Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

Fair points. 

I also acknowledge that I am a more in favor of institutions like the EC, the Senate, and the filibuster than you are.  Possibly a lot more in favor of these institutions than you are.  In my view, these institutions help save us from the tyranny of the majority.  I say this knowing well that the composition of the majority swings from time to time.

Obviously neither of us are Ok with corruption, gerrymandering and unethical practices.  These sorts of things do not advance the will of the people one way or the other though.  These merely enrich or protect the elected class and their enablers.

Equally obvious to me, (although maybe not to the forum right wingers) we both also cherish the Bill of Rights which protects everyone from government overreach, even though we might disagree on interpretational nuances.

Jim

p.s.  Not saying that interpretational nuances are unimportant.  For example, in my opinion, the constitutionality of a law prohibiting the sale of rifles to 18-20 year olds is a rational interpretational nuance to consider and fully consistent with the 2nd Amendment as fleshed out in Heller.  I really don't like slippery-slope-absolutist style arguments on any issue, and that sort seems to be the only arguments the parties are making nowadays.  

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Rod,


Look, MTG is a nut case. We all know this. She reflects her district just as Al Green or Maxine Waters represent theirs. However, MTG does not mirror all Republicans any more than Al Green or Maxine Waters are representative of all Democrats. Mock her? Yes. Act like she is a standard-bearer of the GOP? That's an epic mistake. I'll admit she is the result of the Trump MAGA movement, but she doesn't embody all Republicans.

Agreed of course.  Why do you think the Trump MAGA movement has such traction?  I think it is in part because the opinions of conservatives have been mocked, ignored, and belittled so long that the natural reaction is to fight back.  Trump tapped into this sentiment.

Consider abortion.  I personally respect the position of conservatives who believe as a matter of ethics, philosophy, or religion that human rights begin at conception.  How would this fairly standard conservative position be received by the mainstream press, the entertainment world, or liberals like Rod?  With derision is how.  I am sure that the opposite is true on many issues, which leads to polarization.  Polarization leads to Trump.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Coming back on topic, it should be noted Margi's ministrations are covered by mainstream media, so it's portion of the reporting that I read so I can stay informed and not me following her weekly tweets. 

Well, I think you just proved one of my points.  A rhetorical question:  Why do you reckon the mainstream media covers MTG, Boebert and other MAGA extremists so thoroughly and incessantly?  I seriously doubt it is because these right-fringe congresswomen are saying or tweeting anything all that profound or newsworthy.  Jim   

Originally Posted by James Lacey

That is one reason why Trump's MAGA politics was/is so successful. Still, another reason for its success is because Trump was/is shameless regarding pandering to the far-right extremists in return for their support. As a result, you get MTGs and Lauren Boeberts. Some people would argue that AOC and Ilhan Omar are no better, but I don't see it this way. The extremism problems in the two parties are vastly different in intent and ideology.

Hi James:

I think we'll have to disagree.  MTG and Boebert are arguably relatively harmless and ineffectual laughingstocks.  See the stuff Rod posts daily.  AOC is a sharp and charismatic politician who wants to change our economy in ways that I think are extremely detrimental.  She is immensely influential with the young voters.  I expect she has a long career in front of her.  AOC is far more influential than MTG or Boebert could ever hope to be.  Ilhan Omar is opposed to the right of our primary middle eastern ally to defend themselves or exist at all, and I do not think her position is benign.  Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

...
Given your statement above of, " I personally respect the position of conservatives who believe as a matter of ethics, philosophy, or religion that human rights begin at conception."  "How would this fairly standard conservative position be received by the mainstream press, the entertainment world, or liberals like Rod? "
From my viewpoint, it's obviously an incorrectly held belief, of course, for many reasons that have already been covered in numerous past threads on this subject. Moreover, I would emphasize my viewpoint that the beliefs of the conservative voices you describe essentially comes down to the will of a minority of those who are attempting to foist their view of morality on the majority of us who do not share the same beliefs... 

I agree that we do not want to argue the ethics of abortion again.  I respect your position, the same as I respect Russ's.  I want to explore a side topic though.  Your position on this and a lot of issues is always a federal position.  As you note, across the total of all 50 states there is little doubt that the majority supports the right to abortion, at least early in pregnancy.  But why does abortion have to be solved at the federal level?  In many states, typically red states, a vast majority supports significant restrictions on abortion, if not an outright ban.

Why are you so willing to run roughshod over the majorities in those states?  It is not like abortion is going to be banned or limited in the states like CA where the majority supports relatively unfettered abortion rights.  

Like I mentioned to James, federalism in the form of the electoral college and Senate are bulwarks against the tyranny of the majority that I personally value a lot.  I think it is fair to say you would get rid of both these institutions and would much prefer nation-wide majority rule.  Let me know if this is an unfair conclusion.  I think this is one of the primary differences between you and me and it is reflected in our take on all sorts of issues.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Abortions rights isn't any different than reproductive health care. Red states want to remove it, in many cases virtually entirely even in cases of rape and incest. Not everyone of the victims of the latter or women seeking an abortion have the means to travel to another state to receive care. it should be within their rights to obtain care in whatever state they reside in without the local government stepping in and telling them otherwise...

You are obviously not in favor of the tyranny of the majority either, in the many states where a large majority strongly disagree with your position on this or any other issue.  

Jim  

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Hi Dave:

That point of view lost at the Supreme Court.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html  Until the Court changes it's mind, the word best used to describe to point of view you have quoted is simply "wrong."  

People often over-simplify the issues raised by language from the Constitution.   Both sides do it.  The language of the 2nd Amendment may be deceptively simple, but the interpretation is really quite complex, as detailed in the Heller opinion and dissents.   For example, do you reckon that Rod and Greg agree on the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?  Of course not.  The Supreme Court has spoken though, and the quote in your opening post is an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.   

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Well regulated as used by the founders meant that the group would be "well regulated" or "in Proper working order".  That's IT! They were fighting against the tyranny of the state, not supporting its tyranny.  

If one takes the time to read the notes of Madison, and reads the writings of those like George Mason, one realizes that the left has absolutely no iota of what they are talking about, especially the "idjits" out there.  

Greg and Rich:  I think Scalia got it right with Heller.  So does James Lacey for what it is worth.  That said, I don't think Dave or Rod are idiots at all.  Their style of interpreting the Constitution with a bias toward more flexible results grounded in pragmatic modern day concerns is very popular.  This sort of constitutional interpretation is not my style, but I can't say it is an invalid school of interpretational thought.  It is merely different.  

Scalia and Ginsburg were close lifelong friends who respected each other's ideologies, even if they did not agree.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

All guns are weapons of war. 

Next...

Seriously?  If that is your position hopefully you'll acknowledge that some guns are better than others for warfare.  The single shot 12 gauge shotgun I used to hunt rabbits as a kid would not be much use in an infantry engagement, for example.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hi Greg, thanks buddy.  I'm a happy camper today.  

I've come to the conclusion that it is futile to try and have rational conversations about the 2nd amendment with those on the left, when they operate on pure emotion and when they possess such an irrational mentality.  

Trying to make sense to someone like Rod isn't worth my breath any longer.  He's just a lost cause.  

I've been enjoying your comments and Mel's as well.  Glad to see you guys still have the stamina to go at with these guys.  

It is a never ending battle for this country when the Totalitarians are in charge.  

I'm happy for you too Rich.  I doubt that you are sincere about not arguing with libs here though.  You have said that sort of thing many times before.  You don't seem to know yourself very well...