Brian Donovan said:Teddy Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns. 'nuff said
Yet your beloved NRA is an organization that fights any regulation even those that would deter mentally unstable individuals from getting firearms easily. To that, sir, I say shame on you, as it is a clear infringement on my "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Brian,
I guess the biggest difference between you and I is that you view the Constitution as “flexible,” and I don’t.
In what way is the Constitution flexible? Is the amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote, “flexible?” If so, how? How about the one abolishing slavery? Is that one “flexible.” If so, how? How about Freedom of the Press? Is that "flexible? " If so, how? How about the Constitutional qualification for the Office of President? Is that “flexible?” If so, how?
You can’t cherry pick which part of the Constitution you want to be “flexible.” Just because it is momentarily inconvenient does not mean that it is “flexible.”
Brian Donovan said:
...................Yet your beloved NRA is an organization that fights any regulation even those that would deter mentally unstable individuals from getting firearms easily. To that, sir, I say shame on you, as it is a clear infringement on my “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
-Brian
Brian,
It is the old story, debating a fundamentalist is a “no room” situation. 
The USA and Australia, unlike the UK, my country of birth and Citzenship, have written Constitutions which can be interpreted, amended and added to.
If any Constitution is open to, can be and has been interpreted, by definition it is therefore “flexible”.
Period.
Steve Featherkile said:
Brian,I guess the biggest difference between you and I is that you view the Constitution as “flexible,” and I don’t.
In what way is the Constitution flexible? Is the amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote, “flexible?” If so, how? How about the one abolishing slavery? Is that one “flexible.” If so, how? How about Freedom of the Press? Is that "flexible? " If so, how? How about the Constitutional qualification for the Office of President? Is that “flexible?” If so, how?
You can’t cherry pick which part of the Constitution you want to be “flexible.” Just because it is momentarily inconvenient does not mean that it is “flexible.”
Boy, Steve, You must be really pissed at the current administration by the way they have chosen to unbalance the balance of powers by consolidating power in the executive branch. I don’t recall you complaining about that or the way they choose to ignore the Eighth Amendment, something even their very right wing Supreme Court called them on. The very fact the creators of the constitution put in a process to change it by the ability to add amendments makes it flexible. If enough folks wanted to change the qualifications for running for President so the Gubernator could run, it could happen.
-Brian
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Brian,It is the old story, debating a fundamentalist is a “no room” situation.
Yeah, I know. I ignore about 2/3’s of the posts in Off Topic but if us “bleeding hearts” ignored them all, Steve would be lonely.
-Brian
Terry A de C Foley said:Brian Donovan said:
Mr. Moley,Heck, since she is a NRA member and eats moose burgers, I guess she is imminently qualified to be commander-in-chief.
I guess since you and Joe Biden are the same age (and both of you 10 years younger than McCain), you would be the expert on being a dithering old fart.
When did any civilian ever pick up a “black rifle” in this country defending this country?
-Brian
Dear Mr Donovan - the next time you read me taking the piss out of YOUR name will be the very first time I will have done it. It lowers you, Sir, so please refrain from personal insults.Mrs Palin clearly believes with all her heart and soul in the one single part of the Constitution that sets the United States of America apart from the other nations of the world - I refer, Sir, to the Second Amendment, which I will not insult you by restating here - a group of words that set down an immutable statement about the American way of life.
In my book, anybody who believes in that, and lives within its tenets has the far higher moral ground than somebody who publicly mocks it in front of an audience of millions, including one of whom may actually become the leader of your nation and therefore de facto a defender of that Constitution.
And yes, I AM an expert on being a dithering old fart, as anyone who knows me will tell you. You have to ask yourself, however, how come that after 33 years service to my country in some very nasty places I have survived to become this old and dithering.
As for a civilian picking up a black rifle to defend your country or the rights and freedoms of anybody else in THEIR country, why Sir, every man and woman that has ever put on the honorable uniform of a soldier was a civilian before they were ever military.
Are you telling me, and the other members of this forum, that YOU would not pick up a gun to defend your rights and those of your fellow Americans?
Or would you mock those who have done so and will continue to do so, no matter what shite they draw down on their heads from their so-called leaders?
Shame on you, Sir, shame on you.
tac
Well said, sir! Well said!!
