Shhhh! Ixnay on the onkeymays!
jmullaney wrote:
Please allow me to fight your ignorance.
Follow the link to the Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Hardwick to learn that yes, sometimes those ancient sodomy laws are still enforced.
I’ll disagree with you on this one. It’s been the leftist courts, leftist legislatures, and leftist administrations that have been predisposed to meddle in daily life.
Every act that’s intended to boost one group can accomplish it by actually raising the group, lowering the comparison group, or a combination of both. It’s been my experience that the left tends to drag down group “B” while raising group “A” instead of striving to make group “A” equal to group “B”.
[quite]I’ll disagree with you on this one. It’s been the leftist courts, leftist legislatures, and leftist administrations that have been predisposed to
meddle in daily life.
[/quote]
I wasn’t making myself clear. I like it when rightist courts strike down nanny government. We are in agreement on this point.
MR
Yeah, and Gore himself, on a recent swing through the Northwest, couldn’t come up with any better reason not to vote for Nader than that they shouldn’t inadvertantly support Bush. I mean, for God’s sake, the candidate himself can’t make a case for voting for Gore?!? Just “don’t support Bush”?!? Pathetic.
But other attacks seem to be just fine, to Mr. spoke-…
Nope. Republican Presidents haven’t done anything to overturn abortion laws in 24 years. Nothing is going to change here. At best, partial birth abortion would be on the table, but Gore’s position is exactly the same a Bush’s.
Bush has enforced regulations in Texas just fine, spoke. Are there regulations either of them plan to ignore?
The Clinton administration is already surveying sites in Alaska. And so what is the big deal here anyway? This isn’t the 1800s. Drilling for Oil doesn’t have to be a messy business. I guarantee that if Gore is elected he will cave on this first thing.
That’s a major issue? Who is on which side? Besides, I thought logging roads helped in fire prevention.
I saw the debates. Their positions are exactly the same with the exception that Bush would not have gone into Haiti. Again, not a huge difference. Almost difference for the sake of being different!
Yep, that is the one difference. I’d forgotten about that one. People who own bonds get paid, or the people who pay taxes get paid. I wonder if proportionally, this wouldn’t work out almost exactly the same.
Strict constructionists do believe in civil rights, since the bill of rights is, barring the election of Gore ;), still part of the Republic’s Constitution. Perhaps you have been mislead as to what the term means.
Thanks. I’m cached too.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**
Yes…they may believe in civil liberties and civil rights in principle, but they have an extremely narrow interpretation of it! Bork didn’t even believe in a right of privacy strong enough to keep the government out of your bedroom in the case of a married couple using contraception (Griswald vs. Connecticut is the case, I believe).
I’m understanding that that is the main difference – and I really think is it still more a social more issue than a constitutional one. The descicion on sodomy mentioned above, Bowers v. Hardwick, basically says if they said that was protected by the constitution, they’d have to throw out laws on adultery, incest, bestiality, drugs, etc., and they were not willing to go down that path. Well, I guess the answer should be “why not?” because the courts argument is pretty lousy. But, unltimately, so was the opposing argument simply in the way they tried to argue. But still, should we legalize crack and heroine? Because use of these would also fall under the “right of privacy” under a strict interpretation. Maybe we should, but I also understand why your average reasonable person (no one here has ever accused me of being reasonable) would not be willing to see this done.
However, as the article states, there are only 14% of the counties in the US that will provide abortion services anyway, so what will be the practical difference?
Wrong. Repulican pressure has resulted in limits upon access to abortion in teh armed forces and for the poor. It has resulted in aid being denied to international agencies that achnowledge abortion as a valid choice even if that is only a tiny part of their misison. Gore has supported a ban on partial birth abortions only with allowances for the life and health of the mother. Bush has supported a ban without a caveat for the health of the mother.
To pretend that there is no difference between the two positions is disingenuous.
Bush is stronger on the environment, and Gore less radical on environmental issues, than either side likes to pretend. There are, however, significant differences in their stands on issues like global warming and government subsidies for alternative fuel development.
The big deal is whether specifically protected wilderness areas should be opened for industrial development. Drilling for oil doesn’t have to be messy. Neither does shipping it. But both can be very messy. Cleaning up afterwards is not the same as avoidingthe risk in the first place.
A major issue for some. Roads can prevent forest fires from spreading. So can logging. I beliee that is often categorized as “cutting of one’s nose to spite one’s face”.
The issue is, again, the extent to which federal wilderness lands should be opened to industrial use. Personally, I care more about mining rights being sold at 1890’ prices, but that doesn’t mean this issue s trivial.
