U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 19, 2009 03:44 PM UTC
141 Comments
Great reminder. “Socialism”: Medicare, Social Security…
You put a lot of effort into finding good, topical quotes – and it shows.
Our safety net programs are needed – no Repub, Indie or Dem will disagree.
The problem is you want hundreds of millions to “join” expanded new programs, sadly using cuts in needed programs to force people to your plan, cratering private sector health care and failing to focus on core issues like private sector job creation and payroll expansion.
Next destructive jobs progams up for the Dems: Cap and Trade and Card Check/Forced Arbitration.
Thank God AARP doesn’t have forced unionism powers.
Come on Libertad I haven’t had my coffee yet.
The idea most thoroughly discredited, but most vehemently expressed in recent weeks, is that an emotional miasma of vague ideological assertions is preferable to a nuts-and-bolts analysis of the practical implications of any given policy proposal.
Obama came out to pump it up, yet no changes are needed to replicate it. It doesn’t make sense.
The failure will be the Dems missed attempt to work within the system versus proposing wholesale carnage.
Pelosi, Obama and Rahm need to look at the polling numbers – psst they’re cratering and that should tell you something.
they’re staying the same:
with facts.
You’ve been busy hooting about how BAD Government-run health care is, and yet the most successful and highly-rated insurance plan is one created by the Repub Congress in 1994 called TriCare.
It could bet he perfect public option, and no changes are needed to replicate it. And it would already be working withing the system.
Based on your last post, I would now assume you’re for it.
Hopefully I can read about its underlying fundamentals in addition to what I assume are its good enablment of healthcare and personal responsibility to contribute.
…like all the other unhinged Nutjobs screaming and foaming at the mouth, you don’t know SHIT what you’re screaming about.
You can endlessly bash a government-run health care system, even though you have NO FUCKING CLUE what one looks like.
Take a look, ‘tad. You going to have to work pretty hard (even for your level of crazy) to find a lot to scream about.
It’s really not as special as Dan insists. It’s just another insurance bureaucracy, only this one is run by federal-union-types.
…with bipartisan support, yes. But when the GOP stole away free medical care from Retirees and Family members, this is what they replaced it with.
I find it highly entertaining that the Party of No hoots and screeches about Government-run health care, considering they’re the ones who most recently created a program.
Could have created it with Abe Lincoln as its first director, it’s still little more than
Insurance Bureaucracy + Government Bureaucracy. = Tricare.
I call bullshit Yokel. There is no Private Insurance health care provider that has an extensive and documented appeal system as TriCare.
For everyone’s inspection: http://www.tricare.mil/Factshe…
If one thing could come out of this morass of a Health Care Bill, I’d want this process legislated for EVERY health care plan in America, public or private. Unlike my Aetna or BCBS policies, this spells out in advance what the process is, and how to do it.
Try and find this one UnitedHealthcare’s site…
Let me understand the fundamentals of the program then next time you bring it up I’ll be more informed to discuss its merits, failure and strengths with you.
Why do conservatives oppose a public option?
Even LB stated that he’d like to see something like medicare-for-all (with the important proviso that medicare needs some fixing. Maybe Tricare could serve as a model?
I just don’t think the government has any business making medical decisions for people. You can justify rationing on the part of insurance companies because that’s what you’re paying them for. But as government holds a special place in society, being the only entity that can legally use force to enforce its laws and rules, I find the concept that the same entity would make medical decisions such as care rationing to be extremely inappropriate.
Can’t prove Al Capone’s a gangster? Nab him for tax evasion. Or maybe just have a “clerical error” where he doesn’t get his heart medication. Problem solved.
You can see where it could be a bit of a conflict of interest.
Government running health care is a necessary evil when you’re talking about caring for folks who do things that are rather “out of the ordinary” for the government, like get shot at in some leishmaniasis-infested desert or malaria-infested jungle, or, for a more boring example, move every couple years. But, then, you’re talking about a very small segment of the population that’s relatively young and relatively healthy, and those medical decisions are either extraordinary and have no civilian comparison, or extremely bland and normal. Once you start dealing with dependents, children, and retirees, you’re looking at a broader expanse of the population with more specialized medical needs. It’s when you start getting into that kind of care where it acts more and more just like any other insurance company.
The government has a monopoly on the use of force argument is just stupid. Anyone (including an insurance company) can enforce a contract in court and have a judgment executed if it wins–thus effectively enjoying the same coercive power as the government.
They do, after all, need that actual enforcement by the government. They can’t do it themselves. The government can. Hence the need to go to court in the first place.
is not a difference in how health insurance, whether public or private, runs.
Physicians and health care providers make medical decisions. More appropriately, they make medical recommendations to patients (benficiaries) and the patients decide.
So when faced with facts that lead to a conclusion you have already decided you don’t like, you resort to making up stuff that is not true.
Yikes.
I don’t think we should have a Federal Aviation Administration. Just imagine how unfair it would be if the gov’t got to decide who flies and who doesn’t. I want to go visit my grandmother, but – whoops – I voted the wrong way in the last election so the FAA grounds me.
Or how about the interstate highways? No way I’d want the gubmint telling me I can’t drive somewhere on the interstate highway.
What’s that you say- the government doesn’t actually get to make those decisions? Oh- then the purpose of making up the argument against falsehoods must be to obfuscate, confuse, or otherwise make the person making up the lies look foolish.
C”mon yokel- it’s the 21st century. Look something up.
