US President Elections:BushvsKerry

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: but your wording, phrasing, and sentence choices have frequently communicated attack and derision.

Prove it or admit you are wrong and merely taking cheap shots.

edit: Although it is a breach of netiquette here is a snippet of a PM you sent me in June that clearly shows your style of giving "feedback".

edited- Deleted excerpt from a private message. Rules forbid sharing private messages sent to me from other people even if they are relevant and revealing.

You have harrassed me about this for a long time now and I'm fed up with it. Keep it up and I will go to the authorities. It is an insult to me, the people I am close to, and the people I go to church with.

[ 08-04-2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Gab]

Originally posted by Keal: Anyone but bush doesn't count. The democratic supportives make you think that Bush is making the economy fall, when actually it's fallen cause of the world trade center losing many stock records, and all of our main manufactuares moved out of the us and into europe.

Why doesn't anyone but bush count? I demand that you include me as supporter of Kerry as I've stated that I'd vote for him over Bush. 9/11 isn't a good enough excuse for blaming the failed economy considering the fact that 3 million jobs
have been lost under Bush.

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Reference to the "biggest polluter" escapes me.

Federal Government spews the most crap into the air, water and on land. These klowns burn nuclear waste!

As for the "any gun control is illegal" argument, that's highly debatable. For instance, the right "shall not be infringed." Does "infringed" mean "denied totally" or does it mean "imposed upon at all?" I know your opinion on this, but I'm just pointing out it's debatable.

Define infringement. Understand that the militia referred to in Ammendment 2 is defined for in USC 311. It's basically every man from 17-45, excepting certain examples as provided in 313. That militia, composed of those people have an uninfringable right. These militiamen (practically everyone) are clearly intended as stated to be a securing force against tyranny, invaders and insurgents. Anyone within that group can be called to front-line combat duty, at any time. Anyone within that group is expected to be combat ready. A Kentucky Rifle is not combat ready. A buffalo gun is less than ready. A lever action Marlin 30_30 is not combat ready. An M-16 and 300 rounds of ammunition with cleaning kit and all loaded into 10 magazines or 3 Beta drums is.

So many things you see when you study law make you simply aghast at the horrors of our legal system. Federal Agencies were not provided for in the Constitution -- technically all agencies are on pretty shaky legal ground.

Where necessary and proper...

I mean, Congress makes an agency which is governed by the executive but which has regulatory (legislative) and quasi-judicial powers. So, from the "purely constitutional" standpoint, all agencies, from the FAA to the FCC, the EPA to the DOJ, the USDA to the FDA, should be ripped assunder right now. This instant. Oh... wait, how will our world run if we do that?

You're telling me that the world will stop turning for lack of federal funding? The world ran fine once without the government's overpriced help, it could most certainly do so again. Besides, the FCC and the FDA have beefs on them to begin with...

Or what about the 8th Amendment? -- that Amendment basically doesn't exist anymore. At all. Period.

Excessive fines and bails are imposed? Cruel and unusual punishment used?

Or what about all those articles online teaching people how they don't really have to pay their income taxes, based on the constitution? There are quite a number of folks in jail who tried real hard to make that argument.

Well, that's where Ammendment 16 comes into play, even if it's still highway robbery.

Anyway, I'm just pointing out that as a lawyer, you learn early on that getting too far into the pointy-headed stuff will simply drive you mad, so you start being more practical.

And bending against the highest lawful authority in the land. You can't defer local authority and give it more power than the Constitution, that's a criminal act.

From a practical standpoint, even if the law outlaws the cooler-looking guns, we can still arm ourselves. From a personal practical standpoint, in my state and city, even if the federal assault weapon ban lapses, my local prohibitions will still apply, so I still won't be able to own that H&K G3 I want under my bed.

In violation of the supremacy clause.

And, be it a favor to Bush or Kerry, a vote for a third party this election is a vote for whoever you don't like. But, you live in NY, so go ahead and cast your vote for whomever. Make the loudest statement you can. The Democrats will take your state no matter what you do. Just like mine.

It pisses me off. If popular votes counted, Badnarik would be a real threat.

Now, back to this polluter issue...

Find some numbers. The G spreads the most filth, muck, crap and gunk out of anyone.

[Timber Loftis]

So, Yorick and Chewie, where do you guys think you'll go for vacation this time? We know these tete-a-tete's are just an excuse for you two to get "alone time" together.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So, Yorick and Chewie, where do you guys think you'll go for vacation this time? We know these tete-a-tete's are just an excuse for you two to get "alone time" together.

