|
This thread is a place dedicated to the rational and intellectuall discussion of political issues. In order to keep this as a civil discussion I'm going to institute some ground rules. You will be on the honor system to obey them, so let be honorable people shall we?
1. No name calling or personal insults of any kind.
2. Please base your arguments on things that can be shown and substatiated
3. Never speak for another person.
4. This is about what you believe, not what you think others believe, please keep your focus on that. No you statements, only I statements.
5. This thread is about having fun and learning from other people. If you are having trouble doing either one, please take a time out until you can do them both again.
6. Respect both sides of the debate.
7. If you would not say something to the person you respect the most in the world, please do not say it here.
Dude, you don't seriously think this will go well, do you?
;-) lol
Good luck ...
|
|
Okay, to start things off I would like to discuss this. The town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas has instituted a 24 hour curfew which has been in effect for a week. Some people believe that the city council violated the Constitution in doing so. Others believe that it is the only way to stop the violent crime that is plauging the town of 15,000. What is your opinion on the subject.
|
|
Okay, to start things off I would like to discuss this. The town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas has instituted a 24 hour curfew which has been in effect for a week. Some people believe that the city council violated the Constitution in doing so. Others believe that it is the only way to stop the violent crime that is plauging the town of 15,000. What is your opinion on the subject.
I believe that's a quite terrifying trespass against people's liberty and probably does very little to address the underlying causes of crime (that is that the causes of crime aren't directly related to people's ability to go about their business without routine intervention by the authorities).
Dude, you don't seriously think this will go well, do you?
;-) lol
Good luck ...
I think it's worth a try.
I wish you much luck, but I must refrain from joining this one (other than to prophecize it's decay) out of respect for others.
;-)
Okay, to start things off I would like to discuss this. The town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas has instituted a 24 hour curfew which has been in effect for a week. Some people believe that the city council violated the Constitution in doing so. Others believe that it is the only way to stop the violent crime that is plauging the town of 15,000. What is your opinion on the subject.
*I* (see, I did it!) feel this is totally unacceptable.
From a talking head in the article: "Some infringement on (sic) constitutional rights is OK."
I just don't know what to add to that.
Okay, to start things off I would like to discuss this. The town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas has instituted a 24 hour curfew which has been in effect for a week. Some people believe that the city council violated the Constitution in doing so. Others believe that it is the only way to stop the violent crime that is plauging the town of 15,000. What is your opinion on the subject.*I* (see, I did it!) feel this is totally unacceptable.
From a talking head in the article: "Some infringement on (sic) constitutional rights is OK."
I just don't know what to add to that.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin
(damn! and I said I was gonna stay out of it! )
|
|
Okay, to start things off I would like to discuss this. The town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas has instituted a 24 hour curfew which has been in effect for a week. Some people believe that the city council violated the Constitution in doing so. Others believe that it is the only way to stop the violent crime that is plauging the town of 15,000. What is your opinion on the subject.
Quote from the article; "small town on the banks of the Mississippi River long troubled by poverty."
And there's the problem. They don't need to round the people up, they need to *get them jobs.*
In Oklahoma, theft was so rampant that when a 7-11 tried to move in, they had to post a security guard on the worksite, because they lost two sets of building supplies (as in, an entire *stores* worth of building supplies! People would just back their pickups up at night and take everything, lumber, structural supports, bricks, sheetrock, *everything*!). I grew up there, and I don't believe the people there were anymore immoral or unethical than anyone else (we had more churches in town than restaurants, actually, and a church-run school that graduated quite a few illiterates), but they had no jobs and no way to get jobs, because there just weren't any in the area.
We had farmers growing acres of pot out in their fields, because they couldn't sell anything else, thanks to giant factory farm agribusinesses undercutting the market. If this country ever legalized weed, they wouldn't have that either, because Monsato would be all over that like flies on poop!
Crime isn't easy. A lifestyle of uncertainty, not knowing if you're going to find anything to eat tonight, or what roof you're going to be sleeping under, and what you might have to do to get either of those things, is very stressful. The *vast* majority of people would rather have a job that they could go to five days a week and know that they aren't going to be sleeping on someone's couch or foraging through the dumpster behind McDonalds to find their kid something for dinner.
Besides, they lock those dumpsters these days. Heaven forfend some homeless dude get food poisoning from spoiled mayonnaise and McDonalds be held liable...