Are you criticizing my actual commentary on Tricare, or my suggestion that the government might mis-use that authority in health care? The DoJ has used the Treasury to enforce its work. What’s to keep them from turning to HHS for the same? Your counters don’t really make sense; the FAA doesn’t deal directly with customers, nor do hunks of concrete. Although they have actually grounded people through the TSA. They do “get to decide who flies and who doesn’t.”
And while you’ve got the option of driving or taking the bus if you can’t fly, when we get to single payer, the stated objective of most Dems including the President himself, you won’t have an option for your healthcare.
But the real point is that you don’t understand how Tricare works – a gov’t run insurance plan that works well.
Intimately so.
asks Liberloon. Well, for starters, not everyone is covered under the model. The voluntary aspects for doctors are just that, voluntary. Then there are the “socialist” elements which Crank, Penry and Liberloon have no pallet for. Lib just whined yesterday about some having to pay more to support others. But that is exactly how the Marillac Clinics work.
I know Liberloon does not like facts and truth, but, if he ever wants to convince anyone of anything, he may want to start working on his credibility.
“”Duh,” said Penry, who is the minority leader for the GOP in the state Senate” -Charles Ashby
It’s great of you’re on Medicare, like half the people who demonstrated against health care reform at Lincoln Park and cheered Penry on with “get government out of health care.”
The GJ model also works if you’re lucky enough to have an employer who provides good insurance. Or, in the case of Penry, you have government-paid insurance.
For Medicaid, it’s not so good because more and more of the docs won’t take them because they’re not paid enough.
For the self-employed, the underemployed, the unemployed and those employed by small businesses that can’t afford to provide health insurance, you’re SOL in Mesa County.
Other than that, it works great.
the “GJ Model” works so well for Medicaid patients that new ones have to go to Montrose to get a doctor.
Must watch – final quote is hilarious and spot-on
I’m hearing that these end of life provisions are interpreted as moving to the slippery slope of the death culture.
Does 3200 provide any new access or funding for abortion?
If so, I could see the prolife crowd using the hitler montage to get their base worked up. hitler was the purveyor of death for 6-10million humans and the 20 million that could have been their offspring.
for an idiot
and the the real challenge is now laid bare.
In order to reform health insurance and health care in the US, the pro-reformers must:
a) have a solid plan
b) explain that plan to the American people and sell the deal in Congress
c) counter or balance actual arguments
d) counter made up baloney that has nothing to do with anything
I supported the invasion of Iraq. But if the war opposition had just made stuff up- like secret arms deals between the Bush admin and the anti Baath elements in IRaq, or an Iraq invasion would lead to nukes being detonated in TelAviv, NY and London, or an alien invasion from alpa centauri – I like to think I would have realized that was just a bunch of made up stuff.
But when it comes to health insurance and health care the anti-reformers are demanding that President and pro-reformers have legitimate answers to the made up stuff.
Why is that?
But you’re still sweet. Have you not been paying attention to all the scorn being heaped on the euthanasia “death panel” canard being sold by Sarah Palin and John Boehner that all your fellow wackadoos embraced regardless of reality?
Try to keep up.
Is the nonsense echoing in the vast wasteland of right-wing media. Or maybe its the soft echo of having nothing between your ears.
“I’m hearing that these end of life provisions are interpreted as moving to the slippery slope of the death culture.”
Possibly the most breathtakingly stupid shit i’ve seen about this issue all week, and there has been a lot.
This from a follower of the party of torture, the death penalty and a war of convenience. Is he really complaining that the slope isn’t slippery enough?
.
but no truth in this clip.
It is edited to leave out the argument of the person disagreeing with him.
Barney is just repeating the refrain that encapsulates more that half the posts at this site:
“I’m right, and anyone who disagrees is a moron.”
.
when the speaker is right, and the people to whom he or she is addressing his or her remarks are morons.
If someone has a legitimate gripe with the health care legislation, and an alternative plan, I am more than willing to listen but I haven’t heard it from these people.
It’s all Hitlercare, placed in the minds of scared impressionable dupes. These are moronic people and they deserve scorn and ridicule. They don’t merit serious attention.
So the Congressman and President “continue to support a Nazi policy” and Obama should be painted as HItler?
And that her speech is protected isn’t tribute to the 1st Amendment ?
Tell me about it.
But BX said there was no truth in the clip. I disagree.
Congressman Frank was right to challenge the questioner and respect the 1st Amendment
Having now looked at it, I find it hard to believe you could do anything other than congratulate Congressman Frank for his simple, honest, and utterly appropriate response to this contemptable excuse for a human being.
and Bob will be one…
according to my bastardization of Friedrich.
citing the recent robo-polling data and claim that victory is within sight.
Dis the R opposition- blast the incumbent. Get in the end zone and do the dance: now!
“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.”
I just noticed something. Two words: “the people.” With those two words, as distinct from the “well regulated militia,” the first phrase makes perfect sense. Basically, “Since we need an army to be secure, the people need to be free to be armed to keep them from going too far.”
When you consider the next amendment is restricting the quartering of soldiers, it keeps with the theme.
Sorry, folks, but when you take away the “national guard = militia” excuse, “shall not be infringed” is pretty darned clear, neh?
I am not being cute.
Are you saying the guard is the militia? That hasn’t been true at least since the Dick Act which gave the federal government power over the various state guard.
At the founding, the militia was generally all able bodied men who were armed and equipped in different ways (some communities self equiped, some purchased arms and taxed the individual to pay for them, some communally owned the arms). I believe the words “well regulated” means “trained” which is one of the common definitions of that time.
