US Presidential Elections 2

[Slowtrain]

Has Obama come out against private ownership of firearms? If so, I totally missed it for some reason.

[Enoch]

God given? When did God give man the gun?

 

"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."

 

Someday Sand you are going to wake up and realize that that vast majority of your fellow citizens do believe in God in some form or another. Including the founding fathers of your country who had the wisdom and foresight to spell out that unalienable right DO come from God and not from man. If rights came from man then man could take them away. So if you value your freedom it actually behooves you to be at least a little religious.

 

But I was just using a phrase for emphasis the post in question.

I think his point was more about the "gun" part of the question rather than the "God" part. I can see tossing God rhetoric into the argument if you're talking about freedom from coercion or imprisonment, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that God protects material good A but not material good B. If the government can't ban a class of material possessions like guns because God gave them to mankind, the same argument could be used to toss out limits on crystal meth and child pornography.

 

Nah, gun rights are restrictions on lower levels of governments (Congress and the States) given by a higher level of government (the Constitution). These rights were created for entirely practical, rather than philosophical, reasons.

[Enoch]

By the way, on the wider issue, Obama's official campaign platform doesn't mention gun issues at all, and his response to the Heller decision took a balanced approach, emphasizing local solutions:

 

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today

[Slowtrain]

I've always felt that God works better as a theory rather than a fact.

[Slowtrain]

By the way, on the wider issue, Obama's official campaign platform doesn't mention gun issues at all, and his response to the Heller decision took a balanced approach, emphasizing local solutions:

 

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today

[Aram]

I think it's his voting record that bothers gun owners but I don't think there's much to worry about.

 

What bothers me is I think the passionate gun owners would have voted for Bush in for a goddamn third term if they could over Obama over the gun issue. Now there's nothing wrong with making one issue your issue and sticking to principles, but it's a pretty ****ed up system when you have two choices on who to vote for and you often have to take the lesser candidate simply over one issue--whether it's guns or whatever you feel strongly about. I end up feeling ill every time I cast my ballot, no matter who I go with.

[Hurlshort]

God and Allah are the same dude.

[Aram]

God and Allah are the same dude.

They're actually both a guy named Bob in Seattle who created both identities to cheat on his taxes.

[Enoch]

I think it's his voting record that bothers gun owners but I don't think there's much to worry about.

 

What bothers me is I think the passionate gun owners would have voted for Bush in for a goddamn third term if they could over Obama over the gun issue. Now there's nothing wrong with making one issue your issue and sticking to principles, but it's a pretty ****ed up system when you have two choices on who to vote for and you often have to take the lesser candidate simply over one issue--whether it's guns or whatever you feel strongly about. I end up feeling ill every time I cast my ballot, no matter who I go with.

Yeah, that's the nature of American "catch-all" parties. In other democracies, people often vote for single-issue parties, with the expectation that its members will compromise with other parties in order to achieve their goals on their one big issue. In America, we force the voters to do the compromising, which probably produces stabler political systems but also leads to more voter disaffection and cynicism.

[Humodour]

I think it's his voting record that bothers gun owners but I don't think there's much to worry about.

 

What bothers me is I think the passionate gun owners would have voted for Bush in for a goddamn third term if they could over Obama over the gun issue. Now there's nothing wrong with making one issue your issue and sticking to principles, but it's a pretty ****ed up system when you have two choices on who to vote for and you often have to take the lesser candidate simply over one issue--whether it's guns or whatever you feel strongly about. I end up feeling ill every time I cast my ballot, no matter who I go with.

Yeah, that's the nature of American "catch-all" parties. In other democracies, people often vote for single-issue parties, with the expectation that its members will compromise with other parties in order to achieve their goals on their one big issue. In America, we force the voters to do the compromising, which probably produces stabler political systems but also leads to more voter disaffection and cynicism.

 

Are there any plans to move to a proper proportional representation system? Or at least preferential voting or something?

[I want teh kotor 3]

Damn, now we get more taxes.

[Humodour]

Damn, now we get more taxes.

