# A Vote for Nader... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2000, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058 "2000-10-24T01:52:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/61 "2000-10-25T20:15:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > That depends on what you mean by ‘our’. If you are not poor, female, homosexual, or non-Christian, then you are probably right. With Gore, I suppose, if you are a property owner, a fetus, straight, or religious, you are then equally screwed? I’m not sure I entirely follow your argument here. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/62 "2000-10-25T20:45:35Z")
> [@](#): > > With Gore, I suppose, if you are a property owner, a fetus, straight, or religious, you are then equally screwed? I’m not sure I entirely follow your argument here. Um, no. That is not my argument. If religion is an important part of your life and you don’t seek to impose it on others by means of public posting of the 10C, prayer in schools, etc, then you will be no more persecuted than you were thirty years ago under a liberal court. If you are straight, then I really don’t see that you are about to lose your rights under any administration. Don’t even get me started on a fetus, jmullaney. It is too inflammatory. Let me put this as simply as possible. If you are in the majority, you aren’t in much danger. States’ rights is code for majoritarianism. The federal government does not make it a practice of shitting on the majority of its electorate when it has its work cut out for it protecting a _minimum_ of minority rights. Trust me, jmullaney, you will be fine no matter who is president. MR ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/63 "2000-10-25T21:12:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > If religion is an important part of your life and you don’t seek to impose it on others by means of public posting of the 10C, prayer in schools, etc, then you will be no more persecuted than you were thirty years ago under a liberal court. Why wouldn’t a strict constructionalist be against state endorsed religion? Am I missing something? > [@](#): > > Don’t even get me started on a fetus, jmullaney. It is too inflammatory. OK, sure. What other minorities conservatives claim to care about don’t count with you either? The richest one percent? Aren’t _they_ a minority? Aren’t the Boy Scouts a minority? Gun owners? You make it sound like we’ll turn into Iran if Bush is elected! > [@](#): > > States’ rights is code for majoritarianism. If you are living in a state that doesn’t have a bill of rights in it’s constitution, you should see what you can do about it! I would say your view of federalism is a code for special rights for “special” people for as long as they can hold a coalition together. If you give special rights to one group, you have to take away rights from another. Sometimes there is no clear distinction which is which, like in abortion, but trying to claim this and others are “minority” rights issues is preposterous. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/64 "2000-10-25T21:27:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Why wouldn’t a strict constructionalist be against state endorsed religion? Am I missing something? I have no idea what your point is. Strict constructionists allow states and communities to oppress religious minorities by enforcing prayer in schools, the posting of the ten commandments in public spaces, etc. What don’t you understand? > [@](#): > > OK, sure. What other minorities conservatives claim to care about don’t count with you either? The richest one percent? Aren’t they a minority? Aren’t the Boy Scouts a minority? Gun owners? You make it sound like we’ll turn into Iran if Bush is elected! Perhaps I don’t want to argue with you about fetuses because I think your definition of when life begins is probably preposterous yet I do not wish to offend you? You would like to believe that I think we would turn into a theocracy if Bush were elected because it would be convenient and easy for you to dismiss me as an alarmist. But you are wrong. I do not think we will turn into Iran. I think that certain people will suffer at certain times, and that the civil equality many of us have fought for will be in jeopardy in certain areas. > [@](#): > > If you are living in a state that doesn’t have a bill of rights in it’s constitution, you should see what you can do about it! I do. It’s called restricting what the majority can do to me. > [@](#): > > would say your view of federalism is a code for special rights for “special” people for as long as they can hold a coalition together. If you give special rights to one group, you have to take away rights from another. And this, dear friends, is why I have such a distaste for most conservatives. **RIGHTS ARE NOT ZERO SUM!** You don’t have to hold on to your little piece of the pie, terrified lest a colored gay should come along and take away your special rights! You don’t _lose_ anything by not being able to oppress those who believe differently than you. How you _don’t_ think these are minority issues defies me utterly. ---