I am a strong supporter of the 2A (though I think what has been happening at the rallies is intimidation) so I generally believe the modern guard does not fill that purpose.
It’s not talking about the militia as being some form that must be armed according to this amendment. When read such that “the well regulated militia” is distinct from “the people,” the former is framed as a necessary evil for the security of the state (which does still exist, though not in a militia form), and the latter is therefore necessarily armed to prevent the militia (and other securing forces) from restricting the peoples’ rights.
Is that more clear? How did I do?
that, in his interpretation of the second amendment, the people’s right to bear arms is intended as a bulwark against the state’s well-regulated militia: The people must have the right to bear arms in order to defend themselves against the state’s well-regulated militia.
It’s a false interpretation from a historical perspective, but one plausible “strict interpretation” of the words (among many alternative plausible “strict interpretations,” pointing to the fallacy of strict interpretation as a doctrine).
Explain.
applying a contemporary conceptual framework to a historical context.
Members of Colonial militias were ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers, often storing their privately owned arms in communal armories. The distinction you make between “the people” and the “well-regulated militias” is not one that would have, or could have, occurred to the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
Rather, they were referring to their perceived need of the states to maintain militias capable of opposing a potentially overbearing federal government, assuming (wrongly) that more local governments are inherently less tyrannical than more remote governments. The institution of slavery and The Civil War proved the error of this obsession, demonstrating that the federal government is as capable of defending individual liberty against incroachments by state governments as vice versa.
welcome aboard.
But I don’t think that’s the full truth, either. Otherwise, why would there be a distinction drawn between the militia and the people? And there’s not even mention of the states needing the arms. The neighborhood needing access to the local armory might be more apt here.
Unfortunately, you’re outgunned here. It’s nice to see you progressing though.
inherent in the phrasing: The right of the people to bear arms serves the necessity of mantaining a well-regulated militia. It’s similar in structure to: “In order to keep hope alive, we must never surrender to despair.” There is no distinction, but rather an equation, between the “keeping hope alive” and “never surrendering to despair.” Similarly, in the second amendment, there is no distinction, but rather an equation, between “the people’s” right to bear arms, and the maintenance of “a well-regulated militia.”
There’s no mention of the states needing the arms because it was implicitly understood that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to empower the states to protect the liberties of their citizens against a potentially tyrannical federal government. The Constitutional Convention was necessitated by the complete failure of The Articles of Confederation, which left the individual states autonomous and sovereign, and gave no teeth to the federal government. The Constitution was a bold step in the direction of creating a federal government with teeth, but in order to sell it to state legislatures, it was necessary to include a Bill of Rights specifying how the states would be empowered to counterbalance the federal government.
So, in your opinion, “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms” would mean the exact same thing?
And, the 1st Amendment, the Congress in “Congress shall make no law” is about the states?
Are “the people” in the 4th Amendment not the same the people” in the 2nd? What about the 9th?
The 10th clearly suggests “the people” are an entity distinct from the states, does it not?
I’m finding your thesis that the BoR was about the authority of the states highly suspicious, given that one formulation or another of “the people” is used in all 10 Amendments, whereas the states are only mentioned in #10 as distinct from the people.
That leads me down the road that at least 8 Amendments are about not state authority, but specifically concerning individual rights specifically protected by the Constitution. Another is about the rights and authorities of both the states and the people (and is, in my mind, the most ignored amendment), and, according to you, only one single amendment, while using the same language as all the others for individual rights, is about the states’ rights to organize arms.
It does not follow, friend.
Indeed, in the history of the era, the militias may have been nominally under the authority of the given colonies, but with, shall we say, “deteriorating” colonial authority and multiple parties claiming authority (both Tory and rebel), the militias were really and truly local groups. We’re talking the equivalent of towns or counties, not states here.
Indeed, it was the very independence of the militias from the colonial equivalent of the state authority that allowed them to organize in action against the authorities of the Crown.
So, long story short, two points:
1) It doesn’t make logical or semantic sense to put an amendment defining state protections amidst specifically individual rights using the same language as the latter.
2) Historically, while the militias were nominally under state authority, in actuality they were local groups. Maybe we should put local armories in every town and neighborhood for weapons above a certain grade. Lock up an M2 .50 cal until it’s really needed.
1) basically, yes, except that you’re once again incorporating a similar anachronism: “The militia” was one aspect of “the people,” so “militia” wouldn’t have meant to the framers what it means to you. Semantic drift is, in fact, one of the (many) reasons why legal interpretation is more complex than some would have it.
2) The Bill of Rights is about limiting the power of the federal government, not the state governments (the 14th amendment led to a process of “incorporation,” which then applied these limitations to state and local governments as well). The states were the implicit guaranteers of those limitations, and were the primary participants in the federal government (rather than the people directly, who had only one chamber of one branch of government reserved to them).
3) Nowhere did I say that the framers of the constitution equated “people” and “state.”
There are two ways of approaching such questions: Start with a recognition of ignorance and build knowledge with as few encumbrances as possible, or start with an assumption and defend it against all challenges. I sense that we have chosen different approaches, and that, as a result, continued debate would be fruitless.
Despite the other 9 Amendments being guarantors of individual rights from infringement by all levels of government, the 2nd is clearly about the states being able to restrict individual rights.
It makes so much sense.