 

You make over $200,000 a year? Really?

[Enoch]

Are there any plans to move to a proper proportional representation system? Or at least preferential voting or something?

No. The current representative system is written into Article I of the Constitution. It would require huge amounts of political capital to even get the conversation started in that direction, and, ultimately, the resulting policies wouldn't be all that different.

 

For good or ill, in the States, there's a lot of reverence for the 1789 Constitution. There have been a few periods of major changes made to it (most notably, the initial Bill of Rights, the Civil War amendments, and the efforts of the early-1900s Progressives), but otherwise, there has been great resistance to anyone questioning the wisdom of the "founding fathers."

[Volourn]

"Yep. Almost all blacks are Democrats anyway, and Kerry and Gore shared that 90% level of support with Obama, so while I don't doubt Obama being half-black was a bonus, it's very hard to try and paint his black supporters as racist."

 

Nah. Not really. The claim that rcaism is a White disease and other rcaes like blacks cna't be inflcited is beyond silly. There is no doubt that there were black people who voted for Obama simply because he was black just like there's no doubt there were people who voted for McCain 'cause he was white.

 

Your Kerry and Gore comparisons are hurt because those two were up against a white man. I doubt they would have capyured 90% of the black vote if the Republicans had ran a Black candidate.

 

 

"And, yes, Gallup showed that 6% of whites were voting for Obama mainly because he was black - a similar number showed 6% were voting against him because he was black. It evens out"

 

So, 12% of whites admitted to vote based on race hence are admitted racists. Scumbags.

[Trenitay]

I think it's his voting record that bothers gun owners but I don't think there's much to worry about.

 

What bothers me is I think the passionate gun owners would have voted for Bush in for a goddamn third term if they could over Obama over the gun issue.

 

Now wait just a second. That's not fair. I'm a passionate gun owner and I would never have voted Bush into a third term.

[Aristes]

To vote to deny a right to somebody because the supporters of that right gloated a little bit is akin to saying the african americans shouldn't have rights because radical members of the black community killed people. Hell even when they were still slaves African-Americans could still wed.

 

I certainly wouldn't deny someone the right to marry because someone gloated over the issue. However, I did find Newsome's response irritating. The point I was making about Newsome's public tirade wasn't that I used it as a reason to vote for the measure. I cited it because it was the sort of over the top response that led people to think that striking down prop 22 was just the tip of the iceberg. Folks around here can heap scorn on the slippery slope argument, but they should at least concede that Gavin Newsome is the picture perfect example of why that argument exists.

 

Now, some folks might wonder, how could someone vote against prop 22 and then vote for prop 8. I've explained this before, but I'm actually tempted to create my own thread. Prop 22 was a ballot initiative. I hate ballot initiatives. I vote against them the vast majority of the time. Perhaps the vast vast majority of the time. I think they are expensive boondoggles and the very apperatus the state uses to allow, explain, and put them on the ballot costs money. As J.E. said, the ballot initiative system costs money that the state can ill afford. We hear about state budgets and we think that anything less than a few billion is small time money. Not true.

 

However, we have the ballot initiative. It's the law of the land. ...And, while it was loathsome, it passed by over 60% of the vote. That wasn't just enough to pass California's ridiculous ballot initiative system. Excess of 60% passes in a number of other states as well. It didn't just win. Prop 22 won resoundingly. That's where I am. If the proposition passes with a clear enough majority to have changed the state constitution, then I think the Supreme Court of California should use a higher standard in striking down the law. I'm sure a cool and articulate voice like Enoch can explain why this is a bad idea. I will respectfully disagree in advance and adress any such arguments as they occur. The grounds the Supreme Court used to strike down the law were insuficient in my mind. It was a proper law that the people put in place and the Supreme Court wrongfully removed. Once the people spoke, and with such a disproportionate voice, the Supreme Court should have heeded.