(As for being “flexible”, the last I looked the 2nd Amendment has had no new amendment precede it)
Brian Donovan said:
Shame on me, sir? Shame on you! I was merely playing along with your childish game of making fun of people names. If you wish to discuss and argue your political points, I suggest we do so without the ridiculous name calling.Defend my country? Sure I would. Just as my grandfather, whose name I took, proudly did in the Pacific during WWII. Though I may question this country’s involvement in VietNam, I have never questioned the honor of my uncle who served there. Now, do I believe we need to arm every man, woman and child in this country to defend it? Absolutely not! I even question your phrasing of the second amendment as an “immutable (not subject or susceptible to change) statement about the American way of life”. The Constitution has always been a flexible document in many ways, hence its strength and sometimes weakness. Even the wording of the second amendment - “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.” is a bit ambiguous and open to several interpretations. Even with a conservative slant on those words, the term “well regulated” still stands out. Yet your beloved NRA is an organization that fights any regulation even those that would deter mentally unstable individuals from getting firearms easily. To that, sir, I say shame on you, as it is a clear infringement on my “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
-Brian
Dear Mr Donovan - please advise this poor son of an immigrant furriner, whose knowledge of English is obviously lacking, just what part of the words ‘shall not’ are open to interpretation.
The name ‘O’Barmy’, came straight from the American press, BTW, when his genealogist proclaimed that Mr Obama had Irish blood and ancestry. As a furriner, moroever one with extensively mixed ancestry, I personally would not dream of mocking anybody’s name or ethnicity, but I’m quite comfortable quoting an American source who does.
tac
Steve Featherkile said:
Brian,I guess the biggest difference between you and I is that you view the Constitution as “flexible,” and I don’t.
In what way is the Constitution flexible? Is the amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote, “flexible?” If so, how? How about the one abolishing slavery? Is that one “flexible.” If so, how? How about Freedom of the Press? Is that "flexible? " If so, how? How about the Constitutional qualification for the Office of President? Is that “flexible?” If so, how?
You can’t cherry pick which part of the Constitution you want to be “flexible.” Just because it is momentarily inconvenient does not mean that it is “flexible.”
" How about Freedom of the Press? Is that "flexible? " The most famous instance is probably the free speech cases just after WWI, in which the Supreme court decided that freedom of speech could be infringed if the was a “clear and present danger” that the speech might bring about substantive harms. See Schenck vs. US. The Constitution does not quibble about free speech, and in fact it seems pretty absolute on the question, but the free speech cases have been used to suppress politically unpopular speech ever since.
In one of the cases, the socialist labor leader Eugene Debs was arrested for telling a group of workingmen that they were being drafted into WWI to protect the interests of big business. He was arrested under the Sedition Act for hindering the draft and sentenced to ten years in jail. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction (see Debs vs US)
So in that sense yes, the Constitution has been “flexible.” It mentions no limits on freedom of speech but the courts have established the principle that the government may limit speech if the speech is likely to have an effect. Conservatives generally favor this particular piece of flexibility. It’s also the intellectual foundation of “hate speech” legislation, which conservatives tend to like less.
As has been pointed out, flexibility is also built into the US constitution through the Amendment process
mike omalley said:Yep - flexible enough to ban grog, flexible enough to reinstate it.
As has been pointed out, flexibility is also built into the US constitution through the Amendment process
Depending on your point of view, “flexible” could be replaced by another word or words. Doesn’t change the Constitution’s flexibility at all.
Getting back to the topic, there was a report today in Perth’s only daily paper that the Obama camp was “over the moon” about John McKain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
That surprises me. Is that what you’re hearing?
Dave,
The best I can come up with is that the Democrats were flanked by McCain’s selection and totally caught off guard. They are working hard to regroup and defend their positions, but they were definately sucker punched.
The “over the moon” statement was the talking point cover of “we welcome any and all challengers”. If nothing else, the contest has become more interesting.
Dave Healy said:
........................Getting back to the topic, there was a report today in Perth’s only daily paper that the Obama camp was “over the moon” about John McKain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
That surprises me. Is that what you’re hearing?
Dave,
Some of the “foreign press” here in the GWN is of the opinion that it’s a wash, but provides the Democrats with enough new and additional points to slam. In their opinion it will be very interesting!
Best cartoon of last week (local rag):
Obama says “We had a careful look at what the Republicans have that we were lacking” … “So we added an old guy!”
