Dem Vs Republican

>>Aaaaaaaand here we go...

:)

"Nobody expects the Protestant Inquisition!"

cars, I'm waiting for your opinion on the differences.

But when boiled down... there are really more similarities between the two parties (Dem vs Rep) than differences.  They both have huge stakes in maintaining the status quo, and keeping the public distracted by their petty squabbles.

agree

Agree as well.

It boils down to how you interpret the US Constitution.  Democrats interpret it loosely while Republicans interpret it tightly.

Democrats believe in higher taxes to support their ever growing government while Republicans believe in lower taxes and less government.

Democrats want the citizens to rely on government for virtually everything because that is how they stay in power by making promises for this and for that, while Republicans want citizens to be self-sufficient and rely on their rugged individualism to support themselves instead of relying on the government for everything.

Democrats typically loathe the military and US power that it has so they try to diminish it by cutting its funds and go around apologizing to each and every single country that has ever existed, while Republicans typically take pride in the strength of our country and our military and thus keep funding it.

Below is a rough draft of how our political system is right now:

extreme far left (Progressive), Democrat, Center, Republican, Conservative, extreme far right (Libertarian).

Today's Republican are yesterdays Democrats, and today's Democrats are Progressives, which is basically the slow road to Communism.  That is how much the pendulum has shifted in the last forty or fifty years.  I think JFK would consider himself a Republican if he looked at what the Republican party has stood for the ten to fifteen years, and he would probably consider the Democratic party as Socialists or even Communists.

Tlingit wrote:
Today's Republican are yesterdays Democrats, and today's Democrats are Progressives, which is basically the slow road to Communism.  That is how much the pendulum has shifted in the last forty or fifty years.  I think JFK would consider himself a Republican if he looked at what the Republican party has stood for the ten to fifteen years, and he would probably consider the Democratic party as Socialists or even Communists.

I was going to respond and argue some of your points, but since you said this you redeemed yourself. :)  This I agree with completely.  IMO, both republicans and Democrats are to the left of center.  The dems further left a little bit.  Beetos would be an example of extreme left, and I an example of extreme right.

>>...Republicans want citizens to be self-sufficient and rely on their rugged individualism to support themselves instead of relying on the government for everything.

What about those that cannot. They aren't rugged. They never learned the skills or had the education. etc.

Hmm.  Ron Paul is running for the Republican presidential ticket.  Ron Paul is a libertarian, and the sanest of the folks (possibly the only sane one) on the stage at recent Republican debates.  The rest of the candidates sit somewhere to the right (and down on the chart into dimension X into insanity) of Dr Paul.  In my opinion, the Republicans as a group have shifted somewhere to the right of Libertarians.

Members of both parties interpret the US Constitution in whatever manner necessary to make them more powerful.  That's more of a similarity than a difference.

Both parties want the US to be more powerful, and not fall apart on their watch.  Sane members of both parties believe, for example, that the large financial institutions can not self regulate.

JFK pushed the US government to send a man to the moon.  The previous Republican administration was pushing the US Government to send folks to the moon again, then to Mars.  The Dem administration scrapped that proposal, and is working to privatize the whole launch system.  (A position that pushes me solidly away from the Dems, unless they can make that proposal bear fruit.)  Point being, neither party has a lock on the concepts of Socialism, or Communism (which is an economic system, not a political system btw.)

>>Democrats typically loathe the military and US power that it has so they try to diminish it by cutting its funds and go around apologizing to each and every single country that has ever existed, while Republicans typically take pride in the strength of our country and our military and thus keep funding it.

If the troops were coming into our country and invading, or something like that, then pretty much democrats and republicans would agree the military should fight to defend this country.

What the democrats don't like is us going into other countries for special interests (oil).

I understand we are spreading democracy and fighting terror at the source, but the argument is that we are just there never ending and pouring money into it.

Defend our soil is fine, but it's the other soil we always fight over that is the issue with democrats.

We used to be good at ending wars. Now we are only good at starting them.

>>Ron Paul is a libertarian, and the sanest of the folks

Ron Paul is great on economic issues, but he loses all credibility on foreign affairs.  The world is too dangerous and would be more so letting Iran get a nuclear weapon.



