Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senate confirms Neil Gorsuch!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The whopper in the Soviet constitution amounted to this:

    Citizens enjoyed their rights only when the exercise of those rights didn't interfere with the interests of the state.

    That is, you got a whole bunch of rights as a citizen but they were meaningless because the state would decide if you could exercise them or not. I can hear the Progressive Left's arguments against the 2nd Amendment in that.
    +1 to the "Progressives Analogy" counter. I really should start keeping track.

    But one issue is that the same thing does apply to the United States. I can exercise freedom of speech... but that doesn't trump public or state security interests, now does it? I have the right to bear arms... but only certain arms approved by the central authorities to ensure you're not a threat to public or state security.

    No right you possess as an American trump's the governments power if it so desires. What separates the US from, say, the USSR, is that the government obeys the restrictions it has put on itself for the most part and people feel like the state isn't about to shut down their blog just for being critical. There is still a level at which the state will impede on your rights for its own interests, but the bar is set much higher for when it will act.

    Comment


    • #32
      I think the fundamental founded difference between the US government and say the USSR is that as it was devised and founded, it is there to protect the public interest, not its own interest.

      Of course it's been creeping towards its own interests since 1789. But as founded, the US government, and the government of the several states, was made to protect the interests of the People. So your freedom of speech, should only be curtailed when it's creating a serious security problem for the Public/People. Right to bear arms, same.
      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
        Hey man respect is a two way street. I don't care for him personally, but he's the prez.
        Which is why you call him 'rump'?

        Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
        I just wish he'd follow his campaign promise to jail hillary. There's a bunch of bad actors that need to be made examples of. Lois Learner for the IRS debacle, Holder for Fast and Furious, ect...

        If the common man is held to account why not these pos's? Is it that they have too much dirt they could reveal? I say to hell with it and prosecute the bastards who are corrupt.
        He's kept a lot more campaign promises so far than most POTUS.

        Going after the Hillabeast would take a lot of political power. He would need massive public support. That doesn't exist right now.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
          Tasteful does not enter into. She is a horrid SC justice for the simple reason she does not believe in the Constitution and that even the lowliest of courts have a right and duty to change it.

          She refuses to retire so her death is the only alternative. Reality is often, perhaps usually, not tasteful. Logic is logic regardless of feeling.

          Tuebor
          Reality is often not tasteful. People calling for/wishing for the death of someone else is surely not tasteful. Would I cry if Kim # 3 died? No. So maybe I'm just as guilty as you. But on the other hand she is not responsible for deaths in hundred thousands or millions and she does not threaten world peace. She is part of a broken system.

          You are essentially wishing for a more broken system. And how do expect to pick up the pieces?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post
            Reality is often not tasteful. People calling for/wishing for the death of someone else is surely not tasteful. Would I cry if Kim # 3 died? No. So maybe I'm just as guilty as you. But on the other hand she is not responsible for deaths in hundred thousands or millions and she does not threaten world peace. She is part of a broken system.

            You are essentially wishing for a more broken system. And how do expect to pick up the pieces?
            I haven't seen anyone calling for her death. But given her age, her chances of out-lasting Trump, even within one term, are iffy.

            I think you're reading a lot more angst into this than is warranted. On a site devoted to the study and discussion of slaughter, talking about an 84-year-old's chances of seeing 88 or 92 is hardly shocking.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
              I think the fundamental founded difference between the US government and say the USSR is that as it was devised and founded, it is there to protect the public interest, not its own interest.

              Of course it's been creeping towards its own interests since 1789. But as founded, the US government, and the government of the several states, was made to protect the interests of the People. So your freedom of speech, should only be curtailed when it's creating a serious security problem for the Public/People. Right to bear arms, same.
              The problem is the subjective nature of "serious". Unless one takes an absolutist stance, one has to accept that one will be supporting an inherently authoritarian state that serves its own interests in the name of the public interest - which was a principle of the USSR (remember that the state was the people) as well as the United States.

              The subjective element of deciding what is or isn't serious means that the differences essentially boil down to differences in opinion: banning X weapon is insane tyranny but banning Y weapon is perfectly acceptable.

              I mean, that ties back into the inherent rule that all laws are restrictions on your freedoms. Every single one. It's just that societies have subjective views on which freedoms are worth giving up - such as giving up our freedom to murder our neighbors in the interest of not being murdered ourselves. But that never excuses the state from being fundamentally restrictive and oppressive. It's the nature of the beast, and like welfare programs and social safety blankets, government helps people feel safer by controlling aspects of their lives.

              Comment


              • #37
                Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                  Who said die? Justices can retire after all.
                  You must've missed posts #7, #11 and especially #15.
                  Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
                      Main objective for voting for Trump achieved.

                      Tuebor
                      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X