STP

I don't consider it necessarily a bigoted response. Seems more like a generalization to me. Most of the hijackers were Saudi, so ok Arabs, but are Egyptians considered to be Arabic? Could you use the term, Semite? So if you badmouthed the hijackers would that make you Anti-Semitic? Re: Whether majority of Republicans are morally vacant The majority of Congressman that were charged and indicted in three of the biggest political corruption scandals of the last few decades were Democrats (Abscam, Keating 5, House Banking scandal) -- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/corruption/history.html All people are corruptible. I believe it has more to do with the majority party.

[video:youtube]EJyE1Nz7cuQ

2012? Why does that ring a bell?

I don't think it's that simple, at all. What "arms" were you given the right to bear? Tanks? Artillery? What "arms", if any, are you willing to outlaw? Should people be able to own nuclear weapons? Where does it stop? Surely you agree with some form of gun control, as I doubt many would argue that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. So, where do you draw the line? I don't think it's "simple as that." No, it's not a simple issue at all. The second amendment is cryptic and ambiguous. If the government ever decides to confiscate guns, despite all the bluster from blowhards like AKA, they'll just come and take them...and AKA and every other "cold dead hand-ites" in the country will just give them up...just like they've done fuck all while the government took away their privacy, habeaus corpus, and probable cause rights. What, you're going give up your freedom, life, your family's life, and everything you own so you can keep guns you need to protect all of the above? I'm snickering over here. Fuck you, blowhards. There isn't anyone in this fine country who believes your obvious posing. I'm curious, purely hypothetical but if you could propose one significant but seemingly impossible policy change in this country that would have lasting financial consequence, what would it be? You've expressed your dislike for the military before so might you propose the withdrawal of US troops based in foreign countries along with the abolition of a standing army in favor of a system similar to Switzerland's? ( The Swiss Report; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) Granted, this system would require compulsory military service for able-bodied citizens and would require the keeping of an automatic weapon in your home.

The Right to Bear Arms is listed in the Washington State Constitution as an individual right but the collective right as applied to a non-governmental militia does not appear to be supported. So, does this mean that Blackwater can't operate here? SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. -- http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Constitution.htm Oregon: Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] -- http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html

The Democrats may likely sweep the Congress and the Presidency however I believe that their hands will be full dealing with the economic repercussions of the financial crisis. Regarding the Supreme Court, it's just as likely that the more activist-minded justices will be replaced rather than the justices who take a more conservative stance in the court. But, as O'Connor proved sometimes it's difficult to deterministically predict the outcome of a decision. It's more likely that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned than the 2nd Amendment being reinterpreted. Who knows?

Sure, why not?

I don't think it's that simple, at all. What "arms" were you given the right to bear? Tanks? Artillery? What "arms", if any, are you willing to outlaw? Should people be able to own nuclear weapons? Where does it stop? Surely you agree with some form of gun control, as I doubt many would argue that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. So, where do you draw the line? I don't think it's "simple as that." This reference ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) will probably clarify some of your questions. Specifically: While NFA weapons as a whole are perceived by the American public as dangerous, their use in crime is exceedingly rare. Legally-owned (ie, NFA-registered) machine guns have been used in only two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer.[9] A previous director of the ATF testified before Congress[citation needed] that fewer than ten registered machine guns (out of over 240,000 in the nation) have ever been used in any type of crime (including nonviolent offenses such as failing to notify ATF of address changes, etc.). The criminal use of other legally-owned NFA weapons is similarly rare. The Title II weapons used in prominent crimes, such the AK-47s used in the North Hollywood shootout of 1997, have universally been illegally-owned or illegally-converted weapons. --reference above You'll also find this interesting: snip...the Act's application is derived from the federal legislature's Constitutionally enumerated power of regulation over interstate commerce ...snip

Your response speaks volumes about your own thinking rather than shed light on the issue. You objectify all gun owners basically as killers and that really is a disservice to these individuals and to understanding their position. First, there are gun owners of all persuasions, not just Republican or conservative. Did you know that some civil rights workers armed themselves for protection? [Civil Rights and Gun Sights--ReasonOnLine]. Second, your myopic view exposes your own intolerance of other viewpoints. Third, you presuppose that gun owners do not feel the pain of needless death. I'd venture to say that conscientious gun owners are the best advocate for safety and responsible firearms usage.

Good questions. Even though I disagree with Yoo's thinking about the unitary executive, I believe the roots of the current developments are actually in the wording of the original documents regarding the Executive Office and the President's role as Commander in Chief in times of national crisis (for related idea see Carl Schmitt's state of exception). But then again, I'm no scholar or historian. Here's another thing to misconstrue: Democracy, the Worst Form of Government Ever Tried. Seems somewhat relevant in light of controversy surrounding the popular vote versus electoral college. RE: regarding the Internet [video:google]2764008898452438504&hl=en&fs=true