And, seriously, dude. Your final paragraph “I’m so awesome, you’re so dumb” is a dead giveaway. How many sock puppets do you have?
Except for the 10th Amendment, which also guarantees rights to the states, not just to the people.
Good catch though — it’s getting hard to keep track of all the sock puppets.
It’s actually my favorite amendment. It’s too bad no one pays any attention to it.
I expect a new sock puppet to show up shortly. And as soon as said “new guy” picks yours truly to get all self-righteous on in another thread, we’ll all know who we’re dealing with. Again.
Although if he can manage to tone down his style and avoid his self-righteous last-paragraph-itis, we’ll all be much better off having both his insight and not having his attitude.
you’ve made certain that no such “new guy” can show up, and that my “insight” can no longer be published here, by outing me every time I offend you by pointing out the factual and logical errors of your arguments. So, when push comes to shove, you’ve shown where your priorities lie. Thanks to you, RedGreen, and sxp, I can no longer post here, under any name whatsoever.
seem offended that someone would change screen names to perserve his anonymity, after being outed by one of you. You seem to believe that you are entitled to out those posters you dislike, and yet neither of you are choosing to post under your real names. What happened to the established norm here of honoring posters anonymity, when they opt to post under a name other than their own?
I simply acknowledged your voice sounded familiar after Yokel pointed it out — why does that sound like I”m “offended”? As usual, I was probably the last to figure it out. You’re also missing something in your vigorous back-and-forth with Yokel here — I’ve been agreeing with you on this thread. But if you need to feel persecuted, go right ahead.
it’s about being outed, and participating in it once someone else has openned the door is still participating in it. As for the other thing, I’m just not even going to get into it: The outing is all that’s important here. The two of you (three, actually) have made it impossible for me to continue to post, because you’ve deprived me of even the semblance of the anonymity that you enjoy.
Your above post is simply amazing, on so many different levels.
1) Your first sentence is mind-bongling in the density and depth of its error, both concerning the nature of the constitution, and the nature of what I said in previous posts, despite my having repeatedly clarified both for you.
a) I dispose of the first part of that sentence, “Despite the other 9 Amendments being guarantors of individual rights from infringement by all levels of government,” in (2) below.
b) I’ll dispose of the second part, “the 2nd is clearly about the states being able to restrict individual rights,” here: My postion throughout this incredibly tedious debate has been that the second amendment, like the rest, is about the states being guarantors of that individual right against possible encroachment from the federal government, something I have repeated very clearly several times. Your recasting of my position as having been the exact opposite of that is simply remarkable.
2) As every half-decent high school American history student knows, the first 8 amendments constrained only the federal government (referred to as “Congress” in the first word of the first amendment, just to make the point crystal clear). None of the 10 amendments of the bill of rights constrained state governments in any way, as you arbitrarily and falsely state above. This is made even more clear, as I already explained, by the fact that the 14th amendment due process and equal protection clauses became the vehicle for gradually incorporating the constraints of the Bill of Rights to apply to state and local governments as well, beginning by incorporating the fifth amendment due process clause. A series of Supreme Court decisions over the course of a century gradually incorporated nearly all of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, which had not been the case before. Those decisions would hardly have been necessary, and, indeed, could not have been made, had the Bill of Rights always provided individual protections against state governments, as you erroneously believe.
3) You seem to think that your arguments benefit from refocusing attention away from the topic of debate and on my supposed high opinion of myself and low opinion of you, and trying to out the anonymous poster who has offended you by actually, unlike you, having a clue what he’s talking about. Of course, such ploys do have the advantage of forcing people who must remain anonymous to discontinue posting, which is clearly the only way you will ever be able to win an argument.
4) I recall you having outed a poster who went by another screen name recently, who then stopped posting. Since you seem to be fishing for my identity in an attempt to out me as well, I may also be forced to stop posting under this screen name, just as that other poster was. If a poster changes screen names because someone like you, incapable of winning arguments on the merits, stoops to such tactics, then taking on another screen name is not recourse to “sock puppets,” but rather the mere attempt to enjoy the same privileges all posters here have agreed to honor among one another: an agreement that you seem intent not to honor, in your determination to be not only profoundly (almost cartoonishly) ignorant but also utterly contemptable.
You say the states were the opposite of the guarantors of the rest of the Bill or Rights, yet they were intended the guarantors of the 2nd Amendment? That does not make sense. It’s true they weren’t subject to the loose interpretation of the “separation” clause until much later. Why would they be the active party in the 2nd Amendment if they weren’t intended as a party at all in another 8, and were only specifically mentioned in the last?
Also, if you want to protect your anonymity, you’d be wise to work on your self-righteous posting style. Insisting on your own brilliance and the idiocy of your opponents in every single long-winded post is the mark of an ass and a dead giveaway as to the poster’s identity.
I mentioned above that you often have interesting points, but they’re lost under an off-putting veneer of smug assitude. Maybe that’s what you are, I don’t know, but take this time to reconsider the tone in which you post.
I have said all along, repeatedly and consistently, that in the entire Bill of Rights, pre-incorporation through the 14th amendment, the states were the guarantors of individual rights against encroachment by the federal government. For all of the first 8 amendments, no exceptions. How many times do I have to repeat that? Are you going to argue against the straw man you’ve created above yet again?
Second, it’s not your place to decide if my writing style is a give-away or not. It’s your obligation not to out other posters, period. What I give away is up to me; it does not entitle you to take any affirmative action to out me, no matter how much you dislike me.