**Author:** ![Balduran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cc9497/32.png) [@Balduran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balduran)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/65 "2000-10-25T21:54:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Let me put this as simply as possible. If you are in the majority, you aren’t in much danger. Well then, pro choicers don’t have much of a problem since they are in the majority. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/66 "2000-10-25T22:34:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > Strict constructionists allow states and communities to oppress religious minorities by enforcing prayer in schools, the posting of the ten commandments in public spaces, etc. What don’t you understand? I thought constructionists went by the letter of the law, although I must admit Webster’s has a lousy definition. The Bill of Rights is still a part of the Constitution, IIRC. > [@](#): > > I think that certain people will suffer at certain times, and that the civil equality many of us have fought for will be in jeopardy in certain areas. Can you cite an example? > [@](#): > > And this, dear friends, is why I have such a distaste for most conservatives. > > **RIGHTS ARE NOT ZERO SUM!** > > You don’t have to hold on to your little piece of the pie, terrified lest a colored gay should come along and take away your special rights! You don’t _lose_ anything by not being able to oppress those who believe differently than you. How you _don’t_ think these are minority issues defies me utterly. **RIGHTS CAN BE ZERO SUM.** If I’m the Boy Scouts, and I don’t want to hire someone whose behavior I find to be morally wrong, that is my right. I would indeed lose something if I’m forced to act otherwise. If I’m gay, I should have the right to not be discriminated against because of it, and that is my right too. I also would lose something if denied that. **Can’t you see there is no win/win solution?** Believe it or not, there are many less Boy Scouts than there are homosexuals, yet you think, arbitrarily, the rights of one of these minorities outweighs the rights of the other. OK, so maybe the Boy Scouts are wrong – but they are a semi-religious organization and maybe that does give them some rights. I think their policy is stupid, but there is nothing stopping another organization coming along and one upping them. Some issues are more clear cut, of course. ---
**Author:** ![DoZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@DoZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoZ)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/67 "2000-10-26T02:34:46Z")
You should live in a country where there are more parties than will fit on the page, like France. That’s a true democracy. ---
**Author:** ![DoZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@DoZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoZ)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/68 "2000-10-26T02:38:00Z")
Nader just picked the wrong third party. If he’d been a better politician, he could have beaten Buchannan for a big wad of third party ad budget. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/69 "2000-10-26T13:46:25Z")
Ralph will be speaking at a local college today and I’m goin! He said, and I agree, he is _not_ taking votes away from Al Gore, Gore is doing that himself! Look at the record. He’s been vice president for 8 years with a booming economy et. al. and _still_ is slightly behind GWB? Gore is hurting Gore, not Ralph. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/70 "2000-10-26T14:32:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Well then, pro choicers don’t have much of a problem since they are in the majority. Gads, man, read my posts. Maeglin wrote: > [@](#): > > The nationwide majority may in favor of abortion, but the nation does not vote in state legislatures. By overturning RvW, the federal government cannot prevent the restriction and criminalization of abortion in numerous states whose majorities are anti-choice. This, in my view, tramples on minority rights. > [@](#): > > I thought constructionists went by the letter of the law, although I must admit Webster’s has a lousy definition. The Bill of Rights is still a part of the Constitution, IIRC. **jmullaney** , I don’t think you understand this. Strict constructionists believe that if it is not explicitly in the Constitution, the federal government can’t touch it. If you have read the Bill of Rights recently, you would notice that there is no mysterious Nth Amendment which prohibits prayer in schools. So to Scalia or Thomas, prayer in schools is just fine, even though it _directly conflicts_ with the spirit of the first amendment, separation of church and state. The right to privacy is not explicitly in the Bill of Rights. Do you believe that the federal government should be powerless to prohibit local institutions from violating privacy? I don’t. > [@](#): > > Can you cite an example? Has Bush been elected yet? Come on, man. I’m not precognitory. > [@](#): > > f I’m the Boy Scouts, and I don’t want to hire someone whose behavior I find to be morally wrong, that is my right. I would indeed lose something if I’m forced to act otherwise. Wrong again, **jmullaney**. The Boy Scouts meets on public property. It receives public funds. It has a charter from the US Congress. It is my belief, and the belief of many others, that the Scouts is thus bound by federal anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, sexual orientation, etc. If you are not entitled to discriminate in the first place, then you aren’t losing anything. _Privelege_ is zero sum, rights are not. > [@](#): > > Nader just picked the wrong third party. If he’d been a better politician, he could have beaten Buchannan for a big wad of third party ad budget. Dunno about that. He did not want to risk Perot stepping in and taking the nomination away from him. I remember we all had our fingers crossed last month, when Perot could have robbed Buchanan at any time. > [@](#): > > He said, and I agree, he is _not_ taking votes away from Al Gore, Gore is doing that himself! Look at the record. He’s been vice president for 8 years with a booming economy et. al. and _still_ is slightly behind GWB? Gore is hurting Gore, not Ralph. Nader has also said that there is very little difference between the two candidates, a lie so stupid and cynical that it could only be directed at disgusted, uninformed voters. Even twelve of Nader’s campaign managers begged him to step down and endorse Gore. I used to respect Nader tremendously. Until he ran for president. Now I can hardly believe a word that comes out of his mouth. I _expect_ that with mainstream politicians, but Nader was supposed to keep clean. IMHO, he has failed miserably. Not to mention his millions of dollars invested in CISCO, a company he constantly disparrages and litigates against. MR ---
**Author:** ![SouthernStyle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@SouthernStyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SouthernStyle)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/71 "2000-10-26T15:00:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > \*\*There was the 9/0 ruling that Clinton had to testify in the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit. That had an impact, as he went on to lie anyway and almost got thrown out of office. Don’t know if it meets your definition of profound though. 😛 \*\* True. This one slipped my mind. Though I find it less than surprising (and refreshing) that the SC would be unanimous in finding that the actions of a sitting president are bound by the same laws as other citizens. Given a choice, I’d like to see the court move SLIGHTLY more to the right – but still remain centrist. So much of the last 40 years has been under the reign of a leftist court and I have no desire to return to those days. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/72 "2000-10-26T15:04:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > Strict constructionists believe that if it is not explicitly in the Constitution, the federal government can’t touch it. If you have read the Bill of Rights recently, you would notice that there is no mysterious Nth Amendment which prohibits prayer in schools. I don’t know why you think this is the “spirit” of the first amendment and not the letter of it. I think the first ammendment is fairly clear to me. > [@](#): > > The right to privacy is not explicitly in the Bill of Rights. Unlawful search and seizure is. Maybe peeping-tomism should be left up to the states – it hardly seems like a federal concern. > [@](#): > > The Boy Scouts meets on public property. It receives public funds. It has a charter from the US Congress. So you don’t think people who meet on public property should have the freedom to assemble with whom they choose? What’s next – integrating blacks into KKK rallies? The KKK must be forced to admit blacks because they meet on public property? Yeah, right. Not in this country. Having to put up with wackos is the price of freedom, MR. This from the ruling: > [@](#): > > A state requirement that the Boy Scouts retain Dale would significantly burden the organization’s right to > oppose or disfavor homosexual conduct. The state interests embodied in New Jersey’s public accommodations law do not justify such a severe intrusion > on the freedom of expressive association. In so ruling, the Court is not guided by its view of whether the Boy Scouts’ teachings with respect to > homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of an