Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Guns and Presidents

Re: Guns and Presidents

Plaidpundit — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:42:45 -0000

Did not in fact the man who showed up to see Obama, legally armed - actually, literally prove - unequivocally that the people who were the biggest threat to the President and the Secret Service were the people WITHOUT weapons draped over their shoulder or on a belt ?....

Re: Guns and Presidents

Vangel — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:10:23 -0000

"That's right. As far as regulating interstate commerce goes, that's correct. I have absolutely no issue with that. In fact, I expect it. Call it protecting the American citizen. You know...like Homeland Security. Do you actually think that a company should be able to police themselves?? If so, why? Why should I or anybody trust them to do that when they have a profit motive involved?"

Interstate commerce? The federal government goes well beyond ensuring that interstate commerce can take place without state tariffs and protection schemes. The federal government uses the interstate commerce clause to overrule the State of California, which allows terminally ill patients to grow marijuana for their own use. As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion, "Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. ... By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power."

Why can't you understand that the clause has been used to limit your rights even though the government has no such authority? Did you like the Bush Administration's anti-liberty stance so much that you do not care about the fact that Congress or the Executive keep using the Commerce Clause to justify what they want? And if you didn't why is it OK if Clinton or Obama do the same?

"Do you really think that you're the first historical revisionist I've encountered?? Think again."

The fact that you have failed to learn from the actual facts is your problem, not mine.

"Like I said before, the 14th Amendment makes all people born here citizens of the US. My passport is a US passport. Not a Florida passport. The states are individual parts of a greater whole. That's the United States. The states in and of themselves have no direct sovereignty. They cannot act outside of the nation to form their own treaties or alliences. Those that don't like it, can drop dead as far as I'm concenrned. They're anti-American and a blight on the nation. Frankly if they want to seccede again, this time I'm for cutting them loose. I would have no problem watching Texas become a third world nation. The next time a hurricane hits them they can bail themselves out."

As I said, you need to read the Constitution as it is written. The misapplication of the 14th Amendment to advance certain political agendas is a perfect example of how the Constitution is misinterpreted by the Courts and misused by various administrations. Sadly, you put your leftist ideology ahead of the Constitution as do those on the right.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:44:39 -0000

>On one hand you are suggesting that the private insurers and the public plan will be treated the same and on the other you suggest that tort reform will evolve so that the public plan cannot be sued as the insurers are."<

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking a question. ""Why shouldn't it? On the other hand, why shouldn't a private plan meet the same restrictions as a public plan? As for Tort Reform, the public plan wouldn't need it. So if you want to eliminate huge lawsuits, you can, through a public option. If you want to pay more and have the right to sue...you have the private sector. Sounds fair to me.

>"You certainly have shown confusion and an inability to think clearly or do your research."<

I hear that alot from people like yourself that can never demonstrate how anything that they are saying is actually true. Like, I'm supposed to take your word on some opinion that is nothing more then your own value judgement. Haven't you figured it out by now, that I never regard opinion as having any significance at all? I am only interested in things that can be falsified. Everything else carries no significance whatsoever to me. I don't hold to tradition at the expense of progress.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:13:23 -0000

>"It is no surprise that a court appointed by a federal government would say that. But the court is wrong."<

Nope. They're spot on accurate.

>"The federal government has no business in the religion business because the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…,” leave no wiggle room. "<

Of course. But it was inevitable that disputes over establishment and free ex. would arise and it would require the Supreme court to decide on the conflict. The belief of a religion is protected absolutely. The practice however is not. You can't commit a crime like murder and claim that it's a religious ritual.

>"They limit the power of Congress and the federal government, not the states."<

By 1833 the last establishments fell and after 1941 the U.S.. Supreme Court set the precedent for incorporating all the legal terms of religious freedom nationally into the judicial rulings of the states. Again, the states laws MUST comply with the US constitution. Because of the 14th Amendment, no state can deprive a citizen of his rights protected by the US constitution. It supercedes all state constitutions.

>"The purpose of the letter was to address the Baptists' fears of an establishment of a national government-supported church."<

I'm well aware of he purpose of the letter. But if you really want to understand Jeffersons position on religion and the state, then consult his bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia as he wrote it in 1789. "that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction" There is always tension between the establishment clause and the free excercize clause. That's the way it is.

>"Of course, I agree that Jefferson did not believe that freedom of religion, speech, the right to carry arms, association, etc., were inalienable and could be regulated by the states. "<

Owning a gun is not an inalienable right. You weren't born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a right to survival. How you decide to secure that survival is secondary to the right itself. You may decide to become a martial arts expert. You may decide on a host of other options to insure your survival. Hopefully you aren't relying on a health insurence company.

>"Usually the left argues that states cannot establish or support a specific religion but you are supporting an argument that they can and brining up evidence that it is only the federal government that has no business dealing with the subject of religion. You might turn out into a supporter of states rights after all."<

If you think that, then you are terribly confused. I'm totally and completely 100% against the establishment of religion in any way shape or form. The federal government has already addressed the issue of religion in the first amendment and in Article VI. We have no established religion within the United States. Not in any individual state, nor the nation as a whole. That's as it should and must be.