Dave Healy said:mike omalley said:Yep - flexible enough to ban grog, flexible enough to reinstate it.
As has been pointed out, flexibility is also built into the US constitution through the Amendment processDepending on your point of view, “flexible” could be replaced by another word or words. Doesn’t change the Constitution’s flexibility at all.
Getting back to the topic, there was a report today in Perth’s only daily paper that the Obama camp was “over the moon” about John McKain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
That surprises me. Is that what you’re hearing?
I’m sure they were caught off guard. I think even the Republicans were surprised by McCain’s pick.
They are probably a bit worried about the female vote. At the same time, as has been mentioned, it removes McCain’s “experience” weapon from the arsenal.
As for the “attack dog” Joe Biden…I’m sure he will concentrate on John McCain now since the Dems can’t play the experience card with Palin.
Ralph
More on “troopergate” from the AP.
Monegan was fired in July, after he declined a transfer to become the director to the state’s alcohol control board.
At the time Palin said she wanted the department to move in a new direction. But later, after Monegan said he felt pressured to fire Wooten, Palin at a news conference said Monegan wasn’t a team player, didn’t do enough to fill trooper vacancies and battle alcohol abuse issues in rural Alaska.
Palin said Monegan didn’t do enough to battle alcohol abuse in rural Alaska…but was going to make him director of the state’s Alcohol Control Board?
This doesn’t “smell” good to me.
And before you blast me for being a liberal again…I did have some kind words to say about the lady in a previous post.
Ralph
Dave Healy said:
[Getting back to the topic, there was a report today in Perth's only daily paper that the Obama camp was "over the moon" about John McKain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.That surprises me. Is that what you’re hearing?
What does “over the moon” mean down under? Beyond a few initial comments there has been little coverage of it. Its a big 3 day holiday weekend (Labor Day today) here and most of the news has been about Hurricane Gustav making a bullseye for New Orleans. Gustav has made landfall as a disorganized category 2 storm (only a 2 out of 5) so it is unlikely to do any major damage. The only other news is Gustav throwing a wet blanket on the Republican convention that was supposed to start tonight. They should be able to get the party going tomorrow.
-Brian
McCain took a lot of people by surprise with this choice, dems and republicans alike. Rush Limbaugh had been high on her for a while, so the dittoheads are happy which is good for McCain as they were less than energized. She’s very far to the right, which will probably alienate most centrist voters
I think it was a bold and possibly reckless gamble by McCain. As far as I can tell, he did very little vetting before he named her. There’s the trooper gate thing, which will probably be resolved before the election. It’s pretty clear from what I’ve seen that she pressured Monegan to fire the trooper, who looks to have been a bum–I’ve seen the email she wrote him calling for the guy to be fired. There are some really stunning things in her story–for example, she says that while she was pregnant with her youngest kid, her water broke when she was in Texas for a conference. She gave a 30 minute speech, then boarded a plane for Seattle , then flew to Anchorage, then drove to the local hospital. I was present when my wife’s water broke and she went into extremely painful labor shortly after–it’s hard to see how you choose not to go to the hospital right away, or how you sit on two commercial jetliners while in labor. I guess she’s just tough.
I suspect that she will be a plus for McCain overall, because she’ll motivate base voters who were weak on him before
If her biggest sin is this “troopergate” thing, I can live with that. After all, she was his boss and the buck stops at her desk.
Ken Brunt said:
If her biggest sin is this “troopergate” thing, I can live with that. After all, she was his boss and the buck stops at her desk.
Palin’s probable biggest shortcoming is being so new to the political scene she hasn’t had the time to read her required Republican reading -
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n214/altterrain/forums/DickCheney-ATL.jpg)
-Brian
Yikes! She just announced that her daughter, 17, is pregnant. She made the announcement, she says, to stop rumors that she was not really the mother of her youngest child.
Huh?
surely the way to stop those rumors would be to simply produce the child’s birth certificate?–not to make your 17 year old daughter the object of the media’s hideous gaze? Obama had to produce his birth certificate–remember all that flap?
If I were every to run for office–god forbid–there is no way in hell I would use my kids as props, they way they ALL do. My family wuld be of camera and off limits.
Has there ever been a shotgun weddin’ in the White House’s rose garden before? :lol:
-Brian