Not exactly. Bush has made the issue of “everextended” military commitments one of his principal talking points. You are correct that he has offered very little in the way of specific proposals. Does that mean we should discount his repeated statements that he would cut back American military commitments overseas? In particular, his statemenets concerning US peacekeeping forces in Europe have not been well received by some of our NATO allies.
Not even close. Paying down the national debt works to reduce tax burdens for future generations. Interest on the national debt leeches away a significant portion of the federal budget. Giving the tax cut first is like raising the kids allowance while paying the minimum on your maxed out crdit cards. Sure, the kids like you. They might even do cool things with the windfall. But eventually you will need to take that money back (or cut expenses elsewhere) in order to satisfy that compounding interest.
Perhaps you are using the term in a sense divorced from reality. Judges labeled “strict constitutionalists” in recent years have ruled consistently that the states may override any individual protection of the citizenry that is not explicitely protected in the Bill of Rights. There seems to be this impression that strict constitutionalists limit the power of the government. That is not correct. They limit the power of the federal government. However, the federal government has long been a check on the power of state governments to interfer in the lives of their citizens (minor things like denying freedom, the right to vote, or civil wrights).
Now, to be fair, liberal judges often trample rights in the opposite direction, discovering new protections (with concomitant burdens to society) based upon sometimes flimsy rasoning. But the point, again, was that the issue represents a difference between the major candidates. It does.
Thanks for wading. Sure, a few differences, but I still think they are minor.
I don’t think Bush has ever said that! But, OK, as to whether the 30% of tax payers who find abortion to be morally abhorrant should have their money going to the very small minority of people who can’t borrow or otherwise scrape together a few hundred dollars for an abortion, sure, they differ. Again, that is a minor sliver of the bigger issue, but to say they both basically want to keep abortion legal per se isn’t disingenuous.
Well, I wouldn’t say Bush is for Global warming. Most Texans aren’t. My neighbors here in Mass. and other parts north do seem to think it is a great idea though!
So which one is against corporate welfare in this case? Again, I’m just easily confused as to which would naturally stand for which.
Well, if core has made that an issue in the campaign, I haven’t heard him make a peep about it. The democrats in congress never did anything about those old laws when they ran congress.
Well, I would say Europe is divided as to whether they like us as their global baby-sitter or not. I would be worried if Gore did not have a policy of encouraging the locals take the forefront in their own affairs, although sure, Bush makes this more of a priority issue for his possible role as president.
Not entirely right, since it is not a zero sum game. If your kids are the ones who have to go out, work, and pay your bill off, quite possibly raising their allowance would enable them to make a better return in the long run. I know that is voo-doo economics to some, but if Bush wants to invest in the American people, it is not an insane policy. The economy would grow faster, thus ultimately more revenue would pour into the government coffers as history shows. Perhaps another thread on this would be appropriate.
Agreed, although I don’t think Bush, as a compassionate conservative, would appoint such bad representatives of the philosophy as Clarence Thomas for example (who doesn’t think people have the right to stand on the sidewalk not doing anything.) Gore hasn’t explained to my knowledge what kind of Justices he is going to appoint at all. How do you know he won’t appoint strict constructionists? I haven’t seen him make a case on this issue. Merely saying that he is a democrat so of course he is going to appoint liberal judges so of missed Nader’s point, that the leadership of the Democratic party has abandoned many traditional liberal issues. Are you sure this is not one of them?
(from a conspiracy theorist not getting his views in this one)
Has anyone here heard of the electoral college?
Vote for who you want, it won’t affect the election, all it will do is see if little-bitty third parties get federal funding in four years.
Which doesn’t matter anyways, because federal funding is such a small amount that… well let’s just say private funds see to add up.
Oh wait. They will get to debate next time around. Not that it matters (*see first non-parenthesied sentance).
Now it’s off to the straightjacket…
Says it better than I can. First the link (previously posted by stuffinb), then some excerpts (hoping they’re not too long):
http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/10/24/nader/index.html
The man is useless in the context of a presidential contest, except as a horse to ride for some other purpose than actually winning and gaining the power to advance any causes. He and Buchanan make great poster boys against campaign finance reform and for the elimination of public financing of elections. They even agree with each other about protectionism. Wonder why? (Could it be, oh, demagoguery? Nah.)
You might try looking at a transcript of the first debate. Gore talked about this issue quite directly and I believe Bush was even the one who used the term “strict constructionist” and Gore explained (somewhat simplistically, admittedly) what this was a “code word” for.
By the way, as for your statement about Bush and Clarence Thomas, I don’t know if he would appoint people that reactionary or not, but the fact is that he is apparently on record as citing Thomas and Scalia as Supreme Court justices that he likes!