>"The Fourteenth Amendment has done a great deal of damage to your country and has been applied improperly on all kinds of cases."<

You've avoided addressing the issue of a contradiction in your claim that a right is absolute. Obviously it isn't. Very often one persons "right" is in direct conflict with anothers. Something has to give. In the case I cited, the property right outweighed the free speech right. So when a statement is made that "No right is absolute." and you state, "Of course it is. That is what makes it a right"<
your claim is wrong. As for the 14th Amendment doing damage to our country, I'd say that you are clearly blind. It has insured the rights of all individuals born in the US and the value of that can't be overestimated. It removes the possibility of tyranny coming from any individual state which could be made up of a majority of one particular religion for example or race and allowing the minorities of those states to be subjected to second class status. This is America, and it isn't acceptable. As for FDR being on your low list, your list is really irrelevent. History proves otherwise. If you consider Bush or even Reagan high on a list of great presidents...that tells me all I need to know about you.

>"As I said, the freedom of speech is is not inalieanable and is a property right."<

What you said was that all rights are absolute. I've already pointed out how an inalienable right cannot be a property right since it is understood that property can be bought and sold and you have admitted that an inalienable right can't be sold. Therefore a property right and an inalienable right do not meet the same difinition as anybody understands them. What you're doing is trying to redefine terms to suit your ideology.

>"You still can’t come into someone’s house and try to express yourself unless you have permission to do so."<

Of coures you can. You may be thrown out as a consequence of what you say, but there is literally nothing to censor you from saying what you have to say except yourself. Your property right doesn't constrict my vocal chords if I choose to say something that you don't like. You can tell me to leave if you like, but that's really after the fact now isn't it. The words were said and no property right that you have could have prevented it. In fact the only thing that has any effect here is whether the person chooses to respect that property right or not. His freedom to speak is actually unconstrained by anything beyond his respect for the persons property.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:53:38 -0000

>"That would give the govenrment unlimited power."<

That's right. As far as regulating interstate commerce goes, that's correct. I have absolutely no issue with that. In fact, I expect it. Call it protecting the American citizen. You know...like Homeland Security. Do you actually think that a company should be able to police themselves?? If so, why? Why should I or anybody trust them to do that when they have a profit motive involved?

>"It could claim that driving by anyone over 50 or under 20 should be banned because statistics show that older and young drivers are less safe."<

I suppose that it could. But it never has. There is no reason to think that it ever will. Something like that would never pass through congress so your fears are absurd.

"It could ban the sales of chocolate unless every batch goes through a test to ensure that there is no peanut contamination that might kill someone who is allergic to peanuts."

Works for me. However your example is ridiculous. A person with allergies to peanuts has that responsibility to avoid that kind of thing. You don't ban cats because some people are allergic to them.

>""That's what regulations are for."<>"No they are not. Regulations are barriers to competition and are designed to protect special interest groups such as industry groups, farmers, etc."<

No. You are dead wrong, however your paranoia is duly noted. We have something in this country called the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It's an independent agency of the US Govt. created in 1972 under the Consumer Product Safety Act to protect "against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products." So, regardless of what your paranoid mind tells you, the purpose of regulating industry and commerce has a direct benefit to the consumer, and that's what is most important since they are directly effected by the products on the market which they are consuming. Kind of makes sense if you consider the concept of "promoting the general welfare" which is something that is the responsibility of the government as stated in the preamble of the constitution.

>"Of course they must. Consumers need to be confident or a company can't sell its products. No government is required for that. "<

Wrong again. You can't expect a company to police itself when there is a profit motive involved. It requires an independent agency of the government that has no profit interest to make sure that the product meets a safety standard for consumption of the public which the government is required to serve and protect. I'm hardly going to simply trust some executive of a company that stands to make millions that his product is safe.

>"That is what the laws are there for. If you harm individuals you have to compensate them."<

Oh really?? How much are you going to compensate me if my child dies from your product? What's the price tag on that? You've been calling for Tort Reform and bitching about trial lawyers and now you're talking about compensation which you would try to limit? Are you always this nuts, or is it something new for you? The object is to see to it that you can't harm individuals before your product comes out. Not pay me if your product kills my kid. The problem with people like you is that you value business over human beings.

>"Great; what the US needs is a move towards fascism."<

Nope. Actually we experimented with that over the last 8 years. They came very close to achieving a complete fascist state. Fortunately the American people dumped it last November.

>"Or discovering that Enron was not quite what it seemed. The private sector had no problem sniffing out the fraud but the bureaucrats had little incentive to do their jobs properly. "<

Enron happened during the last administration which was very cozy with them. They were a major contributor to Bush. They even gave him one of their jets to fly around in during his first campaign. They were involved with Dick Cheney on the Energy task force in constructing Cheney's energy policy. They practically wrote it having met with Cheney about 20 times during that period just prior to 9/11. Hows that for a fascist shift?

>"You missed the point. Your system rewarded stupidity."<

If you think that any man made system is perfect...then it's you that has missed the point. We strive for a "more perfect union". We never claimed to be perfect. No system of government is.

>"It was hardly the worst administration in history. Wilson, Lincoln, FDR, Hoover were worse."<

You know much less about our history then you claim. Lincoln? FDR?? Hoover was in fact terrible. And I have little admiration for Wilson. But Bush is viewed in this country as one of the 5 worst of all time. Possibly the worst. Lincoln meanwhile is on Mt Rushmore and commands a prominant spot on the Mall in DC. He's generally regarded as second only to Washington. He preserved the Union and presided over the most difficult time in our country's history. He abolished slavery forever in this country. FDR was elected 4 times by a grateful nation. He led us out of the Great Depression and defeated Hitler and Japan. Conservatives hate him, but his place in history is secured. Bush accomplished nothing. Oh...he did give tax cuts to the rich, and launched a war against a country that never attacked us. In fact he is probably the first person in human history that cut taxes while taking a country to war.

>"You don't seem to be familiar with your history at all. You are only familiar with a version of it that does not stand up to scrutiny. "<

Do you really think that you're the first historical revisionist I've encountered?? Think again.