organization’s expression does not justify the State’s effort to compel the > organization to accept members in derogation of the organization’s expressive message. While the law may promote all sorts of conduct in place of > harmful behavior, it may not interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however > enlightened either purpose may seem. Makes sense to me. The charter, BTW, is largely symbolic and you know that. That is why I hate debating left winger – you know you are lying through your teeth and don’t care. The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization. > [@](#): > > It is my belief, and the belief of many others, that the Scouts is thus bound by federal anti-discrimination laws That wasn’t even an issue in this case. > [@](#): > > If you are not entitled to discriminate in the first place, then you aren’t losing anything. _Privelege_ is zero sum, rights are not. The freedom of assembly is not a privelege, nor is the freedom of speech. But I supose this shows once again we each just value some rights over others as must be done in a free society. > [@](#): > > Nader has also said that there is very little difference between the two candidates, a lie so stupid and cynical that it could only be directed at disgusted, uninformed voters. I can’t think of any major issues where Bush and Gore have a serious difference of opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/73 "2000-10-26T15:07:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Given a choice, I’d like to see the court move SLIGHTLY more to the right – but still remain centrist. So much of the last 40 years has been under the reign of a leftist court and I have no desire to return to those days. I’m really ambivalent. Both sides have their pros and cons, obviously. I care a great deal about civil rights and separation of church and state, both of which tend to languish under a rightist court. However, I am all for reducing the impact of the federal government in our daily lives, and I would like to strike down nanny government in the US, more typical of a rightist court. I wasn’t living under the court 40 years ago, so I don’t exactly have a frame of reference. I just know what I care about and I see it divided cleanly between the two sides. Right now civil rights seem more important to me, but who knows how I will feel in six months, or even a year. MR ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/74 "2000-10-26T15:20:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > That is why I hate debating [a] left winger I should add, maybe _you_ don’t know you are trying to falsely imply the Boy Scouts are somehow a federal organization, but the people who told you that probably did. I apologize for randomly mauling your character – you might only be gullible. Sorry either way. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/75 "2000-10-26T15:24:12Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t know why you think this is the “spirit” of the first amendment and not the letter of it. I think the first ammendment is fairly clear to me. Well, apparently it isn’t so clear to communities who wish to impose their religion on others or even to the Supreme Court. If you consider yourself an authority, perhaps you should write a few letters. > [@](#): > > Unlawful search and seizure is. Maybe peeping-tomism should be left up to the states – it hardly seems like a federal concern. Don’t be a dumbass. Look at anti-sodomy laws, still on the books in numerous states. Yes, I _know_ they are usually used to bolster cases against rapists and child abusers, but they _can_ and _have_ been used against consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. Sure, the right to have oral sex may not be in the Constitution, but do you really think states have the prerogative to legislate against this sort of thing? > [@](#): > > So you don’t think people who meet on public property should have the freedom to assemble with whom they choose? What’s next – integrating blacks into KKK rallies? The KKK must be forced to admit blacks because they meet on public property? Yeah, right. Not in this country. Having to put up with wackos is the price of freedom, MR. **jmullaney** , you have a tendency to use such unanalogous counterexamples to shore up your side without actually using any reasoning. The KKK does not meet in _your school_. The KKK does not receive _federal funding_. The president of the United States is not the honorary president of the KKK. The KKK is not held up to be a righteous, wholesome, nationwide activity for boys which fosters civics, morals, and general decency. And the real kicker… Blacks do not want to join the KKK! _Perhaps_ a closer analogy would have been the Irish on St. Patrick’s Day who won’t let gay groups march in the parade. Gays can march like anyone else, but no gay _groups_. This, of course, is a much more borderline case. But the Boy Scouts