Third, you’re not the moral police. You can have your opinions, and you can address them to the poster by his screen-name without making any attempt to disclose to others who the person behind that screen name is. What you’ve done instead is to cross a line that is one of the few rules of conduct here accepted by consensus as inviolable.
Fourth, you are offended by my “smug assitude” because I don’t coddle you enough. Sorry, but I don’t feel any need to coddle you, especially when you argue vigorously, in a public forum, for positions that are often factually or logically flawed on a very fundamental level (such as your persistant, but simply mistaken, insistance that the Bill of Rights originally protected individuals against states as well as the federal government).
Finally, you’re right about one thing: I do think that you’re an idiot. And, after a couple of rounds of you being an idiot in some exchange, I lose patience and make no effort to hide the fact that I think you’re an idiot. I could, I suppose, though you make it difficult, because you’re such a persistent and dogged idiot. However, what I don’t do is try to out you and deny you your anonymity as a poster, even though you are an idiot. Because there is no rule here that we can’t think some other poster is an idiot, or that we can’t express the fact that we think that poster is an idiot: There is only a rule that we can’t out them.
Me: “My postion throughout this incredibly tedious debate has been that the second amendment, like the rest, is about the states being guarantors of that individual right against possible encroachment from the federal government, something I have repeated very clearly several times. Your recasting of my position as having been the exact opposite of that is simply remarkable.”
And then your indignant response to this: “You say the states were the opposite of the guarantors of the rest of the Bill or Rights….”
You see? I didn’t say that the states “were the opposite of…,” I said they were the guarantors…. And I said it about a dozen times. And, after saying it emphatically yet one more time, tearing my hair out that you couldn’t get it, you made the same f***ing mistake you had made in every post prior to that (just one among many). Can you really blame me for thinking you’re an idiot?
One thing I’ve learned as a contribuotor to this blog site, is that idiots will never “get it”. And, my attempting to make sure they get it…..well, what’s that definition of insanity again?
You said this, and it is true. They could do whatever they wanted with state religions and the like. If that’s the case, how are they also the guarantors of rights that, by your own admission, they could infringe upon with impunity? It does not follow.
but is understood by many high school students.
1) The Bill of Rights did not constrain state governments; it did not limit their exercise of powers. (Other aspects of the Constitution did, however, constrain state powers: That’s essentially what the Constitution was. The Bill of Rights was the counterbalance to make it pallatable to state legislators).
2) The Bill of Rights did empower state governments to protect the enumerated rights of their citizens against the federal government.
3) States could infringe on those rights, but the federal government could not. Again, you are thinking anachronistically, superimposing your understanding of what the Constitution has become onto what it originally was.
Read the first amendment: “*Congress* shall make no law….” It does not say “Neither Congress nor state legislatures.” I’m sorry Yokel: This is not one among several possible interpretations: This is an undisputed historical fact, one further verified by the history of Constitutional Law which gradually applied the Bill of Rights to the states, through the 14th amendment. If you don’t know that fact, then you don’t know it. Obviously, no amount of repeating it and demonstrating it can penetrate the fortress of your ignorance.
You are so offended by my lack of resspect for your intelligence. I’ll tell you something: My lack of respect derives from the combination of your dogged defense of misinformed and illogical positions, combined with a complete inability to ever admit that you’re wrong, no matter how resoundingly your error has been demonstrated.
I’m waiting to see if this will be the first time you choose not to be a fool. If so, then there will be something to respect.
To go from “states could infringe” to “empower state governments to protect” all the way to the 2nd Amendment being only defined by the states protecting that particular right by infringing upon it.
The first two things essentially mean the opposite. When you put them together to make the third, it sounds like NewSpeak. Tyranny is Freedom.
“the 2nd Amendment being only defined by the states protecting that particular right by infringing upon it.” I never said anything about the 2nd amendment being protected by infringing on it! I just said that the Constitution originally did not prohibit the states from infringing on it, as you’ve suddenly begun to acknowledge as correct (without ever bothering to acknowledge that you were wrong about anything).
As for the “jump,” see below: It’s all about the meaning of sovereignty, and the retention of (some) sovereignty by the states. The truth of this implicit understanding that the states would be the guarantors of their citizens’ rights against the federal government is most apparent in the history of the United States up to the Civil War, in which such doctrines as “nullification” (that states could ignore federal laws that they considered violations of their citizens’ rights) and “states’ rights” made clear that the tension played out in the Constitution was between the federal government and the states, not between individuals and government in general.
So pronounced was this distinction, in fact, that John Calhoun could write, with a straight face, a highly respected treatise on “liberty” denouncing the attempt of the North to infringe on the South’s right to own slaves, and argue for the protection of “minorities” which would protect the southern states’ right to remain slave-owning states. Obviously, people were looking through a very different lens.
I see a slight shift in your position that I had not noticed on the first reading: You now admit that the Bill of Rights did not constrain the states (an unannounced change from your position in earlier posts). You seem now only to object to the notion that the states were implicitly the guarantors of their citizens’ rights against the federal government, since, if the states could violate those rights, how could they be expected to oppose the federal government for violating them?
It’s called “sovereignty.”
To put it another way, the states were assumed to be sensitive to the rights of their citizens, as the more local government, and therefore not in need of having explicit restraints imposed on them. It was only the federal government that was considered a danger to individual rights. As the sovereign, and as the local protector of their citizens’ rights, it was incumbent on the states to oppose any external threat to the rights of their citizens. The federal government was still, to some extent, just such an external threat.