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Benjamin FranklinI believe that it was qualified to be an "essential liberty" for "temporary security".
One could argue that any liberty worth discussing is essential, and that permanent security is an illusion. I'm not sure I agree, but I think it is worth consideration.
|
|
Quote from the article; "small town on the banks of the Mississippi River long troubled by poverty."And there's the problem. They don't need to round the people up, they need to *get them jobs.*
That is kind of a double edged sword, when there are more people than jobs, the crime rate goes up. When the crime rates go up, the existing jobs disappear and there are no new ones to replace them, so then the crime rate goes up. It's kind of like the fire triangle, if you knock out one leg the whole thing falls apart. So i guess to boil it all down, I agree with their motives, just not their methods.
|
|
One could argue that any liberty worth discussing is essential, and that permanent security is an illusion. I'm not sure I agree, but I think it is worth consideration.
Regarding the essentialness of liberties, I believe was taken on the premise that the default position is you should be free to do virtually anything (that dosn't impune upon the freedoms of others) but that some freedoms (eg your freedom to disagree with the government) are more essential than others (eg your freedom to own nuclear weapons).
Regarding the temporariness of security, I believe it was in the context of the duration of the imposition on the liberty. That is that the gain in security was limited in breadth and/or duration compared to the breadth and/or duration of loss of liberty (for example if a significant security benefit could be realised by denying international flights to a particular destination on a particular day, and it is acceptable (in some regard) to do so, it would be unacceptable to deny flights to other destinations or for longer periods).
|
A quote from the article:
Fielder said officers had not arrested anyone for violating the curfew, only questioned people about why they were outside. Those without good answers or acting nervously get additional attention, Fielder said.
So the city council has declared a 24-hour curfew, i.e., declared that no citizen may be outside his home. Anyone outside is questioned, and those not giving "good answers" (what is a "good answer?") or acting nervously (being questioned at gunpoint might tend to make many people nervous) gets "additional attention." Sounds like "unreasonable search and seizure," and the courts will likely rule it so.
Another quote.
"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."
Sure sounds like people have no rights except what Councilman Johnson chooses to grant them. I wonder if he's ever bothered to read the Constitution over which he's trampling.
I remember the words of George Washington. "Government is not reason or eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous ally, and a fearful master."
|
|
Okay, to start things off I would like to discuss this. The town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas has instituted a 24 hour curfew which has been in effect for a week. Some people believe that the city council violated the Constitution in doing so. Others believe that it is the only way to stop the violent crime that is plauging the town of 15,000. What is your opinion on the subject.*I* (see, I did it!) feel this is totally unacceptable.
From a talking head in the article: "Some infringement on (sic) constitutional rights is OK."
I just don't know what to add to that.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin
(damn! and I said I was gonna stay out of it! )
Just cause he's famous doesn't mean he's right.
Anyway, if a curfew stops crime completely, that is fine. But I don't think it will stop crime very much at all.
I'm curious to what people think about the situation in Georgia. I don't think a military situation is the answer, but what can we do about it to make it come to an end?
Just cause he's famous doesn't mean he's right.
He's not quoted because he's famous. He's quoted in a discourse on constitutionality because he's one of the guys who founded and ratified the US Constitution. In matters of constitutional liberty, I think we're safe in thinking one of the writers is right about its interpretation.
|
|
Anyway, if a curfew stops crime completely, that is fine. But I don't think it will stop crime very much at all.
Yeah, but the part that confuses me is the whole '24 hour' thing.
If you lock people in their homes for 24 hours a day, the next crime they're gonna be committing is cannibalism, when their food stores run out...
And after a few days locked up in their homes, what do they expect these people to do? Come out and sing kumbaya? No. They're gonna be just as jobless, hungry and desperate as they were *before* they got imprisoned in their homes (if not more so!).
And they'll have even *less* respect for government and the rule of law, since they'll have seen that the local government's solution to joblessness is to lock them in their homes until they starve.
I'm curious to what people think about the situation in Georgia. I don't think a military situation is the answer, but what can we do about it to make it come to an end?
I don't know enough about the situation to intelligently comment, beyond saying I wish the CANDIDATES would stop using it (along with everything else) as an excuse to take a potshot at the other guy...
|
|
I'm curious to what people think about the situation in Georgia. I don't think a military situation is the answer, but what can we do about it to make it come to an end?
