US Politics Balboa (VII)

[Shryke]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1756106' date='Apr 15 2009, 14.42']DG,



I guess I'm glad I got my passport before the memo was issued given my, very public, views regarding Federal v. State power.[/quote]

:rofl: Oh Scot. It's FAR too late for you. We've already reported you to the Gestapo for Unamericanism. The jackboots are on their way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

[quote name='Shryke' post='1756152' date='Apr 15 2009, 15.12']:rofl: Oh Scot. It's FAR too late for you. We've already reported you to the Gestapo for Unamericanism. The jackboots are on their way.[/quote]

Oh, I'm certian Obama's DHS has a very thick file on me. They're just waiting to spring my avatar from the 2007 NHAW as blackmail.

;)

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1756150' date='Apr 15 2009, 12.11']Blauer - You are part of the paranoia fringe of the conservative movement. You've expressed a desire to see a smaller federal government and you really think the government is coming for you? I better warn Scot. They might be coming for him too.[/quote]
I don't really think that the government is coming for me, but I am not so naive that I would think it beyond the realm of possibilities. Just imagine how people would have reacted if W had suddenly downplayed the whole Islamic Jihadist angle he had going and had declared that the true threat to America was from the radical left extremists. Now imagine that he'd defined "radical left extremists" so loosely that virtually anyone who was not on the far right of the political spectrum would fit into that definition. All that I was trying to illustrate is that it is a dangerously slippery slope to allow the government to start defining those who do not go 100% 'with the grain" of the current regime (whoever that may be) as being "dangerous", "terrorist", "Extremist", or a "hate group". That's all.

[Shryke]

Except their not "defining" anyone. Unless you've got some sort of proof that a list is being compiled somewhere.

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1756165' date='Apr 15 2009, 12.27']Except their not "defining" anyone. Unless you've got some sort of proof that a list is being compiled somewhere.[/quote]
The quote that I provided above sure looks like a definition to me.

[The Iceman of the North]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1756169' date='Apr 15 2009, 21.30']The quote that I provided above sure looks like a definition to me.[/quote]
Read it again. What it does is divide right-wing extremists in the US in two groups. It does not say that everyone who's a racists is a right.wing extremist,

[Tempra]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1756071' date='Apr 15 2009, 14.12']Tempra, I suggest that anyone who uses the term "judicial activism" needs to re-think this entire issue. That term is a right-wing invention used to legitimize displeasure with this or that ruling. I am certain that some were similarly displeased with [i]Brown vs. Board of Education[/i], but that didn't stop George Bush, who supposedly hates "judicial activism", from praising that decision fifty years after its passage. I know a few attorneys who were shocked to see a conservative Supreme Court apply equal protection to an electoral recount, but conservatives got behind the results of [i]Bush vs. Gore[/i] all the same. It seems, therefore, a decision is judicial activism only when one disagrees with it.[/quote]


No doubt both sides engage in judicial activism. That does not make it acceptable.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1756084' date='Apr 15 2009, 14.25']To put it softly, because I am a conservative, and have espoused disapproval of the actions taken by my government, and because I have stated repeatedly that I would like to see the size and reach of the Federal govermnet reduced, I am in the group described. Now I think I know why they didn't close Gitmo down, they were saving it for use on Americans.[/quote]

I'd like to see an example of a conservative president who [i]actually [/i]reduced the size and scope of the federal government, and didn't just talk about it. I'm genuinely curious.

(Within the last thirty years, please. I'm not interested in what the Whigs might have done.)

[DanteGabriel]

For the right wing manufactured outrage brigade that is in full swoon on this thread, a news bulletin: DHS also circulated an internal memo about left-wing agitators.

[quote name='Greg Sargent']I've now obtained, however, an internal DHS assessment for law enforcement officials that sounds equally dire warnings about "left wing extremists." And it broadly defines these extremists as including people who embrace some components of "anticapitalist" or "antiglobalization" ideas.

...

Critics are upset with the right wing memo in part because it defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as not just hate groups but also ones that challenge the authority of the Federal government. The outcry has been so vehement that DHS chief Janet Napolitano is expected to address it today.

But the memo I've obtained describes "left wing extremism" as including people who "embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements." That seems equally sweeping.