is not. > [@](#): > > Makes sense to me. Rudyard Kipling justified horrible discrimination in ways that made sense to millions of people. This is the same thing. I am sure the Boy Scouts used the same logic to deny blacks admittance. > [@](#): > > The charter, BTW, is largely symbolic and you know that. That is why I hate debating left winger – you know you are lying through your teeth and don’t care. The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization. What exactly am I lying about? You made my point for me! The charter is _symbolic_. Symbolic of the US government’s approval of the goals and methods of the organization! Where exactly am I lying through my teeth? > [@](#): > > The freedom of assembly is not a privelege, nor is the freedom of speech. But I supose this shows once again we each just value some rights over others as must be done in a free society. This is precisely the same logic that has justified discrimination in every case, from white-only country clubs to white-only jobs. And people are buying it, again and again. > [@](#): > > I can’t think of any major issues where Bush and Gore have a serious difference of opinion. I rest my case. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/76 "2000-10-26T15:29:09Z")
**jmullaney** wrote: > [@](#): > > I can’t think of any major issues where Bush and Gore have a serious difference of opinion. [Resisting urge to engage in _ad hominem_ attack…] A few areas where Gore and Bush differ: 1. Abortion. 2. Enforcement of environmental regulations. 3. Oil drilling in wilderness areas. 4. Logging roads in National Forests. 5. Proper utilization of our military forces. 6. Payment of the national debt versus pandering tax cut. 7. Appointment of “strict constructionist” judges versus judges who value civil liberties and civil rights. And the list could go on, but I get tired of responding to the Big Lie… ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/77 "2000-10-26T16:02:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > Well, apparently it isn’t so clear to communities who wish to impose their religion on others or even to the Supreme Court. Oh, I think you are right. But I take Bush at his word when he says he will appoint strict contructionists who aren’t going to legistlate from the bench. The state can’t condone a religion in school without stomping on others first ammendment rights. > [@](#): > > Look at anti-sodomy laws, still on the books in numerous states. I really don’t think these laws are enforced. But again, I don’t think this is a federal issue outside of, perhaps, pursuit of happiness. I don’t know how many of these laws have been appealed to the Supremes. > [@](#): > > do you really think states have the prerogative to legislate against this sort of thing? Social mores? I don’t know. Yeah, there are some laws from 25 or more years ago against sodomy. Hey, why can’t I have sex with a fourteen year old? Society frowns upon it, basically. Maybe in another 30 years, we’d be arguing about that. Isn’t the idea that people magically reach the age of consent at 16/17/18 depending on state, and some can consent to marriage before they can consent to sex? OTOH, I think laws, silly or unenforcible as they may be, may occasionally just hold out a public standard. Is spitting gum on the sidewalk freedom of speech? Maybe, but I hate stepping on gum. > [@](#): > > The KKK does not meet in _your school_. I don’t see why they couldn’t if they wanted to, though. Why should they have less rights than the Scouts? > [@](#): > > The KKK does not receive _federal funding_. Hey, you want to stop federal funding to them? Me too. Just because the government donates money to a group, doesn’t mean they automatically get to control what they say. But that wasn’t an issue in the case. > [@](#): > > The president of the United States is not the honorary president of the KKK. I’m sure the KKK could appoint him such if they wished. Not much he could do about it. > [@](#): > > The KKK is not held up to be a righteous, wholesome, nationwide activity for boys which fosters civics, morals, and general decency. I think they’d definitely disagree with you there. > [@](#): > > Blacks do not want to join the KKK! Well duh! Why in the heck to gays want to join the boy scouts? Does that make any more sense? > [@](#): > > Rudyard Kipling justified horrible discrimination in ways that made sense to millions of people. This is the same thing. I am sure the Boy Scouts used the same logic to deny blacks admittance. Look, if you don’t want the kid from down the street to play in your treehouse, by golly, the federal government doesn’t have a right to make you change your mind. Maybe the kid who has the tree house is racist. Well, that’s too bad since this is a free country. You can’t pass a law that makes people be nice to eachother. > [@](#): > > Symbolic of the US government’s approval of the goals and methods of the organization! Is it renewed or are you talking about something that happened 80 years ago? Yeah, I guess the US gov. in 1920 approved of the Boy Scouts. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The freedom of assembly is not a privelege, nor is the freedom of speech. But I supose this shows once again we each just value some rights over others as must be done in a free society. > > This is precisely the same logic that has justified discrimination in every case, from white-only country clubs to white-only jobs. And people are buying it, again and again. Yep. It is a free country. Try to get used to it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I can’t think of any major issues where Bush and Gore have a serious difference of opinion. > > I rest my case. Huh? So Gore is against the Bill of Rights, right? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/78 "2000-10-26T16:45:44Z")
There isn’t a chance we are going to agree on anything regarding these issues. Your viewpoint is so utterly alien to mine, and vice versa, that this discussion is not really going anywhere. I would be happy, of course, to continue all the same. > [@](#): > > Oh, I think you are right. But I take Bush at his word when he says he will appoint strict contructionists who aren’t going to legistlate from the bench. The state can’t condone a religion in school without stomping on others first ammendment rights. But they _are_ condoning it. Strict constructionists refuse to legislate from the bench, hence they do not interfere when _states_ or communities pass laws which threaten the separation of church and state. If you don’t beleive me, I would be happy to dredge up Scalia and Thomas’ voting records on this issue. > [@](#): > > I really don’t think these laws are enforced. But again, I don’t think this is a federal issue outside of, perhaps, pursuit of happiness. I don’t know how many of these laws have been appealed to the Supremes. They certainly are enforced. They are a convenient method for homophobic communities to put the squeeze on local gays. I do not recall when they have been tried before the Supreme Court, but I know that they have gone before state supreme courts. > [@](#): > > Social mores? I don’t know. Yeah, there are some laws from 25 or more years ago against sodomy. Hey, why can’t I have sex with a fourteen year old? Do you really want to be saying that consentual sodomy is on the same moral level as statutory rape? Here’s some more rope, go find a nice tree. > [@](#): > > s spitting gum on the sidewalk freedom of speech? Maybe, but I hate stepping on gum. And tagging private property is freedom of speech, but you can’t do it anyway. Blowing up the Murrah Federal Building was also exercising freedom of speech. More jmullaney analogies that only distract from the real issue. Your freedom of speech does not extend so far that it inhibits someone else’s rights. > [@](#): > > I don’t see why they couldn’t if they wanted to, though. Why should they have less rights than the Scouts? Maybe you could tell me where in the Constitution the right to assemble in a school at local expense is located. > [@](#): > > Hey, you want to stop federal funding to them? Me too. Just because the government donates money to a group, doesn’t mean they automatically get to control what they say. But that wasn’t an issue in the case. If the Boy Scouts accept the money, it tacitly demonstrates that the government condones their activities. When you invest in a company or give money to a political candidate, it is an expression of support. Just because a snippet of the majority opinion does not consider it important does not mean that I shouldn’t. > [@](#): > > I’m sure the KKK could appoint him such if they wished. Not much he could do about it. Let’s se…try this one on for size. He doesn’t have to accept it, maybe? They can call him the honorary president all they want, but that would not change the fact that he has refused the signal honor of spearheading the KKK. > [@](#): > > I think they’d definitely disagree with you there. \ But the government doesn’t support them. Gee, haven’t we heard this before. > [@](#): > > Well duh! Why in the heck to gays want to join the boy scouts? Does that make any more sense? Am I the only one who cannot believe that he just said this? > [@](#): > > Look, if you don’t want the kid from down the street to play in your treehouse, by golly, the federal government doesn’t have a right to make you change your mind. Maybe the kid who has the tree house is racist. Well, that’s too bad since this is a free country. You can’t pass a law that makes people be nice to eachother. Another famous analogy. Guess what? It’s not just a free country for the racist. It is also a free country for the _victim of racism_. So the Boy Scouts can hide behind their transparent claims of being private all they like, but a lot of people, namely, half the Supreme Court, know better. And it’s bloody not a free country for the gay man who wishes to be a leader in an organization sanctioned by state and federal government. MR ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/79 "2000-10-26T16:47:50Z")