I think that the situation in Georgia is a difficult one to deal with. One the one hand Georgia is our ally and we should provide them with help of some sort. On the other hand any action we take could be used by Russia as justification for further hostilities against our other allies. This is exactly how World War I started.
However, at the same time Russia has proven that diplomacy may not work to resolve this situation. They broke the truce that they put in place, less than 24 hours after they declared it. They also said that they were "going to change the nature of Russia's relationship with the former republics." My fear is that we may be only seeing the tip of the iceberg and the Russians may be on the verge of a new land grab equivalent to Germany in the 1930's.
|
Frivolous answer:
Well the Russians might trade Ossetia for Kosovo... 'You in Nato let our Serbian friends have Kosovo back, and we'll overlook South Ossetia's claim to independence from Georgia'.
frivolous response to frivolous answer:
Can ossetians (sp?) credibly claim that Georgia was engaged in ethnic cleansing? I don't claim to know, but if Russia tries to justify their actions by putting emphasis on their past associations with Milosevic then this dialog's not going to go very far.*dons tinfoil hat* I think they're doing this to draw attention away from their low medal count at the Olympics.
Ok, after this I have to go pack for Gencon (speaking of which, has anyone set up a Paizo get together? I know there was talk of it...).
But back to the point: ah, politics, sweet politics.
I support euthanasia. Really, this one seems like a no-brainer to me, so I don't know what to add.
I support gay marriage. At the end of the day I can't see this as anything but an issue of legislating a (religious) moral code. If there is substantive research that shows gay marriage causes sociological issues, I have yet to see it.
I support abortion. I certainly wish people would act responsibly, but ultimately people must have the final say over their own bodies.
I do NOT support affirmative action. While I do think inequities remain, I don't think affirmative action is the answer.
I do NOT support gun control. Yes, guns are dangerous. But if you want to get rid of 'em, you have to amend the Constitution. And if you can't get the votes to do that, well, guess what? That is by design.
I do not support suspension of habeas corpus under ANY circumstances.
I appreciate and acknowledge the value of capitalism, and agree to an extent that "a rising tide lifts all boats." However, when the middle-class shows a sustained pattern of stagnant (or declinging) wages and/or wealth, then something has gone very, very wrong.
How is *that* for flamebait? :)
P.S. I can (and have) adjusted my view on these issues from time to time. This is not "waffling," it is *thinking.* ;-)
|
|
Wasn't Georgia one of the countries that Bush wanted on the fast track to NATO membership? Can you imagine if that had taken place? We'd be at war with Russia right now. WWI all over again, but with Nukes :)
Or maybe Russia wouldn't be doing what they're doing right now. The other freaky thing about this kind of conflict is the possibility that some of these former soviet republics still have nuclear material hanging around from their days with the CCCP. They have some pretty ugly problems when it comes to accounting for some of that material. Who knows?
Actually, Mr. Franklin was not talking about the Constitution when he made this statement, it came up during the debate over ratification of the Declaration of Independence. And I say that this is not always true, since John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were mostly unconstitutional in most scholar's opinion.
I did not say he was talking about the Constitution in that quote. I said we can trust his opinion concerning on constitutionality in *this thread's* discourse since his credibility in such matters was called into question. My point was that he was not quoted due to fame but due to credibility in matters of liberty/consitutionality. You are misinterpreting my meaning.
And this is the point I will be departing this discourse since this is exactly the road this thread was meant to avoid.
|
|
Robert Scheer of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote an article today about how John McCain's campaign created the Georgia situation as a campaign tactic. He cites Georgia's "imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia" and the fact that Josef Stalin was from Georgia as reasons why we should support Russia and not Georgia. What he doesn't mention is that Bill Clinton supported Georgia and it's "imperial designs" over Russia. I dare you to read it.
|
|
I did not say he was talking about the Constitution in that quote. I said we can trust his opinion concerning on constitutionality in *this thread's* discourse since his credibility in such matters was called into question. My point was that he was not quoted due to fame but due to credibility in matters of liberty/consitutionality. You are misinterpreting my meaning.And this is the point I will be departing this discourse since this is exactly the road this thread was meant to avoid.
I'm sorry, it was not my intention to offend. As a history teacher, it is simply my nature to try and present the most historically accurate picture possible.
