McCain defending Obama

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby Rat Creek » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:00 pm

Wow. What I see as a clear cut example of a socialist with society getting to supersede your rights, the liberals see as just a reasonable approach to reducing crime. I guess I don't know how it could be any clearer. Constitutional rights trumped by an activist city council. Seems cool with me. :huh: :thumbsdown:

There is little difference between infringing upon the 2nd amendment and any other.

And I am begging...don't make a comparison to yelling fire in a crowded theater. They are not equivalent.

Free speech is about being able to voice your opinion as we do here. To keep and bear arms is just that. It isn't about hunting traditions.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4361
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS


Postby dudejcb » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:03 pm

what's your point?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:36 pm

dudejcb wrote:Cops do't get to search at will becasue searching at whim in violation of one's privacy would make us a police state. True, crime would fall. but once you're a police state what else might fall by the wayside.
The legal basis that cops do not get to search on a whim has nothing to do with your reasoning. It is for one and only one reason. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution spells it out in black and white.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It's not the law because you think it is a good law or a bad law. It's because it is the law as spelled out in the Constitution as amended. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

The 4th amendment does not guarantee rights that are of greater legal weight than any other part of the constitution. If you can disregard the 2nd Amendment when it serves the greater good, then under what legal premise can you not disregard the 4th amendment.

All Constitutional rights are of equal legal weight. Obama's argument and your argument say the 4th is a sacred right (because we like it) while the 2nd is just a guideline (because it's inconvenient). It is a completely self-centered view with no higher authority beyond one's one beliefs. That is a recipe for disaster.

I believe they are all absolute rights that can only be modified by the prescribed procedure. Why can't you say that? Why don't you believe that? You want to allow 5 people to define our rights. Obama wants to appoint those 5 people. I simply don't see how you cannot see the inherent instability in this vision of Constitutional Rights.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15944
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby GroundSwatter » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:39 pm

dudejcb wrote:what's your point?


I believe his point is that keep on supporting someone that has very little respect for your 2nd amendment rights.

In that regard it makes it easy to assume that if he has such little respect for the 2nd, then he can only have as little respect for the 1st amendment and all of the others as well.

Once you take away the 2nd amendment, its real easy to get rid of the 1st and we all know how much liberals like the 1st amendment, just look at CNN.

So the question that should have been raised from rat creek and Spinner's comments, are how do you ensure that your 1st amendment rights are protected with out the 2nd amendment?
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Postby dudejcb » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:59 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:Cops do't get to search at will becasue searching at whim in violation of one's privacy would make us a police state. True, crime would fall. but once you're a police state what else might fall by the wayside.
The legal basis that cops do not get to search on a whim has nothing to do with your reasoning. It is for one and only one reason. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution spells it out in black and white.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It's not the law because you think it is a good law or a bad law. It's because it is the law as spelled out in the Constitution as amended. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant..
yeah, I gave the thumnail reason, which is short and correct. The founders didn't want gov't to have unlimited power over individuals.

SpinnerMan wrote:The 4th amendment does not guarantee rights that are of greater legal weight than any other part of the constitution. If you can disregard the 2nd Amendment when it serves the greater good, then under what legal premise can you not disregard the 4th amendment.

All Constitutional rights are of equal legal weight. Obama's argument and your argument say the 4th is a sacred right (because we like it) while the 2nd is just a guideline (because it's inconvenient). It is a completely self-centered view with no higher authority beyond one's one beliefs. That is a recipe for disaster.

I believe they are all absolute rights that can only be modified by the prescribed procedure. Why can't you say that? Why don't you believe that? You want to allow 5 people to define our rights. Obama wants to appoint those 5 people. I simply don't see how you cannot see the inherent instability in this vision of Constitutional Rights.


Justice Spinner,
You are jumping at shadows again. The 2nd is as valid as the 4th. and we have contravention problems in both areas. Can you say warrantless wiretapping, electronic surveillance? these are all problematic. I believe you would argue with a tree. Knock it off.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:31 pm

dudejcb wrote:yeah, I gave the thumnail reason, which is short and correct. The founders didn't want gov't to have unlimited power over individuals.
That is not the reason that cops cannot search. The law is the reason. You were trying to explain why the law came into existence, which doesn't change the law. If it were not ratified, it would not be the law. All argument for or against would be irrelevant.

dudejcb wrote:The 2nd is as valid as the 4th.
That is why local authorities cannot supercede it in the name of reducing violence, regardless of the merits of the effectiveness.

dudejcb wrote:Can you say warrantless wiretapping, electronic surveillance? these are all problematic.
Not in the least. You do not have a right to privacy when you cross our border or when you ship things or send communication. Your rights do not extend beyond our borders. This is a long standing interpretation of the Constitution. How could you possibly protect the country if the enemy was free to cross the border, ship goods, or send communications across our border and be given the 4th Amendment protection afforded to U.S. citizens residing within the U.S. The Bush haters did not like Bush abiding by the same rules that had governed every preceding President, so they demanded the rules change in the name of nonexistant constitutional rights.