There isn’t a chance we are going to agree on anything regarding these issues. Your viewpoint is so utterly alien to mine, and vice versa, that this discussion is not really going anywhere. I would be happy, of course, to continue all the same. > [@](#): > > Oh, I think you are right. But I take Bush at his word when he says he will appoint strict contructionists who aren’t going to legistlate from the bench. The state can’t condone a religion in school without stomping on others first ammendment rights. But they _are_ condoning it. Strict constructionists refuse to legislate from the bench, hence they do not interfere when _states_ or communities pass laws which threaten the separation of church and state. If you don’t beleive me, I would be happy to dredge up Scalia and Thomas’ voting records on this issue. > [@](#): > > I really don’t think these laws are enforced. But again, I don’t think this is a federal issue outside of, perhaps, pursuit of happiness. I don’t know how many of these laws have been appealed to the Supremes. They certainly are enforced. They are a convenient method for homophobic communities to put the squeeze on local gays. I do not recall when they have been tried before the Supreme Court, but I know that they have gone before state supreme courts. > [@](#): > > Social mores? I don’t know. Yeah, there are some laws from 25 or more years ago against sodomy. Hey, why can’t I have sex with a fourteen year old? Do you really want to be saying that consentual sodomy is on the same moral level as statutory rape? Here’s some more rope, go find a nice tree. > [@](#): > > s spitting gum on the sidewalk freedom of speech? Maybe, but I hate stepping on gum. And tagging private property is freedom of speech, but you can’t do it anyway. Blowing up the Murrah Federal Building was also exercising freedom of speech. More jmullaney analogies that only distract from the real issue. Your freedom of speech does not extend so far that it inhibits someone else’s rights. > [@](#): > > I don’t see why they couldn’t if they wanted to, though. Why should they have less rights than the Scouts? Maybe you could tell me where in the Constitution the right to assemble in a school at local expense is located. > [@](#): > > Hey, you want to stop federal funding to them? Me too. Just because the government donates money to a group, doesn’t mean they automatically get to control what they say. But that wasn’t an issue in the case. If the Boy Scouts accept the money, it tacitly demonstrates that the government condones their activities. When you invest in a company or give money to a political candidate, it is an expression of support. Just because a snippet of the majority opinion does not consider it important does not mean that I shouldn’t. > [@](#): > > I’m sure the KKK could appoint him such if they wished. Not much he could do about it. Let’s se…try this one on for size. He doesn’t have to accept it, maybe? They can call him the honorary president all they want, but that would not change the fact that he has refused the signal honor of spearheading the KKK. > [@](#): > > I think they’d definitely disagree with you there. \ But the government doesn’t support them. Gee, haven’t we heard this before. > [@](#): > > Well duh! Why in the heck to gays want to join the boy scouts? Does that make any more sense? Am I the only one who cannot believe that he just said this? > [@](#): > > Look, if you don’t want the kid from down the street to play in your treehouse, by golly, the federal government doesn’t have a right to make you change your mind. Maybe the kid who has the tree house is racist. Well, that’s too bad since this is a free country. You can’t pass a law that makes people be nice to eachother. Another famous analogy. Guess what? It’s not just a free country for the racist. It is also a free country for the _victim of racism_. So the Boy Scouts can hide behind their transparent claims of being private all they like, but a lot of people, namely, half the Supreme Court, know better. And it’s bloody not a free country for the gay man who wishes to be a leader in an organization sanctioned by state and federal government. > [@](#): > > Is it renewed or are you talking about something that happened 80 years ago? Yeah, I guess the US gov. in 1920 approved of the Boy Scouts. Obviously they still do. The motion to revoke the charter was quashed. I think only 3 members of Congress voted for it. > [@](#): > > Yep. It is a free country. Try to get used to it. You’d better get used to the fact that it is not free only for those in priveleged classes or traditionally advantaged groups. It’s free for _everyone_. > [@](#): > > Huh? So Gore is against the