Edit: Out of respect for Ixancoatl, I have deleted my offending comments.
The Constitution does provide for it though..
I do not support suspension of habeas corpus under ANY circumstances.
Correct.
Rather than rely on memory, I looked it up:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it"
I happen to be of the opinion that the present situation in the United States doesn't meet the Constitutional provisions, but that is another story.
|
Regarding Bugleyman's political stances: Cool! We agree on a lot of stuff, except the abortion thing.
Regarding the curfew thing: I've of two minds. I can see how such an increase in power could lead down a slippery slope to tyranny. I can also see how such a temporary action may be necessary (and perhaps welcomed by the people) in order to reduce crime long enough to attempt to successfully treat the causes of said crime.
Regarding the Russia/Georgia conflict: In my opinion, Russia is almost completely in the wrong here. Russia fought tooth and nail to prevent Chechnyians from separating into their own country - all in the name of sovereignty. Yet they have done their best to exacerbate the South Ossentian movement to split away from Georgia.
Couple this behavior with Russia's threats against anyone who even seems to contemplate working with NATO/The US/Europe, and their military and economic assistance to dictators in places like Iran and Venezuela, and it seems to me like they might as well just start calling themselves the Soviet Union again.
And since we're linking to stuff, here is something from National Review - an opinion piece on the Russia/Georgia situation by Victor Davis Hanson. I usually find his articles very well thought out and very well written.
|
|
Couple this behavior with Russia's threats against anyone who even seems to contemplate working with NATO/The US/Europe, and their military and economic assistance to dictators in places like Iran and Venezuela, and it seems to me like they might as well just start calling themselves the Soviet Union again.
I think they are trying to rebuild the Russian Empire, but it's the same idea to be sure.
|
|
I think they are trying to rebuild the Russian Empire, but it's the same idea to be sure.
Couple this behavior with Russia's threats against anyone who even seems to contemplate working with NATO/The US/Europe, and their military and economic assistance to dictators in places like Iran and Venezuela, and it seems to me like they might as well just start calling themselves the Soviet Union again.
It does seem that way sometimes. Will we be seeing a Czar Vladimir?
|
|
And since we're linking to stuff, here is something from National Review - an opinion piece on the Russia/Georgia situation by Victor Davis Hanson. I usually find his articles very well thought out and very well written.
Excellently written article. Well thought out arguments, I could not agree more.
So out of curiosity, do you guys tend to vote Republican or Democrat?
Right now I'm firmly on the Dem side, but not because they are a great match for my views. Rather, I can more easily tolerate the disagreements than I can with the Republicans. But if there were a resurgence of fiscal conservatism and a decoupling of (what I see as) the religious moral imperative, I can see myself being very tempted to vote Republican.
|
|
It does seem that way sometimes. Will we be seeing a Czar Vladimir?I think they are trying to rebuild the Russian Empire, but it's the same idea to be sure.
Couple this behavior with Russia's threats against anyone who even seems to contemplate working with NATO/The US/Europe, and their military and economic assistance to dictators in places like Iran and Venezuela, and it seems to me like they might as well just start calling themselves the Soviet Union again.
No, Putin is an ex-KGB guy. He'll more likely prop up a figure head, like their current president and run thing from behind the scenes.
I think they are trying to rebuild the Russian Empire, but it's the same idea to be sure.
Couple this behavior with Russia's threats against anyone who even seems to contemplate working with NATO/The US/Europe, and their military and economic assistance to dictators in places like Iran and Venezuela, and it seems to me like they might as well just start calling themselves the Soviet Union again.
Yeah, I hope they're not trying to rebuild the Soviet Union. Maybe after world condemnation they'll back off. I don't know if we'll be that lucky though.
|
|
So out of curiosity, do you guys tend to vote Republican or Democrat?
Right now I'm firmly on the Dem side, but not because they are a great match for my views. Rather, I can more easily tolerate the disagreements than I can with the Republicans. But if there were a resurgence of fiscal conservatism and a decoupling of (what I see as) the religious moral imperative, I can see myself being very tempted to vote Republican.