>"The fact that some states may have intruded on powers granted to the federal government does not excuse the federal government taking powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. Like I said, it might help you to actually read some of the writing of your Founding Fathers."<

Like I said before, the 14th Amendment makes all people born here citizens of the US. My passport is a US passport. Not a Florida passport. The states are individual parts of a greater whole. That's the United States. The states in and of themselves have no direct sovereignty. They cannot act outside of the nation to form their own treaties or alliences. Those that don't like it, can drop dead as far as I'm concenrned. They're anti-American and a blight on the nation. Frankly if they want to seccede again, this time I'm for cutting them loose. I would have no problem watching Texas become a third world nation. The next time a hurricane hits them they can bail themselves out.

Re: Guns and Presidents

Vangel — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:32:27 -0000

"
"Sorry but that isn't good enough. I'm really more interested in the prevention of an accident then I am in prosecuting the results of an accident."

That would give the govenrment unlimited power. It could claim that driving by anyone over 50 or under 20 should be banned because statistics show that older and young drivers are less safe. It could ban the sales of chocolate unless every batch goes through a test to ensure that there is no peanut contamination that might kill someone who is allergic to peanuts.

All kinds of imagined 'accidents' could be used to justify meddling but no such powers have been granted to the government. What I find ironic is that lefties like you will be the first people to complain when such schemes wind up protecting big businesses that have contributed to political campaigns and will call for even more government to fix the problem that was caused by big government.

"That's what regulations are for."

No they are not. Regulations are barriers to competition and are designed to protect special interest groups such as industry groups, farmers, etc. There are already laws to handle unsafe products and damages that keep companies and individuals from being allowed to harm consumers.

"All companies must meet a standard of safety for the public that is consuming their products."

Of course they must. Consumers need to be confident or a company can't sell its products. No government is required for that.

"Don't tell me about laws that will prosecute some company that has poisoned people. A company must comply with standards that prevent that from happening in the first place."

That is what the laws are there for. If you harm individuals you have to compensate them.

"Protecting the public should be the governments job #1. Lets call it...I got it...Homeland Security. Catchy name don't you think?"

Great; what the US needs is a move towards fascism. And what a great job the government did on 9/11. Its employees let 19 people with box cutters get on aeroplanes and kill everyone aboard plus many people on the ground. How about how they protected people from Bernie Madoff's fraud. Or discovering that Enron was not quite what it seemed. The private sector had no problem sniffing out the fraud but the bureaucrats had little incentive to do their jobs properly.

"Well that's an anecdotal incident that everyone is aware of. The woman was stupid. And McDonalds now has advised it's customers. However that isolated incident does not mean that you don't regulate business. The public safety is always concern #1."

You missed the point. Your system rewarded stupidity.

"The last administration violated the constitution constantly."

Of course it did. Most presidents have trampled on the Constitution. And they keep appointing a judiciary that expands their power and that of the federal government while they limit state and individual rights.

"They considered it a "GD piece of paper". They had lawyers looking for ways around the constitution. If they were doing something that broke the law, they simply created a euphamism to call it something else. The United States has been decimated both at home economically, and abroad by the past 8 years of the worst administration in our history."

It was hardly the worst administration in history. Wilson, Lincoln, FDR, Hoover were worse.

"No. Actually, you're providing the cliche' response to what every American that went through this BS as a justification for segregation understands. Unlike you, I am familiar with the history of MY country. I live here. I've seen it close up and personal unlike you. I actually write for the History News Network. Basically, you really are a dilettant with no direct knowledge of what you speak."

You don't seem to be familiar with your history at all. You are only familiar with a version of it that does not stand up to scrutiny.

"And yet, in 1787 Madison wrote "Encroachments by the States on the federal authority.
2. Examples of this are numerous and repetitions may be foreseen in almost every case where any favorite object of a State shall present a temptation. Among these examples are the wars and treaties of Georgia with the Indians. The unlicensed compacts between Virginia and Maryland, and between Pena. & N. Jersey--the troops raised and to be kept up by Massts."

The fact that some states may have intruded on powers granted to the federal government does not excuse the federal government taking powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. Like I said, it might help you to actually read some of the writing of your Founding Fathers.

Re: Guns and Presidents

Vangel — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:11:42 -0000

"Ok...that was an exchange between the two of us. And you say this: "I think that you are confused"."

But you are confused. On one hand you are suggesting that the private insurers and the public plan will be treated the same and on the other you suggest that tort reform will evolve so that the public plan cannot be sued as the insurers are.

Of course, Obama is even more confused because he claims that the public plan will get no subsidies at one time but says that it will work like the public universities, which get plenty of subsidies on the other.

We also seem to be having two one way conversations because you keep ignoring the points that are made and bring up other points and deal in narratives rather than facts.

"Two things come to mind. One of us is definately confused."

You certainly have shown confusion and an inability to think clearly or do your research. As I said, it would not have taken much digging to find that the insurers favoured Democrats over Republicans when it came to campaign contributions but you claim that the Republicans owe more to the insurers than the Democrats do. You do not seem to support tort reform, even though unnecessary costs and preventative medicine add huge costs to the system. You also fail to admit that the government has shown that it can't control costs well even though Medicare shows its total incompetence.

"Either I'm confused by your contradictory statements...OR...you're confusing yourself."

My statements are not contradictory. They are in response to contradictory claims made by the Obama administration or its supporters. Like I said, you can't say that there won't be any subsidies for a public plan but say that it will be run just like the public universities on the other. You can't claim that you want to save money and not deal with tort reform. You can't claim competence when government programs like the VA and Medicare have issues with quality of care or cost overruns.