Critics of the right wing memo also decry the description of "right wing extremists" as violence-prone. But the left wing memo -- which is dated January 26th -- also explicitly warns of violence from left wing extremists.[/quote]
[url="http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/obtained-dhs-memo-warning-of-left-wing-extremists/?ref=fp7"]http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/politica...emists/?ref=fp7[/url]

(Sargent post has link to the full memo)

See? Obama wants to go Ruby Ridge on ALL Americans. Not just you uniquely oppressed patriotic white tax-hating liberty-loving Americans.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1756179' date='Apr 15 2009, 15.38']No doubt both sides engage in judicial activism. That does not make it acceptable.[/quote]

Nor does that make it wrong. Judicial activism is a bullshit term, is my point. What's activist to you isn't to me, and vice versa. Very few Americans would today dispute Brown vs. Board of Education, but you'd better believe that was not the case fifty years ago. Activism is very context-related and very much in the eye of the beholder.

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1756182' date='Apr 15 2009, 12.38']I'd like to see an example of a conservative president who [i]actually [/i]reduced the size and scope of the federal government, and didn't just talk about it. I'm genuinely curious.

(Within the last thirty years, please. I'm not interested in what the Whigs might have done.)[/quote]
I'd like to see [i]ANY[/i] President reduce the size and scope of the Federal government... Within the[i] next [/i]30 years, please?

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1756161' date='Apr 15 2009, 15.24']I don't really think that the government is coming for me, but I am not so naive that I would think it beyond the realm of possibilities. Just imagine how people would have reacted if W had suddenly downplayed the whole Islamic Jihadist angle he had going and had declared that the true threat to America was from the radical left extremists. Now imagine that he'd defined "radical left extremists" so loosely that virtually anyone who was not on the far right of the political spectrum would fit into that definition. All that I was trying to illustrate is that it is a dangerously slippery slope to allow the government to start defining those who do not go 100% 'with the grain" of the current regime (whoever that may be) as being "dangerous", "terrorist", "Extremist", or a "hate group". That's all.[/quote]
You mean like terrorist-loving Defeatocrat surrendermonkeys who loved Saddam, wished to provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and wanted America to lose in Iraq?

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1756191' date='Apr 15 2009, 12.41']You mean like terrorist-loving Defeatocrat surrendermonkeys who loved Saddam, wished to provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and wanted America to lose in Iraq?[/quote]
Now I think that you and I might be nearing the same page. I didn't like it with Bush, and I am getting very nervous to see it continuing and expanding under a President that is supposed to be the polar opposite of Bush. It makes me (Cringe) wonder what President Palin will do with it when she takes office in 2012.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

[quote]For the right wing manufactured outrage brigade that is in full swoon on this thread, a news bulletin: DHS also circulated an internal memo about left-wing agitators.[/quote]

Out of curiosity, am I part of the "right wing manufactured outrage brigade" you are refering to? If so please see:

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1756156' date='Apr 15 2009, 15.16']Shryke,

Oh, I'm certian Obama's DHS has a very thick file on me. They're just waiting to spring my avatar from the 2007 NHAW as blackmail.

;)[/quote]

BTW how does "manufactured outrage" differ from genuine outrage?

[Shryke]

President Palin???? :rofl:


Regardless, considering Domestic Terrorism generally goes up during democratic administrations, turning an eye to it is a good idea.

[Tempra]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1756033' date='Apr 15 2009, 13.45']But "original intent" is largely irrelevant because shit CHANGES. ALOT.

The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example. People focus on the "Militia" part because that, to many, seems to be the purpose of it. And yet, could your Founding Fathers have conceived of the kinds of weapons that would be available to it's government in this modern age and how these weapons would fundamentally change the way war works? I don't think so.

Should we be looking at the specific historical context of the Constitution, which would be the original intent? Or should we be looking at the original intent of that historical context?

Were your Founding Fathers trying to establish a Gun-Wielding Militia? Or were they trying to establish a Militia that was capable of something, and at the time guns were the way to accomplish that?[/quote]


I disagree that the founders could not have imagined modern guns. They knew technology evolved and could have foreseen that there would be advancement in guns, but that is besides the point. Yes people focus on the "militia" because it is in the second amendment. That is why you need to look at the ORIGINAL INTENT to determine whether the founders envisioned an individual or collective right to owning guns. All nine justices agreed that the original intent was an individual right.