I only said that in about my second or third reply.
My problem is with the absurdity of your insistence that the only way to protect the right to bear arms is for the states to definitively restrict it. And the only way to save Hue was to destroy it, too.
The only way we can be protected from a federal religion is if the states adopt a state religion. The only way to have due process with the federal government is if the states don’t give it to is. The only way to be secure from unlawful search and seizure is if the states own all our crap in anyway.
You get the idea.
So how is it that the only way we the people have our right to keep and bear arms uninfringed by the federal government is if the state government restricts that right by limiting it to a few in the militia?
I never said what you’re attributing to me, or anything vaguely resembling it: “My problem is with the absurdity of your insistence that the only way to protect the right to bear arms is for the states to definitively restrict it.”
It’s one of many things you attribute to me that, no matter how many times I repeat what I am saying, you just can’t seem to get straight.
I’ll leave it to readers interested enough to go back through your previous posts to find the multiple times when you asserted that the Bill of Rights constrained states as well as the federal government, before quietly changing your position. Or, perhaps, you just went back and forth at your convenience, leaving me not to notice due to my own irrational expectation of some consistency on your part.
You wrote: “So how is it that the only way we the people have our right to keep and bear arms uninfringed by the federal government is if the state government restricts that right by limiting it to a few in the militia?”
You’re making a logical error in your attribution here. All I said is that the second amendment isn’t a guarantee of the right for people to protect themselves against state militias, not that the state could only enforce the second amendment by restricting the right to bear arms to a militia. The former and latter statements are not equivalent, as you seem to assume.
If the second amendment only means that people are guaranteed, against any infringement by the federal government, to bear arms for the purpose of having a state militia, it was then up to the states whehter and how to execute that right, as with all other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A state could say, “well, the federal government can’t deprive you of your arms, but we can.” Or a state could say, “in this state, everybody could have arms in their own home.” Or the state could say, “the state will keep regulated armories where the people’s arms are stored.” It was up to the state legislature(and, through it, the people within the state, since the constitution guaranteed that each state must be a republican form of government).
You seem to confuse the ability of the states, if it is politically able, to infringe on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, with the obligation or necessity of the states to do so.
Now I really must just give up, Yokel, long past the point any sane person would already have done so. Whatever objection you raise next, I’m certain that I have already addressed it, probably at least a dozen times.
You called me an idiot roughly 43 times, all while criticizing a point I didn’t make and not reading a word I wrote.
With a sparkling personality like that, it’s no wonder you want to remain anonymous.
Wow.
1) You’re initial premise, and the one you defended throughout, was that the right to bear arms was to permit the people to defend themselves against the well-regulated militias, which are not the federal government’s army. So the notion that the second amendment served to protect people from some governmental threat at the state or sub-state level is the first and most dogged point you made, and the one I responded to most frequently. Now, suddenly, by the alchemy of your inconsistency, it is the point you never made!
2) I read every word you wrote, but since you changed your position suddenly and without mentioning that you were changing it (and apparently without admitting that you ever held any other position), I missed it the first time, and then caught it afterward, on my own.
You’re so committed to having been right, even when decisively having been proved wrong, that once it becomes impossible to insist on having been correct for what you did say, you instead insist on having actually said all along what your opponent had said when refuting you! Absolutely Amazing!
3) I called you an idiot, only after you accused me of thinking that you are one, not just because you actually are one (so abundantly demonstrated above, and in virtually every other post you make), but more importantly because you always turn to direct and vicious insults of me, as well as inappropriate attempts to out me, as soon as I say something so horrible as “some people start with assumptions they defend against all challenges, and others start with as few assumptions as possible.” That latter is about argumentation, relevant to the differences at the heart of a debate. You, on the other hand, always need to make it personal with me, and then complain that i return the favor. This has always been the case in our exchanges: You get hammered by initially dispationately delivered facts and reason, two things you are allergic to, and then start getting very personal and insulting, and then complain that I respond in kind.
4) And best of all, “No wonder you want to remain anonymous.” You’ve got to be kidding! You must simply be striving to be the biggest jackass imaginable.
5) But you are right about another thing (other than the fact that i consider you an idiot, something I mentioned only after you attributed the unspoken sentiment to me): Dealing with irrational, misinformed, inconsistent, mind-bogglingly dense, hypocritically belligerent (initiating belligerent interaction, and then attributing belligerence to your adversary for reacting in kind), and vicious (as I consider outing others on this blog to be) people like you is something that the rest of us have to learn to do calmly and dispassionately, and I have clearly fallen short on that score. I will strive to do better, while fervantly hoping that you take up crochet or something equally harmless.
the alternative wording, “the right of a militia to keep and bear arms,” is redundant, since a militia is the armed people. It makes sense to say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the maintenance of a militia, since the former includes the two ingredients necessary to the latter.
Once again, a difference between the rights of individuals and the rights of states was understood, but the states were seen as the guarantors of the rights of individuals against the encroachment of the federal government.
The Constitution was not written during the Colonial period, but rather 11 years after the Declaration of Independence and 10 years after the Articles of Confederation were written. The War of Independence had made the states independent and sovereign: Their citizens saw them as their primary locus of governmental authority, the fruit of a hard fought victory. The notion that the drafters of the Constitution then were thinking of local militias rather than of state militias, when amending a Constitution in order to make it pallatable to state legislatures for ratification, is simply without foundation.
I don’t think you are correct though for the reasons Zorillo cites.