"Frankly I think you're confused by your own ideology which can't stand up to critical analysis."

Actually, the preference for liberty is very consistent. You reject government meddling with voluntary transactions and limit its functions to protecting individuals from force and fraud.

"Do you think that it's possible that you might be wrong about any of this, or is your ideology infallible?"

Of course I could be wrong. Obama could be a bigger incompetent than I believe that he is.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:35:03 -0000

>"The government does not need to insert itself into voluntary transactions.No manufacturer or retailer has the right to harm a customer so the law already protects individuals from bad products."<

Sorry but that isn't good enough. I'm really more interested in the prevention of an accident then I am in prosecuting the results of an accident. That's what regulations are for. All companies must meet a standard of safety for the public that is consuming their products. Don't tell me about laws that will prosecute some company that has poisoned people. A company must comply with standards that prevent that from happening in the first place. Protecting the public should be the governments job #1. Lets call it...I got it...Homeland Security. Catchy name don't you think?

>"Look at the system in place now. It rewards a woman $1 million because she spills hot coffee on herself as she is driving."<

Well that's an anecdotal incident that everyone is aware of. The woman was stupid. And McDonalds now has advised it's customers. However that isolated incident does not mean that you don't regulate business. The public safety is always concern #1.

>"The fact that it has not been obeyed explains the decline of the US and the state that it is in."<

The last administration violated the constitution constantly. They considered it a "GD piece of paper". They had lawyers looking for ways around the constitution. If they were doing something that broke the law, they simply created a euphamism to call it something else. The United States has been decimated both at home economically, and abroad by the past 8 years of the worst administration in our history.

>"This is the cliché used by those that are not familiar with the history of the United States, or Western history in general. "<

No. Actually, you're providing the cliche' response to what every American that went through this BS as a justification for segregation understands. Unlike you, I am familiar with the history of MY country. I live here. I've seen it close up and personal unlike you. I actually write for the History News Network. Basically, you really are a dilettant with no direct knowledge of what you speak.

>"Second, the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists acknowledged states rights. Even Alexander Hamilton argued that the states could restrain the federal government."<

And yet, in 1787 Madison wrote "Encroachments by the States on the federal authority.
2. Examples of this are numerous and repetitions may be foreseen in almost every case where any favorite object of a State shall present a temptation. Among these examples are the wars and treaties of Georgia with the Indians. The unlicensed compacts between Virginia and Maryland, and between Pena. & N. Jersey--the troops raised and to be kept up by Massts.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:47:10 -0000

>YOU..."If Obama is admitting that Tort Reform is needed if there were to be a single payer government system why not have Tort Reform for the current system?"<>Me...""Where has Obama admitted that?""<>YOU..."I don't think that he has."<

Ok...that was an exchange between the two of us. And you say this: "I think that you are confused". Two things come to mind. One of us is definately confused. Either I'm confused by your contradictory statements...OR...you're confusing yourself. Frankly I think you're confused by your own ideology which can't stand up to critical analysis. Do you think that it's possible that you might be wrong about any of this, or is your ideology infallible?

Re: Guns and Presidents

Personal Injury Solicitors — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:29:17 -0000

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Re: Guns and Presidents

Vangel — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:55:41 -0000

">""No right is absolute."

"Of course it is. That is what makes it a right"<

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. As far back as 1878 the Supreme Court said,

""Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." The court later stated that although the freedom to think and worship any religion is an absolute right, the freedom of excercize was not."

It is no surprise that a court appointed by a federal government would say that. But the court is wrong. The federal government has no business in the religion business because the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…,” leave no wiggle room. They limit the power of Congress and the federal government, not the states.

"In his letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson pointed out "the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,". Religious beliefs for example are simply opinions."

The purpose of the letter was to address the Baptists' fears of an establishment of a national government-supported church. To see what Jefferson believed about the subject you are better off looking at this Inaugural Address, in which he stated, "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." Jefferson was clear that the Constitution left no place for the federal government in the issue of religion. That was a matter left up to the churches, individuals and the states.

Of course, I agree that Jefferson did not believe that freedom of religion, speech, the right to carry arms, association, etc., were inalienable and could be regulated by the states. It is only inalienable rights that cannot be intefered with by either the federal government or the states.

I have to say that this is an interesting approach that you are taking. Usually the left argues that states cannot establish or support a specific religion but you are supporting an argument that they can and brining up evidence that it is only the federal government that has no business dealing with the subject of religion. You might turn out into a supporter of states rights after all.

“Furthermore, the absolute freedom that you are now claiming falls apart in light of what you were arguing just moments ago. In other words, you're contradicting yourself.”

Where did I say that you had absolute freedom? I said that you could not trespass on the property of others or initiate force against anyone. I just said that if you had a right to something it was absolute because if it wasn’t it would not be a right but permission.

“Free Expression on Private Property

The first attempt to provide a constitutional basis for the protection of free expression on private property occurred in the mid-1940s. In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the Supreme Court held that the owners and operators of a company town could not prohibit the distribution of religious literature in the town's business district because such expression was protected by the First and 14th amendments. Id. The majority reasoned that the town displayed many of the attributes of a municipality; therefore the state-action requirement was satisfied for constitutional purposes of sustaining the rights of free expression. As stated in Marsh, "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company. The Supreme Court's finding in Hudgens incontestably favored private-property rights over individual free expression.”