 

Yes, it is a step back for Homosexual rights. However, equating homosexuality to slavery and the plight of colored Americans is insulting to the civil rights cause. It's not that I think homosexual don't deserve such rights. It's that the wrongs inflicted on the homosexual community simply pale compared to the sufferings of black Americans. Not only that, but society always gets the final say. They did this time as well. We've come to see the SCOTUS as the final guarantor of our rights. Howver, being humans, the members of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than any other group. Not only that, but the Supreme Court has been an imperfect guardian at any rate. They have not always stood for the rights of the minority. Nor have they always been successful in preserving minority rights when reviewing the law. The Supreme Court is a vital part of our democracy, and I respect it. Nevertheless, it must be watched just as diligently as either of the other branches. We cannot, because it has become en vogue over the past several decades, put all of our faith in the Supreme Court because it can, as can the other branches, abuse its authority. Anything I've said about the SCOTUS applies even more rigidly to the state Supreme Courts generally and to the California Supreme Court specifically.

 

Before folks go hog wild responding to this post, keep in mind that I'm not the only person who believes the state Supreme Court was wrong. The decision to overturn prop 22 was 4-3. That means the court was closely divided as well. Just because you, or I, or members of the Supreme Court believe that prop 22 was wrong does not mean that there are sufficient grounds to overturn the law. I'm glad that prop 8 passed. Because when homosexuals in California get the right to marry, and they will get the right to marry, it will be because the people have come around to that view. As much as folks might hate me for my vote, the long term outcome of the voters finally deciding to do the right thing will be so much better than the Supreme Court deciding to impose its will by fiat.

 

Now, the war has been fought and lost in regards to the SCOTUS running the show. I generally trust the US Supreme Court and I think it is by and large more restrained. For that reason, although it is not perfect, their decisions do not raise my blood quite so much. ...And we could avoid this issue if we simply ammended the CA state constitution to reform initiatives and to make further ammendments more difficult to secure. Once again, however, don't blame conservatives for the terrible state of the constitution. Progressives were the ones who ushered in these reforms a long time agao and they have not served us well.

 

As far as the DC firearms issue... As long as I've been lurker here, and more recently posting, I've always thought you were fair, Enoch. I just have to wonder why you would quote Obama's reaction to the Supreme Court decision, which is admittedly moderate, while not citing his previous comments in support of the DC ban in the first place. I have a hard time believing you didn't know about his previous support of the DC ban on the grounds that it was constitutionally fit. As for myself, I am not a fan of firearms. I have used them rarely in my life and have no great love for them now. I have not owned a personal firearm for years. I would oppose any law I thought of as excessive in restricting firearms, but I doubt I could articulate, without resorting to gross exagerations, what would be excessive without seeing the law first.

 

EDIT: Clearly I meant to say "marry" rather than "vote" in the first sentence. As for other minor errors, I'm too lazy to look for them.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Aristes

[Humodour]

"Yep. Almost all blacks are Democrats anyway, and Kerry and Gore shared that 90% level of support with Obama, so while I don't doubt Obama being half-black was a bonus, it's very hard to try and paint his black supporters as racist."

 

Nah. Not really. The claim that rcaism is a White disease and other rcaes like blacks cna't be inflcited is beyond silly.

 

Well luckily I didn't make that claim.

 

There is no doubt that there were black people who voted for Obama simply because he was black just like there's no doubt there were people who voted for McCain 'cause he was white.

 

Nor did I claim otherwise there. I am arguing against the claim that blacks only supported Obama because he was black. That is false; they supported him because he was a Democrat. Black Republicans don't do anywhere near as well.

 

Your Kerry and Gore comparisons are hurt because those two were up against a white man. I doubt they would have capyured 90% of the black vote if the Republicans had ran a Black candidate.

 

Blacks didn't vote for Obama in the primaries until he won Iowa (I believe they mostly supported Hillary). Why? Because Iowa proved white people would vote for Obama.

 

That kind of discredits your theory.

 

"And, yes, Gallup showed that 6% of whites were voting for Obama mainly because he was black - a similar number showed 6% were voting against him because he was black. It evens out"

 

So, 12% of whites admitted to vote based on race hence are admitted racists. Scumbags.