I think the idea was that a “well regulated militia” was “the people” (or at least the able bodied male subset).
I think Zorrilo is dead on though. Much of the fear was based around federal v. state dynamic, not the government v. people dynamic. In the context of the founders, their fears were substantively different than ours when it came to government power.
1) almost non-existent gun laws in the 40’s didn’t protect thousands of US citizens (who happened to be of Japanese ethnicity) from being rounded up by the government and stuffed into concentration camps. They had access to Thompson Submachine guns from the Sears catalogue, as well as the more pedestrian firearms such as pistols, rifles and shotguns. Possession of all of those arms did not stop the Military from rounding them up.
2) The former Yugoslavia was stuffed with soviet infantry weapons during the breakup, and yet the possession of mortars, AK-74s and RPG-18’s did not prevent the Serbian Tiger Brigade from almost exterminating Bosnian Muslims. If your theory was correct, the Serb Army wouldn’t never dared attacking Bosnia, since they wouldn’t know which house was armed or not.
3) Somalia. All the guns in the world, with famine, religious and political strife thrown in for good measure. Being armed is not even remotely being safe from tyranny.
I’m also a gun owner and a supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I’ve never both into this mythological power of the 2A to immediately tame the government to the will of the people.
Like brains. For every story of governments not stopped an overthrown, there are other stories where it happened, because the people with the guns had the brains to use them the right way.
I didn’t say otherwise. Merely that the first phrase of the amendment isn’t about how the well regulated militia needs guns, but rather how they’re a necessary evil, so everyone else needs them. At that point, “shall not be infringed” becomes pretty clear. It’s both a natural right and a smart thing for a free society with an armed government that wants to keep both.
Anyone else kicking themselves for buying in to the soarng rhetoric of Obama during the Dem primary?
It is turning out that he is soft and wishy-washy on ideas and policies. He gave ground to the GOP on the stimulus package. He took Universal Coverage off the table before he opened negotiations and is now backing down on the public option. He is wimping on Gay Rights. What is next?
Paging Mrs. Clinton. We cannot wait for you to run in 2016. PLEASE run against the current President ASAP!
We are sorry, we won’t make that mistake again! Her balls are bigger than Barak’s!
the “left wing” media…..ahem
What planet do you spend most of your time on?
my investment just keeps appreciating in value. The only people expressing “buyer’s remorse” are conservatives trying to seed it in others, and unrealistic people who habitually harbor unrealistic expectations and are repeatedly disappointed to discover that those expectations can’t be satisfied. Which group do you belong to?
Its really sad that Obama failed to govern from the center. Will he undo the damage or continue on the path of leading America astray? By October we’ll know with his leadership on Card Check/Forced Arbitration, Cap/Trade, Obamascare Healthcare, and Greenback Emmissions.
Buffett was at the Obama kitchen cabinet table, yet he must resort to interviews with Fox, Bloomberg, CNN, CBS, etc… to warn his President of the impending doom of bankrupt policies.
As I feared, Obama has yet to show the guts to stand up to the far left wing of the Democrat party.
Reid and Polosi are old-time democrats and their views do not reflect any sort of main stream thinking. They are going to bankrupt this country and not worry about it. Just as long as they soothe their anti-business, pro-labor political campaign donations.
I was SO expecting more from Obama. This guy is heading to the scrap heap of history and is making Bush look strong and dynamic by comparison…
Sad, sad, sad and my children are going to be the big losers….
Bush inherited peace and prosperity – what did he do with that?
Obama entered office with war and a financial meltdown.
Given the fact that we’ve apparently avoided full-blown depression and that war in Iraq is apparently winding down, I’d say you’re a little premature in your pronouncement.
Personally, I’m thankful my children won’t have grow up during the second great depression, and hopefully they won’t have to go fight some preemptive war in SW Asia.
Not for the Iraqis. Nearly 100 dead this morning in attacks on Iraqi government installations.
It may be winding down for us, but for the insurgents and the Iraqi people, it will probably go on for some time.
But you would have to admit that mnthigh’s kids could still be losers.
You seem like you might be a little bit out of your mind, but maybe it’s because your kids keep getting into your account. You might want to password-protect your computer.
Ha ha ha! I’m a very moderate Dem and I think Obama is too centrist.
Warren Buffet inth e same op-ed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08…
and it made such a heart-warming Conservative Fairy Tale…but as it turns out, AR15 guy planned this so far in advance I’m surprised he didn’t hire an agent first…
“Assault Rifle Interview Outside Obama Event In Phoenix Was Planned”
”
Ernest Hancock, the online radio host who interviewed the man with the assault rifle outside yesterday’s Obama event in Arizona, today stated that the whole event was actually planned in advance. Watch the video below.
Hancock appeared on Rick Sanchez’s CNN show this afternoon. After explaining a few details about the interview, including the tidbit that he’s known ‘Chris’ (the man with the AR-15) for two years because of their mutual work for Ron Paul, the CNN host said “the more we look into this, the more it appears that it was really planned.”
“Oh, it’s more planned than you think,” Hancock responded. He then let loose with a string of details, including how Hancock contacted the Phoenix police department days before the event and how he was partially motivated to do so because of the controversy surrounding William Kostric, the man armed with a gun outside of Obama’s town hall in New Hampshire last week.”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…
If it’s remotely possible, can you bunch of Gundamentalist Parrots please stop screeching about “spontaneous displays of the 2nd Amendment?”