[img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Of course the government pollutes more than anyone. Well... almost. Even where it's not the government polluting, it's government contractors polluting -- which is a result of the government's procurement.

Anyway, there is no doubt the government pollutes the most. It is the largest corporate conglomerate in the world. It is the top 5 largest employers in Chicago, and 7 of the top 10 largest.

This is why laws like NEPA were passed and why we try to make the government do everything out in the open. It's why we require public hearings before a bridge is built.

Hey, I'm all for downsizing government.

But, I will tell you this, take away all federal agencies overnight and our world will collapse for a bit. Sure, we'll figure out how to run air traffic and electricity generation without the FAA and the DOE, we'll figure out how to police terrorists without the FBI, etc. etc. But it WILL take time, and in the meantime -- well, I'm sure you've seen the end of Escape from LA.

Back to your [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] about the law. Everything, regarding guns (the other stuff is too offtopic), that you mention takes off after the assumption or failure to address what "infringe" means.

Go HERE and you will see the dictionary itself does not answer this well. Infringe came from latin roots meaning "to crush" and sometimes is thought to meen "make obsolete." Other times it means "to transgress."

Either way, my point is there is a valid argument that you can place a limitation on the 2nd Amendment without infringing it. NOTE!!! I'm not saying I agree with this argument, I am merely saying it ain't as cut and dry as you make it.

Can you place any limits on gun ownership?
How about a registration requirement?
How about making it illegal for felons to have guns?
How about a waiting period?

At this point, you will not find a judge or jury in this land that will say you can put NO limit on gun ownership. Given that, the argument becomes "how much is too much?" There's a lot of grey area in there. Is it going too far to say you can't have guns that look like action movie guns? Brady says it is. I disagree, but as I said, for me it's one of the more minor issues.

Just please don't pretend like things are black and white when they aren't.

[Nightwing]

I'll be voting for Kerry, just because our country can't have 4 more years of anti-education laws being passed disguised as education. The no child left behind iniciative is the biggest joke I have ever seen. It shows no consideration was given to the kids now or in the future. To pull funding from a school because they can't go from 98 percent to 99 percent efficiancy is short sighted, and to think all kids learn at the same level reguardless of disabilities or abilities, is the most asinine thing I've ever heard of. All education experts know special ed classes need a 6/1 ratio of student to teacher to be effective, but know Bush says 26/1 is just fine. He doesn't have a clue and neither do his advisors. And special Ed classes are for more than people with low IQ just in case anybody doesn't know that, some of the people in these classes have the highest IQ in the school. Texas schools are still in shambles because of his so called leadership.

[Yorick]

*sigh*

Rock and roll.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I mean, I'm absolutely against the illegalization of marijuana as well, but again, neither candidate will change that, so it's not on my list of "hot button" items to vote for. Even if one candidate had vowed to change it, I think I'd still consider a little doobage to be less of an issue that the economy, balancing the budget, the environment, and some other issues that I simply care more about.

If governments had brains they would legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it like they do with smokes. They could then decide to lower taxes elsewhere. It would also free up police to catch real criminals as opposed to bashing in someone's door to catch someone smoking a leisurely joint.

Good luck to Kerry, I hope he wins as I am ABB.

[ 08-03-2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I mean, I'm absolutely against the illegalization of marijuana as well, but again, neither candidate will change that, so it's not on my list of "hot button" items to vote for. Even if one candidate had vowed to change it, I think I'd still consider a little doobage to be less of an issue that the economy, balancing the budget, the environment, and some other issues that I simply care more about.

Ah, but the Cannabis legalization effort does have alot to do with the economy and the enviroment. Along with the money saved ending the drug war's prosecution on Cannabis, the money gained through sensible taxation would be a boon.

Check out the WW2 era U.S. government film "Hemp For Victory" or the February 1938 issue of Popular Mechanics magazine for some details on one side of the issue. Or check out the book ( free on the web) "The Emporer Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer for a full scoop on the issue.

Making paper with no need for cutting down forests. Making cloth with far less, maybe even no chemical ferilizers and pesticides. Sound good to the enviorment to me!


Tack on to the medical marijuana issue the health benifits of eating hemp seed and walla- a health care issue anyone can appreciate.

edited to add some urls and fix an error.

[ 08-03-2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]