 

The 6% who voted for Obama mostly cited historic reasons, not superiority issues, so I think calling them "scumbags" is a bit rich. Likewise, some said they wouldn't vote for Obama because they feared he would be assassinated. And yet others simply didn't feel comfortable with a black man as president - they didn't hate blacks. Calling even those people scumbags is a bit ludicrous.

[Volourn]

If you voted based on race you are scumbag. It's really is that black and white.

[Humodour]

To vote to deny a right to somebody because the supporters of that right gloated a little bit is akin to saying the african americans shouldn't have rights because radical members of the black community killed people. Hell even when they were still slaves African-Americans could still wed.

 

I certainly wouldn't deny someone the right to marry because someone gloated over the issue. However, I did find Newsome's response irritating. The point I was making about Newsome's public tirade wasn't that I used it as a reason to vote for the measure. I cited it because it was the sort of over the top response that led people to think that striking down prop 22 was just the tip of the iceberg. Folks around here can heap scorn on the slippery slope argument, but they should at least concede that Gavin Newsome is the picture perfect example of why that argument exists.

 

Now, some folks might wonder, how could someone vote against prop 22 and then vote for prop 8. I've explained this before, but I'm actually tempted to create my own thread. Prop 22 was a ballot initiative. I hate ballot initiatives. I vote against them the vast majority of the time. Perhaps the vast vast majority of the time. I think they are expensive boondoggles and the very apperatus the state uses to allow, explain, and put them on the ballot costs money. As J.E. said, the ballot initiative system costs money that the state can ill afford. We hear about state budgets and we think that anything less than a few billion is small time money. Not true.

 

However, we have the ballot initiative. It's the law of the land. ...And, while it was loathsome, it passed by over 60% of the vote. That wasn't just enough to pass California's ridiculous ballot initiative system. Excess of 60% passes in a number of other states as well. It didn't just win. Prop 22 won resoundingly. That's where I am. If the proposition passes with a clear enough majority to have changed the state constitution, then I think the Supreme Court of California should use a higher standard in striking down the law. I'm sure a cool and articulate voice like Enoch can explain why this is a bad idea. I will respectfully disagree in advance and adress any such arguments as they occur. The grounds the Supreme Court used to strike down the law were insuficient in my mind. It was a proper law that the people put in place and the Supreme Court wrongfully removed. Once the people spoke, and with such a disproportionate voice, the Supreme Court should have heeded.

 

Yes, it is a step back for Homosexual rights. However, equating homosexuality to slavery and the plight of colored Americans is insulting to the civil rights cause. It's not that I think homosexual don't deserve such rights. It's that the wrongs inflicted on the homosexual community simply pale compared to the sufferings of black Americans. Not only that, but society always gets the final say. They did this time as well. We've come to see the SCOTUS as the final guarantor of our rights. Howver, being humans, the members of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than any other group. Not only that, but the Supreme Court has been an imperfect guardian at any rate. They have not always stood for the rights of the minority. Nor have they always been successful in preserving minority rights when reviewing the law. The Supreme Court is a vital part of our democracy, and I respect it. Nevertheless, it must be watched just as diligently as either of the other branches. We cannot, because it has become en vogue over the past several decades, put all of our faith in the Supreme Court because it can, as can the other branches, abuse its authority. Anything I've said about the SCOTUS applies even more rigidly to the state Supreme Courts generally and to the California Supreme Court specifically.

 

Before folks go hog wild responding to this post, keep in mind that I'm not the only person who believes the state Supreme Court was wrong. The decision to overturn prop 22 was 4-3. That means the court was closely divided as well. Just because you, or I, or members of the Supreme Court believe that prop 22 was wrong does not mean that there are sufficient grounds to overturn the law. I'm glad that prop 8 passed. Because when homosexuals in California get the right to marry, and they will get the right to marry, it will be because the people have come around to that view. As much as folks might hate me for my vote, the long term outcome of the voters finally deciding to do the right thing will be so much better than the Supreme Court deciding to impose its will by fiat.