I haven’t seen anything about “spontaneous displays.” If anything, it would seem the fact that he planned it and warned the cops about it does more to discredit the left-wing’s line that hes a gun-nut looney tune.
Why you bring an AR-15 to a presidential event?
Would you do that?
Though this guy clearly thought it was a point he wanted to make, and he obviously planned it out, and checked all the squares so no one freaked out.
Tone deaf? Yes. Certifiable? I don’t think so.
Stupid is, as stupid does. it is very apparent that he was trying to make some type of statement, though I suppose he could have just worn a sign that said “I’m a friggin dumbass who just wants attention”.
Either way, i would suspect that some of you are thankful that we have this type of dumbass walking the streets because it helps steer your conversation to discussing the right-wing wacko element, and not discussing the fact that it seems that there are a large amount of people that oppose the health care reforms going on.
Denver Broncos… Still Suck!
You bring your pink purse for the same reason. It is legal…
And pink purses don’t kill people, oh wait… they don’t.
Look, nobody is coming for your guns. They’re safe. Really.
Personally, I think it’s more than tone deaf to carry an AR-15 into a highly charged political environment. If you haven’t noticed, these events haven’t been well-mannered meetings of the PTA or the Rotary Club.
As I ask my son, on his bike, before he blasts off a tottering jump made of random pieces of lumber and plywood, “What could possibly go wrong?”
Apparently it is legal in AZ to have that sort of weaponry on display. I’m not for it, but it is legal, EVEN with a head of state in the same zip code.
Let’s get over it and move on to more pressing issues….
But the discussion was more about what kind of person would do it.
Yokel thinks they’re tone deaf, but not delusional. I’m not so sure.
Then I saw your quote and it brought some others to mind. Just having some fun…
people wearing anti-Bush T-shirts?
The good old bad days! LOL!!
C’mon Yokel, you can use The Google when you want to. Do I really need to surf the stinking flotsam that is the Right Wing Blogosphere for the quotes?
That I’ve never heard of him. That’s practically a straw man.
Why now all of a sudden?
I’ve never heard of him either.
When you get back in the area let me know. Love to buy you a steak dinner. I should have a few saved up from winning bets when this healthcare bill craters.
Will do. I’m definitely going to try to get up to Coors for a game when I get back in the hemisphere.
Cheers. I think this is our year.
Back in ’06 or so. This has been a fun year to follow baseball.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…
Whew, talk about influence there.
And I still see no reference to what Dan called praise of “spontaneous displays of the 2nd Amendment?”
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news…
But to look at it a different way, I’m glad I didn’t drive all the way to the airport from Orchard Mesa.
Doug Thompson is one of those rare Republicans, and I mean rare, to have lost an election to a Democrat in Mesa County.
That takes talent.
Penry must be pleased to have Doug’s enthusiastic backing.
and Jim would count for two fingers (BOCC and Mayor/Council).
Wouldn’t that be pulled his hat out of the ring, or pulled his name out of the race? Unless he was picking a raffle winner and — pulled his own name out of the hat! Hooray!
What do you expect?
Editing or something? Veracity?
Get real.
Zzzztttt.
$2 billion of foreign aid overseas: Nazi Germany (OK, I guess Palin didn’t say that this time)
$500 billion dollar war of choice: economic investment.
Palin sure did zing Obama with that one. This reminds me of when McCain and her were trying to nail Obama for $32 million in earmarks during the debates and campaign.
$2 billion might be a lot of money, but it’s a drop in he bucket of the money we spend overseas.
Besides, wasn’t she one of the people who didn’t want the stimulus because it was so wasteful? She seems to think spending money on foreign aid will sure create a lot of jobs.
I could go on, but I think I might find so many logical fallacies and contradictions a black hole might open up in the internet and then this blog will be gone.
Is that some sort of inverse failure according to Godwin’s Law, criticizing something for suggesting someone else might call it Nazi?
Seriously, though, my question is why can Brazil drill offshore but America can’t? That we’re subsidizing their doing so is just an extra kick in the backside.
to figure out whether what you say is accurate. It isn’t.
DOI announced yesterday a big block of offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico:
Here’s some detail on the offshore leases: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg…
I wasn’t the one who brought up Nazis first, it was Palin and her non-existent death panel/developmentally disabled baby holocaust rant. Can’t blame me if I want to joke about it now.
OK, I jest.
But, to address LB’s quote: It would be true that if Brazil develops more oil and gas resources, then that increases global supply, which ought to actually depress oil prices everywhere (oil being a global commodity and all). So, it stands to reason that giving Brazil $2B could conceivably save Americans as much at the pump.
And, let’s not forget, Brazil has a growing economy and buys lots of stuff from the US. Supporting that may actually help create/save jobs here (what with the global economy and all).
And as long as Brazil is economically stable, it’s likely to be politically stable, so we won’t have to intervene militarily anytime soon, saving us even more money.
Wild speculations, I know, but this is just another blog on the internet, so why not?
I spent all of 5 minutes looking into this:
(http://www.exim.gov/pressrelease.cfm/1C3E8A59-FA74-F3CB-3F3E6E44E287C2DA/)
OK, so the Export-Import Bank is LOANING Petrobras up to $10B so they can buy oilfield supplies and services from US companies.
Furthermore, if we don’t, they’ll buy from the Chinese:
Given the state of oilfield service companies, I imagine US companies consider this good news:
Sheesh, you should know better than to believe anything that Sarah Palin has to say.