>>What the democrats don't like is us going into other countries for special interests (oil).

And they won't let us drill here.  B Hussein O'carter and the dems have done everything possible not to allow us to tap our own resources.  They have a stated goal of bankrupting the coal industry.

Democrats stand for...

-high energy prices
-wealth redistribution
-success punishment
-illegal immigration amnesty
-decreased moral values
-high unemployment
-health care premiums increases
-weakening of the military
-fake global warming science
-high deficits at a state and federal level
-appointing judges that legislate from the bench
-unions that weaken the job market and push jobs overseas

>>What about those that cannot. They aren't rugged. They never learned the skills or had the education. etc.

I quote from Unforgiven :
Gene Hackman,"You just shot an unarmed man."
Clint Eastwood, "Well he should have armed himself."

I hate to sound brutal and uncaring like Clint Eastwood (I personally like Eastwood movies), but I am really not, those who are not educated need to learn the life skills and education on their own dime and not on mine.  Anyway what concern is it of mine that someone is not educated?  If you can't afford it work for it.  I had to.  Nobody gave it to me on a silver platter.  I worked at 7 Eleven from 11 at night to 7 in the morning and then went to class for 8 to 10 hours and slept for four hours; it was hard but if that is what you have to do, then that is what you have to do.

> And they won't let us drill here.
"President Barack Obama on Saturday announced new plans to speed up domestic drilling for oil."

Of course, if that's not allowing folks to drill here, I'm forced to assume that means the Reps are for simply applying an even coat of oil over the entire planet.  

> success punishment
Oh, you missed that one.  Dem's tend to be anti-death penalty.  Rep pro-death penalty.  So, I suppose if success = anti-death, you're on to something.  (Personally I'm pro-sterilization penalty AND pro-death penalty... but I don't see candidates from either party courting my vote.)

> illegal immigration amnesty
Well, I guess that proves it.  Ol' Ron Reagan was a Dem.

> decreased moral values
To the extent that they believe in the separation of church and state.  The Rep believe they can legislate morality.

> health care premiums increases
Actually, the Dem's plan included a provision under which I got an option which health care provider/ insurance provider I wanted to use.  That's double the options I have now.  Right now, there is no competition for me purchasing health care... I get to go with whatever my employer offers me.  Obviously therefore, the Rep are therefore anti-capitalism!

> fake global warming science
Of course, in comparison, Rep believe all science is fake.
Rep candidates still argue that Evolution is fake science too.  If we are gonna generalize, I suppose I'll just lump all them Reps in with the Flat Earthers.

>>To the extent that they believe in the separation of church and state.

Show me where it says that in our Constitution.  Democrats hate God, love to protect the guilty, and love to kill unborn babies.




>>Of course, if that's not allowing folks to drill here

The Obama administration plans to announce on Thursday it will explore a new route for a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, delaying a final approval beyond the 2012 U.S. election, sources briefed on the matter said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/10/us-usa-pipeline-idUSTRE7A64O920111110

Senate rejects GOP bill to expand, speed up offshore drilling
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/161939-senate-rejects-gop-bill-to-expand-offshore-drilling

Offshore Production to Drop 13% in 2011 Due to Obama Ban
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576050451696859780.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

Barack Obama reverses on offshore drilling
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45803.html

Obama administration reimposes offshore oil drilling ban
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/obama_administration_will_ban.html

Obama: We’ll bankrupt any new coal plants
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-well-bankrupt-any-new-coal-plants/

>>Actually, the Dem's plan included a provision under which I got an option which health care provider/ insurance provider I wanted to use.

Yes, I am sure it does, but how are we to pay for it?

>>Rep believe all science is fake.  Rep candidates still argue that Evolution is fake science too.

I think you need to back these claims up.  I personally like science.  It's very intriguing.

>>The Rep believe they can legislate morality.

Another claim that needs to be backed up.  You just can't throw things out there and hope people will believe what you say.  We believe that you should be allowed to practice whatever religion you want, and this stance has always been true since the founding of our nation.  Most of the time the Republicans are just counter arguing the liberal stance on issues and then they get blamed for trying to force our values or beliefs on everybody when in reality we are trying to keep our values being stripped away.