 

Now, the war has been fought and lost in regards to the SCOTUS running the show. I generally trust the US Supreme Court and I think it is by and large more restrained. For that reason, although it is not perfect, their decisions do not raise my blood quite so much. ...And we could avoid this issue if we simply ammended the CA state constitution to reform initiatives and to make further ammendments more difficult to secure. Once again, however, don't blame conservatives for the terrible state of the constitution. Progressives were the ones who ushered in these reforms a long time agao and they have not served us well.

 

As far as the DC firearms issue... As long as I've been lurker here, and more recently posting, I've always thought you were fair, Enoch. I just have to wonder why you would quote Obama's reaction to the Supreme Court decision, which is admittedly moderate, while not citing his previous comments in support of the DC ban in the first place. I have a hard time believing you didn't know about his previous support of the DC ban on the grounds that it was constitutionally fit. As for myself, I am not a fan of firearms. I have used them rarely in my life and have no great love for them now. I have not owned a personal firearm for years. I would oppose any law I thought of as excessive in restricting firearms, but I doubt I could articulate, without resorting to gross exagerations, what would be excessive without seeing the law first.

 

EDIT: Clearly I meant to say "marry" rather than "vote" in the first sentence. As for other minor errors, I'm too lazy to look for them.

 

Man, what the hell? I was totally waiting for I whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare but I thought man forget it yo homes to Bel-Air.

[Humodour]

If you voted based on race you are scumbag. It's really is that black and white.

 

So if you didn't vote for Obama because you didn't want him assassinated, you are a scumbag?

 

Gotta love people who see in black and white.

[Aristes]

Man, what the hell? I was totally waiting for I whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare but I thought man forget it yo homes to Bel-Air.

 

I take it you have the same program in Australia?

[Aram]

If you voted based on race you are scumbag. It's really is that black and white.

 

So if you didn't vote for Obama because you didn't want him assassinated, you are a scumbag?

No you're just an idiot.

[Aram]

I think it's his voting record that bothers gun owners but I don't think there's much to worry about.

 

What bothers me is I think the passionate gun owners would have voted for Bush in for a goddamn third term if they could over Obama over the gun issue.

 

Now wait just a second. That's not fair. I'm a passionate gun owner and I would never have voted Bush into a third term.

The as in the greater number. I wouldn't either.

[Humodour]

If you voted based on race you are scumbag. It's really is that black and white.

 

So if you didn't vote for Obama because you didn't want him assassinated, you are a scumbag?

No you're just an idiot.

 

*badum tchh*

 

Man, what the hell? I was totally waiting for I whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare but I thought man forget it yo homes to Bel-Air.

 

I take it you have the same program in Australia?

 

Heh, probably. I saw it on DVD in a friend's dorm room, though.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Krezack

[Guard Dog]

Are there any plans to move to a proper proportional representation system? Or at least preferential voting or something?

No. The current representative system is written into Article I of the Constitution. It would require huge amounts of political capital to even get the conversation started in that direction, and, ultimately, the resulting policies wouldn't be all that different.

 

For good or ill, in the States, there's a lot of reverence for the 1789 Constitution. There have been a few periods of major changes made to it (most notably, the initial Bill of Rights, the Civil War amendments, and the efforts of the early-1900s Progressives), but otherwise, there has been great resistance to anyone questioning the wisdom of the "founding fathers."

 

Can you imagine the utter chaos that would result from a Constitutional Convention in our time? It was highly contentious in 1789, it took more than 10 years to get 13 states to ratify it. And in those days the was far more cultural and political similarity between the states than now. The document that would be acceptable to New England would never be ratified in the South or Mid-West. What the pacific coast states would require might be intolerable to the Great Lakes. There are far more political factions now that will want their pet issue put in. Religous conservatives, big government populists, greens, free staters, socialists, capitialists, etc. Thomas Jefforson produced a document that was six hand written pages long. The new one would probably require a hand truck to move it around.

 

Actually there is a very good chance such an exersize would fracture the country whis would be a disaster.