No, as long as the desire for gun control exists then the debate will continue. As far as the interpretation of the Constitution, it’s more a projection of your bias in your perception of my beliefs rather than actuality. Seems we’re looking at this with a microscope when perhaps we should be looking at the larger implications. You can see the historical trend and it’s been one that increasing sees the government fulfilling tasks and roles once assumed to be in the realm of individual responsibility. [Consider the Supreme Court’s ruling on eminent domain.] At face value, it’s a commendable goal but the State should not be elevated to Godlike status, in other words, it’s not there to take care of all of your needs. Because if it is, then you subsume your individuality and the State becomes a false Idol. Admittedly, this is religious imagery but valid nonetheless. There’s a saying that speaks to this: “The road to Hell is paved with bricks of good intention.” And for the atheist types, when’s the last time you reread ‘Brave New World’? The future will be sold to you as a ‘kinder, gentler world’ so we don’t necessarily see oppression as presented in Orwell’s “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever” but more likely as existential malaise where hedonism and psychological sickness prevail in the general population. Francis Fukuyama projected his thoughts into the future and spoke of a possibility where technological development would lead to the end of liberal democracy. So, the future could become a quasi-Feudal system of economic servitude to the upper class where the multitude exist to labor and contribute tax revenues to fund the grand projects (my words, not Fukuyama’s). And we’ll be thrown a bone every once in awhile to placate our yearnings (a credit line, for instance). Psst...this is funny, check out this photograph of the Bank of International Settlementts in Basel, Switzerland ( ) But that’s enough flight of fancy… Ok, I’m not a constitutional scholar but on my cursory understanding of the issue, a dual meaning can easily be extracted from the wording of the 2nd Amendment, or perhaps as you would put it, interpreting the spirit of the law as opposed to the (strict) letter of the law. However, even if you were to take the strict wording of the Amendment, you’d be hard pressed to deny the right of individual gun ownership. As it applies to the defense of the united states in the newly fledged republic, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has more to do with whether we should have a ‘standing army’ versus a ‘citizen militia’. In no way does the wording construe that the people do not have a right to keep and bear arms.

Ok, so why are most socially liberal Democrats in favor of gun control to the point of a virtual ban even though the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right in the Constitution? Yet, when activist judges construe rights not enumerated but inferred, for example, penumbral rights such as the individual's right to privacy free from government intrusion, then they're all about what a great thing it is. [in principle, this penumbra right sounds reasonable although it has been used primarily in one particular way. The right to privacy is the basis for legal abortion.] Are liberals trying to say that the ideas in the Constitution as it was originally written are outdated?

District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) affirmed the interpretion of the Second Amendment protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms. ref--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller United States vs. Miller (1939) referred only to certain types of weapons. Used by some gun advocates to support right to use military type firearms. ref--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Swing state huh? This ones for Obama's favor. [video:youtube]_qQX-jayixQ

CELEBRATE!! TODAY IS ALL CAPS DAY!

RE: guns and 2nd Amendment I think it's misguided to put gun ownership solely into the opposition to tyranny category. Rather, the emphasis should be on taking control of your life and security instead of relying on government to address all of your needs. For example, take this headline: A fear that budget cuts may fuel crime . If you live in a rural area of King County and the number of law enforcement officers is reduced due to budget cuts, then how do you cope? By hoping for the best?

The first time I heard Primus it threw me off. I was jarred. Tommy The Cat

Maybe Bush should make the invasion of Cuba his last act: Cuba claims massive oil reserves--BBC News

Right! This is spray. We need more fart and poop threads. [video:youtube]kI6903sqENs

That people will realize that Biden is the power behind the throne.

I agree with some of your ideas, man, but I'm gonna hafta call bullshit on this one, otherwise why would Nader still stay involved with politics? Merely to sustain gadfly status? Not that I disagree with your argument but it doesn't leave room for freedom. I don't accept it. It's too deterministic. This illusion of choice engendered by the two party system is just that,...illusion. As if casting your vote for a particular party in the bipartisan system confers legitimacy to that party to make all of the changes it proposes, a mandate if you will. The way I see it, those minor parties represent a constituency whose collective voice can be heard if given media exposure. In other words, these parties address a need. In that respect, it seems that these parties can influence the national dialogue and if the conditions are right then hopefully impact the platforms of the two major parties. Now, in some other countries, the ruling government has to form coalitions where the other parties can share in some of the power. Sure, it happens here to some extent, for example, inner city Democrats working with rural Republicans to support a bill that finances both food stamps and agricultural subsidies. Politics does make strange bedfellows. But I know, the reality as it is, is that you're given two options: Work within the existing framework of the bipartisian system, Libertarians, for instance, believed that the Republican Party represented the best opportunity to push their agenda. Or, form a third party challenge. With our monolithic political system, it would take extraordinary conditions for the latter option to be viable. There's still a possibility however. It's not impossible. I'm no historian but there have been times when a particular party disintegrated or morphed into something different. I would suppose that the present economic crisis would foot that bill. As I said above, the third party challenge addresses a need that should be examined and perhaps incorporated into the existing platform. Absent that, maybe a "community organizer" type person can elevate the third party supporters into a real challege to the status quo system of the pro-Statist Democratic and Republican Parties. "Politics is war without bloodshed...."

Which is scarier? Depends on what's driving the fear. If it's grounded on an irrational basis or it derives from emotions such as anger then perhaps I need to reexamine my perceptions. If I've looked at things rationally and still fear unknown consequences then maybe it's more of matter of being informed and perparing for that eventuality. I don't know if there is a correct answer but I see so many people pretending to act as if they know the absolute way (and not just the religious). I read Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene long ago and I agree with his arguments but I've never read any Ayn Rand. I'm not sure I agree that self-interest is above all. So yeah, philosophically I'm a little on the fence but I'm ready to fall squarely into the communitarian side for self-preservation. How's that for contradictions? RE: MAD doctrine. Makes sense as appropriate balance of power but at what social expense? Makes no sense on the social domestic level. But makes as much sense as complete disarmament. Or,...should I look at It from a Grand Narrative standpoint?

Some say it's a problem of insolvency not liquidity. Regarding corporate bailouts: Bernanke Is Fighting the Last War --WSJ

Shouldn't this thread be called the 'December surprise' with 270 being the magic number? Remember Gore vs Bush in 2000? Todd: McCain is 'conceding the popular vote'

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." — U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: “The Lincoln Encyclopedia”, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)