And no, the second amendment does not create a blank slate for individuals to own nuclear warheads, submarines, or assault rifles. States can pass restrictions on gun ownership and the USSC can interpret whether those prohibitions run afoul of the second amendment. That is exactly what happened in DC v. Heller. D.C.'s gun prohibition was virtually absolute and effectively removed the second amendment rights of citizens. That is why it was shot down. NO ONE on the court said that the second amendment gives free reign to bearing ANY arms.

Hopefully D.C. v. Heller put the final nail in the coffin of the collective right nonsense that was espoused mostly by lay people as law profs mostly gave up that argument years ago. Now the USSC can get back to its duty of intrepreting HOW MUCH of a right individuals have and not WHETHER individuals have a right to bear arms. The WHETHER individuals have a right to bear arms question is for the legislature and NOT the courts to decide.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Tempra' post='1756213' date='Apr 15 2009, 15.54']I disagree that the founders could not have imagined modern guns. They knew technology evolved and could have foreseen that there would be advancement in guns, but that is besides the point. Yes people focus on the "militia" because it is in the second amendment. That is why you need to look at the ORIGINAL INTENT to determine whether the founders envisioned an individual or collective right to owning guns. All nine justices agreed that the original intent was an individual right.[/quote]

Richard Beeman, a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, recently said that trying to divine the will of the founders is a nearly impossible task, given that they rarely agreed amongst themselves. You can listen to him talk about this and his new book[url="http://www.whyy.org/cgi-bin/newwebRTlookup.cgi"] here[/url].

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1756207' date='Apr 15 2009, 15.52']Out of curiosity, am I part of the "right wing manufactured outrage brigade" you are refering to?[/quote]
No, I am talking mostly about Blauer and WQ. The Fairness Doctrine hasn't come up in this current DHS brouhaha so I don't consider you one of the malcontents yet. ;)

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1756207' date='Apr 15 2009, 15.52']BTW how does "manufactured outrage" differ from genuine outrage?[/quote]
Because it's a whole lot of McVeigh-like rhetoric that's been kicked up by some hamfisted and not really all that threatening DHS memos, memos that, I must point out, have targeted both extremes of the political spectrum. I'm not denying that there may be a lot of people out there like Blauer who feel outraged, but I contend that their outrage is being stoked up beyond reasonable proportions by people like Rush Limbaugh who are profiting off all the ruckus they're kicking up.

The right wing echo chamber has been manufacturing one crisis after another to pin on Obama for months now. The persistent pissing and moaning from the right about "cuts" in the military budget when Obama has actually submitted a Pentagon budget with a 4% increase in spending is a perfect example. I don't know where they get the energy. Perhaps they could put that energy into coming up with original solutions instead of knee-jerking into accusing Obama of being StalinHitlerMaoKhomeini with everything he does. Then again, after 30 years of Reaganite intellectual bankruptcy, with the movement's future based on a whole generation of useless little homeschooled reality-bubbled choads who matriculated through Patrick Henry University and Bob Jones University and other McJesus Myrmidon academies, perhaps there really are no ideas left on the right.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

[quote]No, I am talking mostly about Blauer and WQ. The Fairness Doctrine hasn't come up in this current DHS brouhaha so I don't consider you one of the malcontents yet.[/quote]

Don't worry, I'm sure Pres. Obama is just waiting to wax his [i]evil[/i] moustashe (Muahaahahaha) and attack my right to scream about the growth of Government here in Ranland.

:P

[Tempra]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1756186' date='Apr 15 2009, 15.40']Nor does that make it wrong. Judicial activism is a bullshit term, is my point. What's activist to you isn't to me, and vice versa. Very few Americans would today dispute Brown vs. Board of Education, but you'd better believe that was not the case fifty years ago. Activism is very context-related and very much in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]


Can the judiciary never overstep its bounds and usurp legislative functions? I agree that "judicial activism" is thrown around by a lot of conservative politicians trying to get elected, but that does not mean that there are no legitimate gripes about the judiciary.