>>success punishment

This has more to deal with business then the actual death penalty.  Liberals like to punish the rich or successful business through taxes and a lot of regulation.  "Let's take them for all they are worth," is pretty much the Liberals logo.

>>Of course, if that's not allowing folks to drill here, I'm forced to assume that means the Reps are for simply applying an even coat of oil over the entire planet.  

Once again blown out proportion and I assume you truly believe this.  Republicans typically want our country to be oil independent, which means drilling in our own country, instead of paying another country to drill in their country and making them rich, or importing form the Middle East.  So obviously if we drill here we will not cover the whole earth with oil, that is geographically impossible.

CarsRST wrote:
but he loses all credibility on foreign affairs.  The world is too dangerous and would be more so letting Iran get a nuclear weapon.

Where in the Constitution does it say we are supposed to be the world's policemen?


TLingit wrote:
but I am really not, those who are not educated need to learn the life skills and education on their own dime and not on mine.  Anyway what concern is it of mine that someone is not educated?  If you can't afford it work for it
COMPLETELY agree

please, this is exactly the type of selfish thinking that irks me about republicans. "oh if I can do it, others should be able to as well!" there a lot of people out there who cannot do it, and have to rely on the government for help. the elderly, the poor, people with disabilities are just a few examples I can give out. My girlfriend, who is severley disabled, relies on services provided by the state to perform basic everyday routines. you really going to tell me she doesnt deserve this because life dealt her a crummy hand? i'm certainly glad you're not in any kind of position of power to lead this country....

So WE the taxpayers are responsible for her?  I'm sorry but that's a load of crap.  WE are not responsible for others defects/disabilities.  There used to be plenty of charities and organizations that took care of these people.  There are volunteers that do this full time.  PLEASE show me in the Constitution where it says the federal government is responsible for people's disabilities.  I dare you.

This is the problem with both dems and repubs.  They forget that the CONSTITUTION is the law of the federal government.  This feel good help everybody crap is NOT in the Constitution.  IF you want to go help people, go do it on your own time and your own dime.  People should have a choice in who they help and when.  They shouldn't be forced to.  It's one of the reasons this country is bankrupt.

Oh where to start...lets see...how about here:

>>>>To the extent that they believe in the separation of church and state.

>>Show me where it says that in our Constitution.  Democrats hate God, love to protect the guilty, and love to kill unborn babies.

Separation of church and state means that we wont force you to pick our religion. Why this is so hard to understand, I have no idea.

Many in my family are dems and none hate God, kill babies, or any of the other stereotypes you throw on them. Stop using the few to represent the many.

>>The Obama administration plans to announce on Thursday it will explore a new route for a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, delaying a final approval beyond the 2012 U.S. election, sources briefed on the matter said.

Obviously Obama is against domestic drilling. Many dems are. I'm not.

>>Gene Hackman,"You just shot an unarmed man."
Clint Eastwood, "Well he should have armed himself."

What a waste of money this whole police force thing is in every municipality. Who thought of that scam?

>>Democrats stand for...

-high energy prices
-wealth redistribution
-success punishment
-illegal immigration amnesty
-decreased moral values
-high unemployment
-health care premiums increases
-weakening of the military
-fake global warming science
-high deficits at a state and federal level
-appointing judges that legislate from the bench
-unions that weaken the job market and push jobs overseas

Nice list of what their beliefs might accomplish to you, but not mostly a list of what they believe.

To steal from Ollie north...

Republicans believe in  of freedom of religion.

Democrats believe in freedom FROM religion.

>>This feel good help everybody crap is NOT in the Constitution

Any chance the founding fathers just didn't include it, but it might be a good idea? You know, ,the whole society working together to advance, including the lesser able half. They added things in the Bill of Rights, and many amendments.

If the Constitution explicitly stated "Help those who cannot help themselves" would that make this less of a country to you. Would you leave?

LOL, the bottom line is people, religion  has nothing to do with party lines.  The problem arises when politicians let religion dictate the laws/regulations they want to put in place.  For example let's look at abortion.  BOTH sides are wrong

Republicans want to ban abortions.  I'm sorry but that removes the rights of an individual to do what they decide is best.  Until there is a universally accepted definition of when life begins there is no arguing with whether abortions are legal, thus they should be allowed.