You have no right to private communication with foreign citizens. Never had and never should have. Foreign citizen are only in the U.S. at our discretion. We can set what ever rules they like. If they don't like them, they can leave.

You don't understand the issues. It has no effect on your rights. You did not lose any rights under the Bush administration whether through executive order or act of Congress.

War is an ugly thing and there are basically no rules. We are at a constant conflict with the enemy, even those that are currently "allies." The Executive Branch has every right to monitor the behavior of our enemies or potential enemies. In fact, it is their one of their primary responsibility to do this. You are naive if you do not understand this. What rights do you think the enemy has? How about potential enemies?

This was the mindset of Carter. We are going to take the "high" ground. Spying is bad. Obama thinks there are higher rights than the Constitution as articulated in the above clip. It's all the same naive, idealist vision that will fail miserably in practice. Our founding fathers were very practical people with idealist views of how things should be. They had no misunderstanding of how things actually were. That is where Obama will fail as President. He doesn't understand how things are and he has an idealic view of the word that does not match the realities. Whether it's crime, espionage, terrorism, foreign dictators, his idealic view leads his policies. Practical realities do not factor in.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15944
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:37 pm

Spinner,

I admit it has taken me a while. But I think it has finally dawned on me why you write so much and split hairs even when the meaning of a comment is obvious.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:12 pm

Do you really think our differences are at the level of splitting hairs?

I write so much because sadly I spend way too much time typing for a living and can probably type faster than most secretaries.

For an engineer, you definitely are not a very technical person. How do you do your job without being precise with definitions and language? When you read or write a proposal, you have got to be precise. When you design or build things, you have to be precise. What's your alma matre? I want to make sure I never recommend it to anyone :rofl:

I know you think your meanings are obvious, but they aren't nearly as obvious as you think. As clearly mine are not either. We see the world from two completely different perspectives. That is why the precise meaning and use of words such as "Constitutional Right" are so important. That is why Obama's purposeful impreciseness is purposefully misleading since he is a Harvard educated lawyer that finished at the top of his class. He is not vague because of poor vocabulary. It's to hide his ignorance and leftist/elitist agenda.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15944
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby semo88 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:57 pm

Elitist?
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby dudejcb » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:01 am

Spinner,

This is a conversaton about an election over which we only control only our one vote (except for those living in or near Chicago.) We're not building a nuclear power plant, or trying a case in court. I am technically precise when the situation warrants it. When it's not warranted, I save my water, don't sweat the small stuff, and offer the gist of my thinking, or whateve happens to strike me as interesting or funny. probably my best ability as an engineer is to talk about complex things in plain terms so the non-technical person can understand what I'm trying to convey. I no longer have the personal need to show everyone how much I know. (well, maybe a little.)

I don't use jargon or techno speak unless needed. Others have described me as a comprehensive thinker, yet technically precise... which I find flattering, so have put it on my resume. (some--especially my wife when she's angry with me--say I'm an arrogant arse who thinks he knows everything, and the who thinks the rules are for everyone else and not for me. I can live with that. Some rules are stupid.)

Alma Mater? attended University of Wisconsin (Madison) and graduated from Cal Poly which is a fairly well respected engineering school, especially for practical engineers rather than those white coat research types that are technically and personally well off the page for "normal" purposes. Enough about me. Let's talk about you.

I think you write so much because in addition to being a fast typer who has a lot to contribute, you have few others still willing to interact with you anymore. Yoo have a tenacity, intensity, and nit pickiness that may wear people out. When someone says something that you are not clear on, you tend to interpret it in the most negative unflattering light possible and ascribe your preferred interpretation (which is self serving for debate purposes), rather than simply say," I'm not clear what you meant by that. Are you saying this, that, or something else." So, discourse with you is less communication and examination of different views, and more a prosecution of others' statements or views... which can be tiresome and off putting.