The Fourteenth Amendment has done a great deal of damage to your country and has been applied improperly on all kinds of cases. Its intent was to ensure that recentrly freed slaves had the right of citizens and has nothing to do with the distribution of leaflets on private property. Of course, given the fact that FDR had appointed anti-property judges, it is no surpise that the court would have ruled against a company. FDR, who is the fourth worst president on my list, was never big on property or markets.

http://www.amazon.com/GOVER...

http://www.amazon.com/Fourt...

“In other words, property rights superceded the right of free expression. There are always going to be situations in which one right is in direct conflict with another. Something has to give. If a right is absolute, then resolving the conflict would be impossible."

As I said, the freedom of speech is is not inalieanable and is a property right. You still can’t come into someone’s house and try to express yourself unless you have permission to do so. And let us note that Marsh v. Alabama was a weird case that was not applicable to any other situation. When Cyber Promotions cited Marsh v. Alabama as an attempt to get AOL to allow it to send mass e-mails for promotional purposes the Supremes upheld the property rights of AOL shareholders and dismissed the case.

Re: Guns and Presidents

Vangel — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:19:51 -0000

">"Most governments are tyrannies of one man, a class, or of the mob that tend to be run by a political elite that transfers wealth from taxpayers and consumers to its patrons. "<

Sounds like the Bush administration to me. "

The Bush administration was not all that different than that of Clinton or of Obama. You still have a government of a political elite for the benefit of its sponsors.

"Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled."

Actually, wage growth for public unions was spectacular under Bush. And corporate profits have collapsed. Much of the great wealth that supposedly accrued to the richest 1% turned out to be an illusion as a change in the market trend wiped out many of the richest. Sadly, that process continues as Obama continues many of the Bush policies and appoints the very Wall Street insiders who helped create the problem and never saw it coming. But what would one expect from economic illiterates like Bush and Obama.

"The gap between the nation’s CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago."

The last time I looked nobody was forced to work anywhere. If people could get better pay elsewhere they moved to the better job. And if some shareholders overpay CEOs but choose not to overpay workers that is their business.

" And while Bush’s tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush’s tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year — the richest five percent of the population — will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year — eighty percent of America — will receive barely a quarter of the cuts."

Actually, the percentage decrease was highest for the lower tax brackets. In 2006 the top 1% of income earners paid about 40% of all federal income taxes, which was more than when Clinton was in office. At the same time the bottom 50 percent paid around 3%, which was less than when Clinton was in office.

You made a grave error because you could not figure out the difference between a percentage reduction and the absolute amount. Some reading might help you.

http://navaleadership.blogs...

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:40:21 -0000

.>""No right is absolute."<>"Of course it is. That is what makes it a right"<

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. As far back as 1878 the Supreme Court said, ""Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." The court later stated that although the freedom to think and worship any religion is an absolute right, the freedom of excercize was not.

In his letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson pointed out "the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,". Religious beliefs for example are simply opinions.

Furthermore, the absolute freedom that you are now claiming falls apart in light of what you were arguing just moments ago. In other words, you're contradicting yourself.

Free Expression on Private Property

In other words, property rights superceded the right of free expression. There are always going to be situations in which one right is in direct conflict with another. Something has to give. If a right is absolute, then resolving the conflict would be impossible.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:40:45 -0000

>"Most governments are tyrannies of one man, a class, or of the mob that tend to be run by a political elite that transfers wealth from taxpayers and consumers to its patrons. "<

Sounds like the Bush administration to me. Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled. The gap between the nation’s CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. And while Bush’s tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush’s tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year — the richest five percent of the population — will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year — eighty percent of America — will receive barely a quarter of the cuts.

Re: Guns and Presidents

Vangel — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:14:19 -0000

"I never said that I don't believe in property rights. What I said was that I disagree with you that all rights are property rights."

Fair enough. But to support my claim that rights only make sense in the context of property I gave you the example of free speech and the right to carry guns. You have said that you disagree but have yet to provide an argument to support your belief. I have no trouble doing that and provided perfect examples for both the right to own guns and the freedom of speech.

"How about the amount of lead or asbestos in a product? As for government intrusion into voluntary transactions, don't you think that's a broad brush you're using? Doesn't it depend on the type of transaction? What if the transaction can do harm to the public?"

The government does not need to insert itself into voluntary transactions. No manufacturer or retailer has the right to harm a customer so the law already protects individuals from bad products. If Wal Mart and Mattel sell toys that harm children in the ordinary use of that toy than they already liable for any damages cause by the use of those toys.

Look at the system in place now. It rewards a woman $1 million because she spills hot coffee on herself as she is driving. Do we really need laws to force sellers of coffee to remind customers that the coffee is hot and that they should not be driving and drinking at the same time?

"Yeah, it does. The constitution was designed to be amended. Do you expect us to live the way people lived 200 years ago? I doubt that the framers did. That's why they included the amendment process. They didn't even have electric lights then, let alone the internet. The population back then was nothing like it is today."

As I wrote before, go ahead and try to amend the Constitution as is your right. But until you do I do expect you to obey it as it should have been obeyed 200 years ago. The fact that it has not been obeyed explains the decline of the US and the state that it is in.

You are also confusing the changes brought about by technological change and the need to obey the laws. No matter what technological changes come our way we still need to have clear laws that respect individual liberty and hamper the natural tendency for systems to move towards tyranny.

"Lets be honest here ok? When the government was created we had slavery. Women couldn't vote. There were no child labor laws."

I am being honest. I have never said that all of the conditions lived up to the words in the Declaration of Independence. I am merely claiming that the writer of the Declaration was right to claim, "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"As for "state rights" that is nothing but a euphamism for the institution of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation."