Bill of Rights, right? Does anyone think there is a team of trained monkeys typing on the keyboard of jmullaney’s computer? MR ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2000, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/80 "2000-10-26T17:49:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > Your viewpoint is so utterly alien to mine, and vice versa, that this discussion is not really going anywhere. I would be happy, of course, to continue all the same. I’m just insistent that for a lot of 5/4 type descisions, there really are important rights in play for both parties. Painting one side as the embodiment of all that is wrong with America can be always done by the other side no matter which side you are on. > [@](#): > > Strict constructionists refuse to legislate from the bench, hence they do not interfere when _states_ or communities pass laws which threaten the separation of church and state. But look at the Dale versus Boy Scouts descision. If the majority opinion is typical of constructionists, then they clearly favored the Bill of Rights over the state’s law regarding public access. If this really meant the states could pass any law that undermined the BoRs because those ammendments might be seen to only apply to congress, I would agree with you whole heartedly. But I don’t think that is the contructionist position. > [@](#): > > They certainly are enforced. They are a convenient method for homophobic communities to put the squeeze on local gays. Never seen this in any community I’ve lived in. Never heard about such things anywhere on the evening news. I would think Dan Rather would be all over this. Or Clinton would be shaking his finger at these people. Something. Maybe my ignorance is my bliss but that somewhere right now gays are being run out of town on a rail because of some ancient sodomy law seems like an urban myth to me. [quote] > [@](#): > > Hey, why can’t I have sex with a fourteen year old? Do you really want to be saying that consentual sodomy is on the same moral level as statutory rape? > [@](#): > > It is only statutory rape because of the statute! There is no pychological or biological reason for this law, right? Same with sodomy. I think sodomy should be legal, mind you, although I don’t think statutory rape should be legal. I guess I’m a man of my times. The people who wrote those sodomy laws were men (and a few women perhaps) of their times. Nothing new under the sun here. As Cicero said – O the times, or the mores! As Plato said – the next generation is going to the dogs. > > > [@](#): > > > > Your freedom of speech does not extend so far that it inhibits someone else’s rights. > > I thought you said rights weren’t a zero sum game! How could my freedom of speech ever trample on the rights of another, wise guy? > > > [@](#): > > > > Maybe you could tell me where in the Constitution the right to assemble in a school at local expense is located. > > What expense? Look, you make a good point. I don’t think I’d want the latest version of the Hitler Youth recruiting at my local elementary. That wasn’t what this case was about, though. Instead of trying to get a group out of the school which discriminates against gays (and atheists too!) Dale was trying to get hired by said same group because they met at a public school, right? Dale didn’t seem to care much about the atheists who were being harmed by this group, only his own narrow minority self interest. So he took on the wrong fight and lost. > > But, I’ll do what I can to help in the political realm. I’m sure Senator Kennedy voted for funding the Boy Scouts – he’s never seen a funding bill he didn’t like – so I’ll vote against him. > > I’ll also vote against Gore since he is the sucessor to President Clinton and would probably take on the symbolic presidency of this evil organization as will. > > (ONE MORE REASON TO VOTE FOR NADER!!) > > [quuote] > > > [@](#): > > > > Well duh! Why in the heck to gays want to join the boy scouts? Does that make any more sense? > > Am I the only one who cannot believe that he just said this? Why would gays want to join a homophobic organization? > [@](#): > > Guess what? It’s not just a free country for the racist. It is also a free country for the _victim of racism_. So the Boy Scouts can hide behind their transparent claims of being private all they like, but a lot of people, namely, half the Supreme Court, know better. And it’s bloody not a free country for the gay man who wishes to be a leader in an organization sanctioned by state and federal government. No one said life was fair. As I said before, if someone wanted to organize a competing group in this same realm as the Scouts, I’m sure they could do so. If someone wanted to sue to keep this group out of the schools I’m sure they could do that too. The victims here have all sorts of options open to them. Mak snell! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058.md?page=5)