Democrats want to allow tax-payer funded abortions for everyone.  I'm sorry that's wrong too.  MY money should not be going to something I do not believe is moral or accepted.  Abortion should NOT be tax-payer funded in any way.  No where in the Constitution does it mention abortion or medical care being the responsibility of the federal govt nor something taxes are supposed to be collected for.

If the Constitution explicitly stated "Help those who cannot help themselves" would that make this less of a country to you. Would you leave?
If it said that then I would allow the Federal Govt to get involved.  My issue is the govt spending taxpayer dollars in places the Constitution does not give them permission to.

@CCSOFlag

really? money is that important to you than a group of peoples well-being? no wonder republicans are stereo-typed as being morally bankrupt. its called being part of society, working together, living together in harmony, all that hippie stuff you probably think is BS.

early on in the 20th century (and before that as well), many people thought the same thing about people of color. most were poor, uneducated, contributing very little to society. so there was this thing called racism that held back this group of people from having the same opportunities as white people. this barrier was then broken down (finally!) and people of color were finally given opportunities they didnt have, with some help from their fellow members of society. what a concept!

>>>>>PLEASE show me in the Constitution where it says the federal government is responsible for people's disabilities.  I dare you.

have a look at the ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act. In essence, it says people with disabilities have the same rights as people without disabilities.

>>have a look at the ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act. In essence, it says people with disabilities have the same rights as people without disabilities.

I thought the ADA didn't say we have to help the disabled. It is there to make sure they are treated fairly and they are not discriminated against because of their disability.

>>If it said that then I would allow the Federal Govt to get involved.  My issue is the govt spending taxpayer dollars in places the Constitution does not give them permission to.

Again...Would that make this less of a country to you. Would you leave?

>>Republicans believe in  of freedom of religion.

>>Democrats believe in freedom FROM religion.

Doesn't 'freedom of' include 'freedom from'?

>>Any chance the founding fathers just didn't include it, but it might be a good idea? You know, ,the whole society working together to advance, including the lesser able half.

Russia tried it but it failed.  Even the first pilgrims tried it.  They tried communal property, where everybody shared.  But they slowly started finding out there were people who didn't want to work so it failed.  After three years they changed to private property and they started to flourish.  The following is an excerpt from the article below:

Having tried what Bradford called the “common course and condition”—the communal stewardship of the land demanded of them by their investors—Bradford reports that the community was afflicted by an unwillingness to work, by confusion and discontent, by a loss of mutual respect, and by a prevailing sense of slavery and injustice. And this among “godly and sober men.” In short, the experiment was a failure that was endangering the health of the colony.

William Bradford also said this:

At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6580

>>>I thought the ADA didn't say we have to help the disabled. It is there to make sure they are treated fairly and they are not discriminated against because of their disability.

i was responding to this:

>>>>>PLEASE show me in the Constitution where it says the federal government is responsible for people's disabilities.  I dare you.

the government does have to protect disabled people from being discriminated against, yes. but they are also responsible for making public services available to people with disabilities. thats where I was going with this

> >>Rep believe all science is fake.  Rep candidates still argue that Evolution is fake science too.

> I think you need to back these claims up.  I personally like science.  It's very intriguing.

I didn't know you were a Rep candidate for the Presidency.  Congrats!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/michele-bachmann-intelligent-design-evolution_n_879618.html

Actually, I don't need to back that up any more than CarsRST has to back up his list of opinions.  It's my opinion response to the claim that Dems are for fake global warming science.  (Or should I have simply assumped reps are for global warming?  Are they counting on profits from Beach resorts in Prince Edward Islands?)

> Another claim that needs to be backed up.  You just can't throw things out there and hope people will believe what you say.

Go back and read the first three words in the original question.
Yeah... if he's gonna toss out any random lunacy, I can toss any random lunacy back.  Nothing needs backed up, eh?

We can go on... Dems are for Birth Control.  Dems want potential parents to have the choice to chose whether to have children.  Reps are for more unwanted pregnancy.  Reps are for the birth of more children of rapist.