This is the cliché used by those that are not familiar with the history of the United States, or Western history in general. You seem to believe that rights flow from the federal government to states and individuals rather than the other way around. There are many points and arguments that I can make here but I will limit my response to just a few.

First, the states delegated to the federal government very limited powers and the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Second, the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists acknowledged states rights. Even Alexander Hamilton argued that the states could restrain the federal government. In Federalist #28 he writes, "It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority." (And that is a centralizer and a believer in big government writing.)

Third, the states were weary of any situation in which federal officials would interpret what was legal. That is why New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island included clauses in their ratification documents to permitted them to leave the Union if they did not like where federalism was taking the country. Virginia cited this clause when it left the Union in 1961. The principle of co-equality provided all states with the rights held by New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island.

And I do not think that you appreciate how the concept of states rights actually threatened the institution of slavery that you claim that it really supports. Woods also points out that states' rights could be used to oppose slavery. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional, and the state did not have to enforce it. If other state courts made similar rulings slavery could not exist just as it could not survive for long if the South had been allowed to leave. Lincoln understood that and tried to have the Southern states brought back into the fold by promising an amendment that would not interfere with slavery.

"It was the battle cry of George C. Wallace and racist to the core. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to have witnessed it."

The fact that the US was racist has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Your statements just divert attention from the debate around state rights, probably because your knowledge of history is weak and you are not familiar with the facts.

"The 14th Amendment made everyone born here a citizen of the US. (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States) ;My allegience is to the United States. Not to Florida. The US flag flies over all state flags. When I hear somebody evoking states rights, I see a person echoing the sentiments of Wallace and the old south. I know where that is coming from."

The 14th Amendment does not change the Constitution by taking away the powers that were never granted to the federal government from the states and people. I think that you need to read up on your history. You might want to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, the writing of Lysander Spooner, William Lloyd Garrison, and a guy that you should be familiar with, Thomas Jefferson.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:35:04 -0000

>"But Obama does not want to go in that direction and ignores one of the biggest cost drivers in the system."<

The biggest cost driver in the system is the basic fact that it is profit motivated. The saleries of the top executives must be maintained and the share holders portfolios are the main things that drive the cost of private health. The public option has no profit motive. An issue of life and death should not have a profit motive attached to it.

>"The unnecessary tests he blames on doctors and hospitals are driven by fear of lawsuits."<

Demonstrate to me how that is true. Show me some kind of methodology that you have to prove what your saying so that I simply don't have to take your word or some Republican talking point. I say that that the multiple testing has more to do with the diagnoses of the patient and the fact that many doctors simply want their own tests. It also has to do with a lack of communication among them. I say this because I've seen it and my wife is in the medical field and has seen it as well. You're promoting fear as the reason. Why should I believe you?

>"If Obama really wanted to get rid of those unnecessary tests all he needs to do is to tackle tort reform. "<

Or he could propose a more efficient method of sharing information in an information age. What a concept. Frankly, if a doctor screws up, he should have his ass sued. Michael Jackson has a doctor giving him propofol. To help him sleep??? What kind if doctor does that? Not only should the guy be charged with homocide, he should have his ass sued to the point of total destruction. He should never be allowed to practice medicine anywhere again.

>"He was the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the trial lawyers and will certainly do what he must to protect his donors"<

Ahh...I see. And the fact that every Senator and congressman that opposes this is supported by campaign contributions from the insurence corporations should be ignored as having anything at all to do with their opposition. My own congressman sent me a video email to voice his opposition to the bill. Of course when I checked his backing, he got $3 million during his time in congress from...guess who? He doesn't represent me. He's owned by corporations that put money in his pocket to do their bidding. He is their lobbyist in congress. But you only want to see Trial Lawyers as the Big..Bad..Wolf. Why am I not surprised coming from somebody who values business over people. If I get screwed by a corporation, just exactly who am I supposed to turn to if not a trial lawyer?? The corporations have teams of lawyers on their payroll to crush me. What chance do I have against them? Am I not supposed to sue if I or a member of my family is injured by some product put out by some company through their own negligence?

>"For the life of me I could never have predicted that Americans would be stupid enough to find a man that was even less competent than Bush "<

You know what Vangel..You really are a pompous ass. You don't live here. You aren't a citizen of this country. And yet you presume to understand our constitution better then we do. Our history better then we do. You actually have not one single original thought in any of your posts. Your actually a pretty small minded weakling that read Ayn Rand and is infatuated with an idealized version of a black and white reality that doesn't exist. I read Rand in my 20's. I didn't take it seriously then and I find it laughable that anyone would find it worthy of their time today.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:48:45 -0000

>"First, every time you get behind the wheel of a car there is a, ' potential to take the life of somebody,' particularly if your quality of driving is similar quality to your knowledge of the Constitution and your own history. "<

You're straying from the subject which is rights. Driving isn't a right. It's a privilage which can be suspended.

>"If people have to temper rights than they do not really have them."<

People should be able to temper them on their own through common sense rather then abuse that right by insisting on a need to display it in everyones face. Instead we have the creature from the second amendment showing up at the presidents rally armed to the teeth. How red, white, and blue of him. He's as American as apple pie and conspiracy theories.

There is a growing domination of hate radio as one of the crucial elements in a "culture of cruelty" spurred on by eliminationist talk, increasingly marked by overt racism and disdain for others coupled with a simmering threat of mob violence toward any political figure who believes healthcare reform is the most vital of safety nets, especially now that the central issue of life and politics is no longer about working to get ahead, but struggling simply to survive.

Add to this mix somebody's warped need to send a message to all around him including the president that he's armed and dangerous and is not going to let this president take away his guns and you are inviting a disaster that we have seen before in our history. Assassination of a political leader.