I vote based on how someone stands on the issues. That being said I tend to side with Republicans because they are closer to my own beliefs. However, I have voted Democrat in the past, and would do so again. I was an early supporter of Obama but have been turned off by some of the things he has said over he past two months or so. The more the Democrats move towards nominating and electing more Blue Dogs like Jim Matheson, The more I will vote for them.
|
|
I support euthanasia. Really, this one seems like a no-brainer to me, so I don't know what to add.
Same. A lot of the people who are opposed to letting suffering people die on their own terms seem to be the ones who are all 'Yay, death penalty! Yay, torture! Yay, war! Yay, automatic weapons' so I'm kinda confused at why they only support killing people who *want* to live.
On the other hand, there should be some guidelines in place. If someone is chemically depressed, then they should be required to take some anti-depressants for awhile before being allowed to make a decision like that. I figure that if they still want to do it a month later, it's not just a 'mood swing.'
I support gay marriage. At the end of the day I can't see this as anything but an issue of legislating a (religious) moral code. If there is substantive research that shows gay marriage causes sociological issues, I have yet to see it.
Like the laws against miscegenation, I expect that this too shall pass.
At the grocery store a few weeks back, after a discussion on race, I noticed (because it was fresh on my mind) that of the dozen couples with children I passed, *two* of them were of the same color / race / ethnicity (and one of those was a hispanic couple). Everyone else was black and white, with a mixed child, black and asian, white and asian, hispanic and white, etc, etc.
Fifty years ago, any of those couples would have been arrested in many states.
Fifty years from now, I expect (assuming I'm still alive) to see a pair of married women standing in line with the rest of us *and nobody noticing,* because who really gives a flying crap anyway? Don't people have bigger things to worry about? If some of these people spent half the time focusing on *their own* relationships as they spend worrying about what other people are up to, their own marriages would probably be a lot happier.
I support abortion. I certainly wish people would act responsibly, but ultimately people must have the final say over their own bodies.
One of the rare Hillary Clinton lines I like. "I'd prefer a world where there was no need for abortion. But until then, it should be legal, safe and rare."
I hate the idea of abortion, particularly in the case where it's used to cover up for irresponsible behavior, but, unless it's my child growing in there, *it's not my right* to make a demand of the woman that could endanger her life. Some sort of mandatory birth control would be nice, to be de-activated only by choice, allowing for zero percent 'accidental' births. But that would never fly.
I do NOT support affirmative action. While I do think inequities remain, I don't think affirmative action is the answer.
Predjudice in one direction should not be offset by predjudice in the other. Two wrongs do not make a right, they only stir up hateful lazy poorly-educated whites who feel disenfranchised that the other guy got a break he didn't (and yeah, applying for college scholarships as a white guy, I felt a twinge of that myself, recognizing that I wasn't getting squat because of my race. I got over it, though.).
Affirmative action just sows hate and discontent among those already predisposed towards such things. They don't need the encouragement to get out the white hoods.
It also makes a destructive suggestion to those benefitting from it, that they need 'special help' to 'keep up,' as if being black was a disability, which it certainly is not.
I do NOT support gun control. Yes, guns are dangerous. But if you want to get rid of 'em, you have to amend the Constitution. And if you can't get the votes to do that, well, guess what? That is by design.
I like the Swiss tactic. Everyone owns a rifle, not for home defense, but because every citizen is expected to be part of a defense militia if they are called upon, and every year, Heidi has to go to a one-day refresher course in how to shoot her rifle.
"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." Not at all funny how the 'well-regulated militia' part gets forgotten by dudes who have zero interest in serving their nation and just like blowing **** up and holding up liquor stores.
It's not like my right to bear nuclear weapons, pipe bombs, anthrax, double-edged blades over 8", hand grenades, agent orange, flamethrowers, etc, etc isn't already being infringed. Also, felons, even those who have 'paid their debt to society' are denied this right to bear arms. Sure are a lot of caveats to that 2nd Amendment...
I'm not sure we need a 'well regulated Militia' so much as some sort of basic gun safety class you have to pass before you're allowed to own a gun. It would be nice to see less of these 'kid blows away his brother after argument over playstation' news reports or 'total frakking nutjob O'Reilly fan with a history of mental illness kills a bunch of students with more guns than Neo.'
Guns, sure, but guns in the hands of children and mental patients? Less of that, please.
I do not support suspension of habeas corpus under ANY circumstances.
Agreed. Such basic rights are what this nation is built upon. To suspend them is un-American, IMO. Treasonous, even, as it does far more violence to *America* than any number of bombs could ever do.