> Republicans believe in  of freedom of religion.
Reps believe you are free to choose THEIR religion.

> Democrats want to allow tax-payer funded abortions for everyone.  I'm sorry that's wrong too.  

Can we get tax-payer funded sterilization passed instead please?  Do you somehow think having the gov't raise unwanted kids for 18 years, or having juvinile criminals running around will somehow be CHEAPER than a single medical procedure?  I don't want to pay to raise those kids!!  And the Reps don't believe in Birth Control or Sex Ed!

And I can honestly say, I don't promote tax-payer funded abortions for everyone.  I sincerely believe men should be completely banned from that program.  That should drop the program cost by half.  (Someone might need to explain that to the Reps in the back who don't believe in science.)

>>At first I thought this was an interesting topic for discussion, then I realized that Cars has created another thread whereby he can bash Democrats.

Well, Beetos, come on, it's so easy to do.

CCSOFlag,
"PLEASE show me in the Constitution where it says the federal government is responsible for people's disabilities."

I'll take that one...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Federal government is not responsible for people's disabilities, but we as a nation do recognize that, as a whole, we do have a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves.  The problem is that there are far too many who would take advantage of our generosity to the point where it creates cynics such as yourself who decide it's better to help no one at all rather than to give to those who don't need it.

You seem to have this irrational belief that if it's not in the Constitution then the Federal government has no say.  This is not the case at all.  The federal government, specifically congress, has the ability to make laws to govern the masses.  This is in the Constitution (Article I Section 8).  They can make any law they see fit, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution (Article I Section 9), nor violates any state's laws (as per the Tenth Amendment).

Perhaps, before you start spouting off anymore "It ain't in the Constitution" posts, you might want to consider joining an eighth grade civics class for a semester.

> Why are gas prices still so high?

Oooh... ooh... I got that one!
Cars already said the Dems have the goal of making energy expensive.  (Making oil expensive might not be a bad idea, because it spurs investment into alternate energy sources... at a short term economic detriment.  If there was ever such a policy, I suspect everyone has distanced themselves from it.. at least until the economy recovers.)  So, the feds government put this HUGE tax on gas.  It's.. umm... $0.184/gallon.  Wait... that's about 5%.  The cost of the raw materials is... umm... another 25% or so.  And assume 50% kickback... ummm... wait, call it a campaign contributions to the Reps, and a very reasonable 20% profit for the oil companies.

> Cars has created another thread whereby he can bash Democrats.

Yes, but when you realize that... and you don't have a horse in the race... it's SOOO much fun to bash back.

>>Well, Beetos, come on, it's so easy to do.

It sure is Tling, especially when you ignore reality and re-write history.

> It sure is Tling, especially when you ignore reality and re-write history.

But can you back that up with his artificial reality?  Remember, since they've tossed out science, ya can't use that either.

>>And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number.

Government assigned them land! Socialists pigs!

>> then I realized that Cars has created another thread whereby he can bash Democrats.

Just relax, Beetos.  See Razmus statement below.

it's SOOO much fun to bash back.

AnthonyRusso,
Doesn't 'freedom of' include 'freedom from'?

No.  The issue is that some people have taken the text of the Constitution, in this case the First Amendment, and redefined some words so that they can change the original meanings.

Have a look:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This is the first phrase of the First Amendment.  It says nothing about either "freedom from" nor "freedom of".  It simply states that Congress shall make no law that either establishes a (national) religion, nor can they make a law that prevents anyone from exercising their religion.

Some people suggest that, by having a judge display the Ten Commandments in a court room, or a local government displaying a Nativity on the courthouse lawn, then Congress is establishing a religion (specifically Christian).  Even though Congress never actually passed any law.

So they go to court to force the judge to remove the plaque, and the city to remove the Nativity.  

But if simply the act of displaying these constitutes a de facto law establishing a religion, doesn't a judge ordering their removal also constitute a de facto law preventing the free exercise of a religion?

beetos,
At first I thought this was an interesting topic for discussion, then I realized that Cars has created another thread whereby he can bash Democrats.