If guns are not permitted inside a public building such as the Capitol or the White House. They should not be permitted at public gatherings and political events. A gun is not an inalienable right. You weren't born with a gun in your hand. You don't need a gun to defend yourself in a fight. Our rights are somehow viewed as absolute when in fact they aren't. You have the right to the freedom of your own conscience with regards to religion for example. That is absolute. You do NOT however have an absolute right to practice that religion. You don't have the right for example to practice human or animal sacrifice and claim it as protected right of the first amendment. You can't commit a crime and claim that you're protected from prosecution through some idea that it's part of a religious practice that's protected by the first amendment.

Re: Guns and Presidents

Vangel — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:15:35 -0000

"Why shouldn't it? On the other hand, why shouldn't a private plan meet the same restrictions as a public plan?"

I think that you are confused. I am arguing that if there were tort reform to liming people suing government insurance programs the same limits should apply to suing private insurance companies. But Obama does not want to go in that direction and ignores one of the biggest cost drivers in the system. The unnecessary tests he blames on doctors and hospitals are driven by fear of lawsuits. If Obama really wanted to get rid of those unnecessary tests all he needs to do is to tackle tort reform.

"Isn't that the essence of competition? The main difference here is that the public plan removes the profit motive that is involved in a private plan."

Once again, you show confusion. There is no barrier to entry to non-profits to compete against private insurers. And the last time I looked the private sector was very capable in competing with the public sector when it was allowed to do so. Just look at the Post Office for a perfect example. It gets many subsidies, is granted a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail and yet has trouble competing with FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc. Imagine if the private sector were allowed to handle licence renewals. Do you really think that you would have to line up for an hour and have to tolerate rude and inefficient clerks?

"Where has Obama admitted that?"

I don't think that he has. He was the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from the trial lawyers and will certainly do what he must to protect his donors. And it is hard to know what he really thinks because he has been all over the place on this issue and the White House has yet to come up with its own bill.

From what I see Obama is even more over his head than Bush was. For the life of me I could never have predicted that Americans would be stupid enough to find a man that was even less competent than Bush but my inability to imagine the inability of voters to think rationally did not permit me to see that the election would be a contest between two men as unqualified and unsuited to the Office of President as Obama and McCain.

"Tort reform becomes a natural byproduct of the public option."

If tort reform were a good idea if there were a public option why would you not support tort reform now?

Re: Guns and Presidents

Vangel — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:43:02 -0000

"No right is absolute."

Of course it is. That is what makes it a right.

Re: Guns and Presidents

Vangel — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:42:19 -0000

"I really think thats a bogus arguement. None of my first amendment rights have the potential to take the life of somebody at a political meeting especially one where the president is attending. My second amendment right does contain that possibility and therefore it should in fact be taken as something different then the other rights in the BoR."

Talk about a bogus argument. First, every time you get behind the wheel of a car there is a, ' potential to take the life of somebody,' particularly if your quality of driving is similar quality to your knowledge of the Constitution and your own history.

"Yes you have a right to bear arms, but that right should be tempered according to the circumstances."

If people have to temper rights than they do not really have them. As I said, the answer to your objections are simple. All you have to do is to pass a law that will repeal the Second Amendment. That would take away the right of law abiding citizens to possess guns and the only people that would carry them are criminals and the state police forces.

"It is impossible to determine the mindset of every person that carries a gun to a political meeting. We don't know that persons intentions. After the fact, is too late. We truly cannot afford to risk the possibility of effecting the lives and the rights of others because of the potential for serious damage who considers his right more important than the security of the president."

But I can point out that it isn't possible to determine the mindset of every person that drives to a political meeting. We don't know that persons intentions. After the fact, is too late. We truly cannot afford to risk the possibility of effecting the lives and the rights of others because of the potential for serious damage who considers his right more important than the security of the president. If we follow that logic we would have to agree that everyone would have to walk to political meetings. After all, getting run over by a car is can kill you as easily as getting shot.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:36:25 -0000

>"It comes from the right of self preservation. "<

No it doesn't. There are many ways to maintain self preservation. If that were the purpose of the amendment they'd have to enumerate every possible way to preserve yourself. The right to own a gun or bear arms is specifically described in the 2nd Amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now...that is what it say's. We have a great argument of interpretation of the constitution in this country, and people demanding a strict constructionist position. What you have just done is invoke your own personal interpretation on what the amendment means. You're embellishing it for your own purposes.

Re: Guns and Presidents

Paul_G_Brown — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:30:54 -0000

The question is one of rights.

No right is absolute. Your right to swing your fists around, famously, stops at the bridge of my nose. Your right to free speech and free association is suspended when that activity involves planning a murder. We've decided, somewhat controversially, that even utterances that might give rise to panic are out (yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater).

Allowing that you have a right to carry a gun, the point is that with that right comes a shit-ton of responsibilities. You would feel uncomfortable, surely, attending a crowded, emotionally charged event. Respecting the wishes of others to feel free is one of the responsibilities that comes with that right.

I'm no more disturbed by the rights articulated in the second amendment than I am by the rights in the first. But I'm also aware that these rights aren't unconstrained.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:08:49 -0000

>"How can you own things if you do not believe in property rights?"<

I never said that I don't believe in property rights. What I said was that I disagree with you that all rights are property rights.

>"we don't need government to intrude in voluntary transactions and that we don't need laws to regulate how much salt a product must contain,"<

How about the amount of lead or asbestos in a product? As for government intrusion into voluntary transactions, don't you think that's a broad brush you're using? Doesn't it depend on the type of transaction? What if the transaction can do harm to the public?