I'm guilty of this too. At least you and I keep talking to each other, which is always a step in the right direction. And we don't call each other too many names without winking at the same time (dufus :thumbsup: ). I enjoy a good exchange and occassionally talk smart (sarcastically or jokingly) but don't think I take everything quite as seriously as you do... or maybe when my blood sugar is low and I have less gas in the tank, I let it slide. Whatever. Maybe, because you have experienced politics Chicago style, which has a rich and colorful history, for so long, you have become jaded. You tell me.

This has been a pretty blunt assessment and I'm not a trained psychologist 9although I play one in real life). I say this in respect of your obvious intellect and passion. You have lots to say that we should all listen to, consider, and perhaps learn from. Your Pal, Dude. :hijacked:
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:42 am

What has jaded me is the failure of the basic policies you support and the destruction they have wrought on the area I grew up in and everywhere else they have been embraced such as Obama's southside district. What was once a good place to raise children is devolving into a place where children are suffering. There have been actual gang arrests across the street from my parents previous home. Why? They built a bunch of low income housing to "help" people. These poor unfortunate people with no choices need their drugs and the baby daddies want to get some from the baby momma's. A women near the house I grew up with allowed her boyfriend to put her baby's head through the wall.

I have no doubt most people think I take this stuff too seriously, but we are ruining people's lives with this feel-good do-gooder mentality.

I know you care, but you just don't understand all the negative consequence that result from what you propose and what Obama will sign into law as President. You do not comprehend the impact of Judges that interpret the Constitutional Amendments as a guideline and not a hard requirement. This things will harm far more people then they help. If that isn't something to take seriously, I don't know what is.

You can't even admit Obama is lying when he has two contradictory statements on tape. I rip on McCain alot as most Republicans do of every politician. Obama says something that is impossible. Your gut reaction is to say he didn't say it. We show you that he said it. You dismiss it and change the subject and then believe everything else he says as the Gospel :huh:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15944
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:11 am

SpinnerMan wrote:What has jaded me is the failure of the basic policies you support and the destruction they have wrought on the area I grew up in and everywhere else they have been embraced such as Obama's southside district. What was once a good place to raise children is devolving into a place where children are suffering. There have been actual gang arrests across the street from my parents previous home. Why? They built a bunch of low income housing to "help" people. These poor unfortunate people with no choices need their drugs and the baby daddies want to get some from the baby momma's. A women near the house I grew up with allowed her boyfriend to put her baby's head through the wall.:
I don't support criminal activity, or do I support irrespnsible mysogneistic absentee fathers. I suppose if the housing were not built across form your parents house, the SOB criminals that live there now, would be living somewhere else and still be criminals. The womena her "boyfriend" who put baby's head through the wall are criminal too. I doubt that the healthcare system is knowingly giving them drugs. It's not the policies that cuase this... it's the people themselves, who choose to abuse the good intentions of the policies.

SpinnerMan wrote:I have no doubt most people think I take this stuff too seriously, but we are ruining people's lives with this feel-good do-gooder mentality.:
Sadly, peoples lives get ruined regarldess, whether there's a "do-gooder" activity nearby or not. The do-gooder stuff is not the reason cerain people are shitheels. Your parents may have suffered because the do-gooder stuff happened near them, but who's to say it wouldn't have happened anyway, or to someone else with or without a "project" nearby? Some people suck. I've had sucky neighbors, sucky inlaws, sucky coworkers. some people suck, and some of those suck more thatn others. The program or plicy doesn't cause this, the suckers do.

SpinnerMan wrote:I know you care, but you just don't understand all the negative consequence that result from what you propose and what Obama will sign into law as President. You do not comprehend the impact of Judges that interpret the Constitutional Amendments as a guideline and not a hard requirement. This things will harm far more people then they help. If that isn't something to take seriously, I don't know what is.
I do understand. there are negative consequences with any judicial ruling. it's only a question of who's ox is being gored. here again, I didn't say this particular issue wasn't serious.
SpinnerMan wrote:You can't even admit Obama is lying when he has two contradictory statements on tape. I rip on McCain alot as most Republicans do of every politician. Obama says something that is impossible. Your gut reaction is to say he didn't say it. We show you that he said it. You dismiss it and change the subject and then believe everything else he says as the Gospel :huh:
You interpret it as lying, and I interpret it differently. What was the lie? he supported the attempt to address inner city gun violence, and recognized the conflict of that effort with the 2nd amendment. So.... shall we do nothing, try nothing, not try another apporach when one attemt doesn't pan out? (as a scientist, you are familiar with trial and error experimentaion, right?)
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rat Creek and 5 guests