And, it would seem from reading the thread, also give Democrats an equal opportunity to bash Republicans.

> I think you need to back these claims up.  I personally like science.  It's very intriguing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/mayor-bloomberg-denounces_n_1076879.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html
"Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us. "

http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php

Is that proof?  No of course not.  You can't prove one person's option about another group of people.  Not even with the option of several other people who should be 'in the know.'  I'm glad you like science.  Your presidential candidates DON'T.

>>And, it would seem from reading the thread, also give Democrats an equal opportunity to bash Republicans.

Yes, sir.   :)

leonstryker,
" "any law they see fit" is just not the case, as proven numerous times by the Supreme Court. "

The Supreme Court can strike down a law only if it is in violation of the Constitution (which is what I said).  Other than that, it cannot touch the law as per the separation of powers.

> And, it would seem from reading the thread, also give Democrats an equal opportunity to bash Republicans.

And I would submit to you that all those who bash Republicans are not necessarily Democrats.

>promote the general Welfare,

This phrase in the Constitution is included as the reason for writing the document and as a power given to Congress. It in no way justifies things like Universal Healthcare or Social Security.

>>The Supreme Court can strike down a law only if it is in violation of the Constitution


Since when do Democrat appointed judges care about the Constitution?

Judge Sotomayor :

We Make the Law, Oops I'm Not Supposed to Say That

>>"any law they see fit" is just not the case, as proven numerous times by the Supreme Court. "

>The Supreme Court can strike down a law only if it is in violation of the Constitution (which is what I said).  Other than that, it cannot touch the law as per the separation of powers.

I agree, but your original statement "any law they see fit" implies that they can make any law, and are not bounded by the Constitution.

>We Make the Law, Oops I'm Not Supposed to Say That

To a certain degree that is correct. Judicial Law is alive and well in the US mostly in cases where the Congress does not want to deal with an issue which they deem to be too sensitive politically.

> Actually Constitution (Article I Section 8) is pretty specific in what the Congress CAN do. If it is not specifically listed then they do not have the power to do so.  "any law they see fit" is just not the case, as proven numerous times by the Supreme Court.

Right... and originally the constitution actually had provisions in it supporting slavery.
And some people in the Federal Government eventually thought this was a bad idea.
But some states though it was still a good idea.
And we had a great big war.  And lots of people died.
And America became a better, stronger place in the end.

#DECLARE $DIETY {<diety_or_dieties_of_your_choice> | <NULL_diety> }

$DIETY Bless America!

>>Judicial Law is alive and well in the US mostly in cases where the Congress does not want to deal with an issue which they deem to be too sensitive politically.

1.  It's not their role.
2.  They do from the bench what they can't push through legislatively.

>Right... and originally the constitution actually had provisions in it supporting slavery.
>And some people in the Federal Government eventually thought this was a bad idea.

Thus the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

carsRST,
Since when do Democrat appointed judges care about the Constitution?

That's your response?

leonstryker,
I agree, but your original statement "any law they see fit" implies that they can make any law, and are not bounded by the Constitution.

There were more words after "any law they see fit".  You should read the entire post, not just until you get to an arguing point.  Any inference you got from my statement should have been dispelled with the words after the comma.

>>That's your response?

Yep.   See the Obama appointed quote I posted after backing up that comment.

carsRST,
1.  It's not their role.
2.  They do from the bench what they can't push through legislatively.

Both those statements are true.

So, what are you going to do about it?  Whine about Democrats?  Some of those judges were put on the bench by Republicans

>1.  It's not their role.
>2.  They do from the bench what they can't push through legislatively.

1. It is a common practiced which we as a nation inherited from Great Britain as part of Common Law.  If the Founding Fathers did not want that, they could have chosen to go with the Civil Law, or we can do so now again thru and Amendment.

2. There is no they about it. It is being done by both sides (although more so by the Dems at the moment). If you do not like it then force the Congress to do the job they suppose to. Judicial Law does not supercede Congressional Law.

>> It is a common practiced ?  

So is rape, stealing....??  It's not their role.  They swear to uphold the Constitution.  

>There were more words after "any law they see fit".  You should read the entire post, not just until you get to an arguing point.  Any inference you got from my statement should have been dispelled with the words after the comma.