>"Does it? A contract is not what I would call the arrangement because it keeps getting amended as government intrudes more and more into people's lives by limiting their liberty"<

Yeah, it does. The constitution was designed to be amended. Do you expect us to live the way people lived 200 years ago? I doubt that the framers did. That's why they included the amendment process. They didn't even have electric lights then, let alone the internet. The population back then was nothing like it is today.

>" When the govenrment was created nobody agreed that it could violate state rights or tell free individuals how they must conduct their daily lives and voluntary transactions. "<

Lets be honest here ok? When the government was created we had slavery. Women couldn't vote. There were no child labor laws. As for "state rights" that is nothing but a euphamism for the institution of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. It was the battle cry of George C. Wallace and racist to the core. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to have witnessed it. The 14th Amendment made everyone born here a citizen of the US. (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States) ;My allegience is to the United States. Not to Florida. The US flag flies over all state flags. When I hear somebody evoking states rights, I see a person echoing the sentiments of Wallace and the old south. I know where that is coming from.

>"You can't sell inalienable rights."<

Then in that case, they aren't property rights since they can't be sold. So all rights are NOT property rights. Inalienable rights are not property. They are not material rights. They are NOT tangable assets. They're metaphysical in nature. You are born with them whether you wanted them or not. If you can't sell them then they aren't actually governed by free will. You have no right to sell it as property. That's because they can't be defined as property in the same way that material objects can, which was the gist of my argument when I disagreed with your claim that ALL rights are property rights. Inalienable rights obviously by your own claim (You can't sell inalienable rights) do not fit the definition of property as most people understand it. Property can be bought and sold. Inalienable rights cannot. Therefore, logically inalianble rights cannot be property under the same definition.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:33:19 -0000

>"A human being can think and has will."<

But his thoughts and his will are nothing more than his property. Everything about him is property. And property is measurable. His body and his mind are nothing more than property. They are tangable assets that he has the right to sell or barter as he wishes.

>"You are confused because you are not familiar with the concept of the inalienability of free will of the individual and the self-ownership principle. Because the individual's self-ownership over his will is inalienable, the individual cannot be forced to continue an arrangement where he submits his will to another. If it were otherwise we could not obtain a divorce because the marriage contract agreed to the 'till death do us part bit.'"<

Oh really? Why not? The inalienability of free will can only extend as far as the space you occupy. Your free will isn't free after that. It comes with a price attached. You might occupy several acres. If so, good for you. You might not. That would be the only property rights you can claim. In that sense your free will has restrictions placed upon it by the free will of others claiming the same right. All material objects occupy space in this universe. Since you must occupy space somewhere, that is the extent of your free will. Sometimes objects collide.

As for being forced to continue an arrangement in which you submit your will to that of another what your now saying essentially is that no contract is binding. I would ask why not? If the other party hasn't released you from that contract, you have given up that free will, and the right of ownership to that property, and your free will now has limitations on it's freedom. If you entered into the contract of your own free will and committed your property rights in the process then you have no legal right to your own free will. It's been compromised.

>"Humans can never be the property of anyone in an unhampered market. Your statement is only valid for a tyranny."<

Not true. You assume that I meant the property of somebody else. I said, human beings are really the property of somebody. That could also mean you yourself. I'm including a person having the right of property to his own person. But it is by your own standards, the property of someone. In a slavery situation the human being is the property of somebody else. That's tyranny. That's a conservative concept. Hardly a liberal one. Lords and serfs. Masters and slaves. The road to serfdom is paved by conservatives. We have a history to support that.

>"As I said, you need an education about the subject. It might help you to learn what Jefferson meant when he wrote, "We hold this truth to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights, that among this are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"<

I don't think so. I write for the History News Network and I'm quite familiar with Jefferson and own a copy of everything he wrote. First of all, I have no argument with anything Jefferson said. He's one of my hero's. So you don't need to try to explain him to me. I understand his concept of creator is vastly different from what you may attribute to him. He has stated the fundimental concept of democracy. Something I hold very close to my heart. However democracy and conservatism are at odds with each other. Conservatism is rooted in Aristocracy, Monarchy, Theocracy, and authoritarianism. Liberalism opposes all of the above. The freedom of speech, religion, etc..these are NOT conservative ideas. They are liberal ideas. There is a reason for it being called a "liberal democracy". There is no such thing as a conservative democracy.

You might also note that the very concept of unalienable rights coming from a creator is a concept that cannot demonstrate itself as being true, unless you think that you can prove the existance of a creator. Assuming there is one, doesn't make it true. Jefferson gave a nod to those with religious tendencies, although he had nothing to do with religion as such. It's also important to note that the term creator is deistic. Acknowledging something but without specification; he left it at that. His own views were always kept to himself. When asked what his religion was, he stated that he had his own, and left it for others to speculate on.

Re: Guns and Presidents

adagio4639 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:19:42 -0000

>"Why should a government plan have to comply with the same rules and restrictions as a private plan?"<

Why shouldn't it? On the other hand, why shouldn't a private plan meet the same restrictions as a public plan? Isn't that the essence of competition? The main difference here is that the public plan removes the profit motive that is involved in a private plan.

>"If Obama is admitting that Tort Reform is needed if there were to be a single payer government system why not have Tort Reform for the current system?"<

That's an assumption on your part. Where has Obama admitted that? Simply calling for a public plan is not an admission of any such thing regarding Tort Reform. Tort reform becomes a natural byproduct of the public option. He wouldn't be going for a public option in order to bring about Tort Reform. You seem to be assuming thats the public option purpose. It isn't.