognition of the technological differences alone must be made.  I believe that the founders would be just as astounded by the invention of a right to an abortion as they would find it unbelievable that there are Americans that believe monitoring communications between an enemy and spies or enemy combatants within the US is wrong.  I'm sure that had they the opportunity to intercept communications between the British and spies during the War of 1812 they most certainly would have done so and undoubtably did.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Mace2004
Besides, I've mentioned it before on the boards but the mythical $600 hammer and $10,000 toilet seat are just that, myths and have nothing whatsoever to do with corporate welfare.  I can explain if you're really interested in the facts.  Again, not denying that there aren't problems but I do disagree with the urban myth method of exemplars.

Well, we could go back and forth with actual cases of corporate and public subsidies. But you are trying to downplay corporate subsidies and pork barrel spending as insignificant, and that's far from the case.

There is nothing mythical about a $223 bridge earmarked for 50 residents on an island in Alaska

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Sixpence
There is nothing mythical about a $223 bridge earmarked for 50 residents on an island in Alaska

wow - that bridge would only cost each resident $4.46 - sounds like a deal to me

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Eagler
wow - that bridge would only cost each resident $4.46 - sounds like a deal to me

lol, silly me;)

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Hawco
You know, I've had a sobering realization here, There's no real difference between the Dems and the GOP, all that happens is that big business money passes from one party to the other, If the Dems lose then the cash goes back the other way.
None of them have our interests at heart, The penny has finally dropped for me here, Look at where I live in California, both of them have it sown up so that nobody gets a look in from any other party and I bet you that's the same right across the country.
We can all go back and forth and forth and back on the GOP V Dems debate, but they are both the same in my book, I mean c'mon, do you think the dems will stick up for the avearge working man? nope, Just like the GOP didn't either.

Word.

One reason why neither party sticks up for the average working Joe; they don't know what its like to walk in Joes shoes. Only 1 guy, Webb, has boots on the ground in Iraq... the rest are the powerful elite who manipulate & gain favor within "The party"... by the time they get elected they owe a-lot of people and use big business to pay them back.

It really is too bad a regular Joe cant afford to run for office, but thats the way the Repubs & Dems like it... they have a firm grip on power and are not going to let up for something as silly as the good of the nation.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Mace2004
I never once mentioned the "creation" of rights either by the Constitution or the courts.

Originally posted by Mace2004
I wonder though if you realize the significance of your own use of Supreme Court rulings as proof that the Constitution does in fact contain the right to privacy (a right, as I said before, I agree with). By using that argument, you are admitting that the beginning and end of all rights is not the direct written word of the Constitution since finding a privacy right took an act of judicial interpretation. The same is said about limitations on those rights. [/B]

"beginning and end" sounds related to "creation" to me...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
"beginning and end" sounds related to "creation" to me...

That's a bit of a stretch.

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
"beginning and end" sounds related to "creation" to me...

Please reread in the entirety and in context:
By using that argument, you are admitting that the beginning and end of all rights is not the direct written word of the Constitution since finding a privacy right took an act of judicial interpretation.

1)  I believe it's clear that I'm not ascribing the origins of rights to the Constitution here.
2)  I believe it's also clear that I'm talking about the rights as described in the Constitution as well as the interpretation by the court that suggest there is more than just what the Constitution says.
3)  Nowhere do I see where I debate the metaphysical origins of "rights".

[Debonair]

If Heath Shuler turns out to be only a so-so congressman, can Nancy Pelosi replace him mid-term with Gus Frerotte?

ROFLOLOLOLOLMAO