I appreciate and acknowledge the value of capitalism, and agree to an extent that "a rising tide lifts all boats." However, when the middle-class shows a sustained pattern of stagnant (or declinging) wages and/or wealth, then something has gone very, very wrong.
When the top 1% make 22% of the country's wages, their best year since 1928, according to the IRS (2006 numbers), and the bottom 50% have seen their wages flatten or fall, despite the inflation in prices for everything, something is indeed wrong.
P.S. I can (and have) adjusted my view on these issues from time to time. This is not "waffling," it is *thinking.* ;-)
When you stop growing, you start dying.
Or, in the words of Blake, "A man who does not change his opinions is like standing water and breeds reptiles of the mind."
|
|
Regarding Bugleyman's political stances: Cool! We agree on a lot of stuff, except the abortion thing.
I agree with everything Bugleyman put in there, even the abortion thing and with the same notation as he, except I am at a loss... I am unsure what Habius Corpus means, someone wanna give the lite version to me?
I actually wouldn't mind the curfew in that town if it wasn't 24 hours. If they were doing a 6am to 6pm unrestricted period I would be more inclined to accept it. People have to go to work and all and shouldn't have to answer questions about where they are going. Seems a bit heavy handed. I would rather see the national guard being reworked to help provide our country with a more proactive internal support. Bad areas would get some guardsmen to help police the area and prevent crime. Have them take some additional training in criminal law (not traffic violations and such but drug dealing, violent crimes, weapons, etc.) or have a police officer as a 'consultant' on hand or something. I obviously don't have all the knowledge to provide a great design for this, but the idea seems sound to me.
Just to point, the 24 hour curfew thing was for non-adults. Adults (and I would assume non-adults that were accompanied by an appropriate guardian) were free to move about. This was also for only 30 days, at which point the policy will be looked at again. Frankly I don't really care one way or the other by this, just wanted to throw some facts about it out there.
|
One could argue that any liberty worth discussing is essential, and that permanent security is an illusion. I'm not sure I agree, but I think it is worth consideration.
One could argue it, but unless one was arguing with oneself or a particularly dull-witted person, one would surely lose that argument.
For example, I think one would be hard-pressed to justify the claim that the liberty to have an orgy on the front lawn of a kindergarten is an essential liberty.
I would rather see the national guard being reworked to help provide our country with a more proactive internal support. Bad areas would get some guardsmen to help police the area and prevent crime.
We'd have to pull them out of Iraq and/or off of the Mexican border, then. Opinions on that?
|
|
Agreed. Such basic rights are what this nation is built upon. To suspend them is un-American, IMO. Treasonous, even, as it does far more violence to *America* than any number of bombs could ever do.
I do not support suspension of habeas corpus under ANY circumstances.
Please help me understand this. How can something be UnAmerican if the Constitution allows for it to be done? IMO UnAmerican is the same as UnConstitutional. I just can't wrap my mind around this statement. It's like when folks on my side say that income taxes are unconstitutional, I want to grab their shoulders and say, "It's in the Constitution, how can it be unconstitutional?" Please explain it to me.
|
|
One could argue that any liberty worth discussing is essential, and that permanent security is an illusion. I'm not sure I agree, but I think it is worth consideration.For example, I think one would be hard-pressed to justify the claim that the liberty to have an orgy on the front lawn of a kindergarten is an essential liberty.
Well said.
Let the non-seq wars begin!!
|
|
I would rather see the national guard being reworked to help provide our country with a more proactive internal support. Bad areas would get some guardsmen to help police the area and prevent crime.We'd have to pull them out of Iraq and/or off of the Mexican border, then. Opinions on that?
The situation in Iraq seems to be reaching a point where we can safely pull our troops out and not have the situation destabilize over there. My fear, as a child of Vietnam, is that we will end up wioth a mess in Iraq similar to what we saw in the aftermath of Nixon's Vietnamization program. As far as pulling the Guard off of the border, I would only agree to that if they were replaced with active duty troops. Mexico has their army patrolling their side of the border and we should too. We should also strengthen our presence along the Canadian border. If I was a terrorist, I'd come across that way rather than through Mexico.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin
(damn! and I said I was gonna stay out of it! )
"The constitution is not a suicide pact."