They can make any law they see fit, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution (Article I Section 9), nor violates any state's laws (as per the Tenth Amendment).

Your whole sentence implies that Congress has the power to implement any law that is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution, while in actuality their ability to make laws is rather narrow in what is specifically listed in the Constitution. It is in fact this difference which is the basis of so many Conservatives cries of "show me where they are allowed to do so in the Constitution".

>It's not their role.  They swear to uphold the Constitution.

It is their role. Judicial Law fills the gaps where politicians dare not tread. If it was not them then who?

> >>The Rep believe they can legislate morality.

> Another claim that needs to be backed up.  You just can't throw things out there and hope people will believe what you say.  We believe that you should be allowed to practice whatever religion you want, and this stance has always been true since the founding of our nation.  Most of the time the Republicans are just counter arguing the liberal stance on issues and then they get blamed for trying to force our values or beliefs on everybody when in reality we are trying to keep our values being stripped away.

So lets look at this one shall we?

Lets break down what areas we are talking about.  Cars started with
> [DEMS are for...] decreased moral values

Normally this translates as:
Permitting homosexuals not to be prosecuted under sodomy laws.
or
Permitting homosexuals not to be beaten as they go about their daily lives.
or
Not permitting homosexuals who love each other and wish to make a life commitment to make a life commitment in a legally meaningful way.
or
Allowing women who are raped to not carry children created in the violence to term.
or
Allowing women who will die in childbirth, not to die in childbirth.
or
Allow young adults who are in the heat of puberty to learn about safe sex.
or
Allow adults access to birth control
or
Allowing potential parents to choose whether to be parents.
or
Allowing terminally ill folks the option to end their suffering on their own terms.
or
Allowing certified sane folks* the option of ending their lives.

So... there is no way to PROVE an opinion.  Given that I'm a self described moderate, and an Ex-Republican and have never been a Democrat, I'll toss out there MY opinions:

- Homosexuals should be subjected to the same shackles of marriage as hetrosexuals.  No, that doesn't mean I want to see men kiss on BBC though, I'm still just as likely to turn the channel in disgust.  (I'm sure there's a market though... I'm just one guy voting with my remote.)

- Lust is a biological response for which humans are hardwired.  NOT teaching children about sex is the equivalent of giving children explosives and matches and blaming them when they blow up the house/their siblings/themselves.  

- ANY issue of a persons own body, and their life belongs to THEM.  Yes, I understand the whole 'it's another potential life' issue... but unless you want the baby transplanted into YOUR body, it's not YOUR issue.  If someone wants to die for reasonable reasons... that pass a reasonable person test... they should be able to pay someone for assistance in doing so.

Attempts to legislate AGAINST these issues is, IN MY OPINION, an attempt to legislate morality.

So, Tlingit... is that 'BACKED UP' of my opinion enough for you?

* No, I don't have an answer for what 'sane' means.  I realize that would have to be debated by 'mental health care professionals' and the community at large before an agreement concerning it's meaning might be.

>>Judicial Law fills the gaps where politicians dare not tread.

Where do you get that?

leonstryker,
"Your whole sentence implies that Congress has the power to implement any law that is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution"

That is true.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

>>And I would submit to you that all those who bash Republicans are not necessarily Democrats.

I'm independent. I get to bash everyone! MUHAHAHAHA!  :)

> >And some people in the Federal Government eventually thought this was a bad idea.

> Thus the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

No, no... you got the order wrong.  We had the great big war, and laws were passed, and a president made proclamations and lots of people died.

THEN we had the 13th Amendment.

Change happened.

THEN folks updated the supporting document.

And, again, America is stronger because of it.

@Daddy
really? money is that important to you than a group of peoples well-being?
I never said whether or not I would help these people.  I said the government has no right to FORCE us to.  

no wonder republicans are stereo-typed as being morally bankrupt.
That's funny because I usually hear it the other way around.  Dems being the morally bankrupt ones.

its called being part of society, working together, living together in harmony, all that hippie stuff you probably think is BS.
And where in there did you mention the federal Government?  No where, because it's left to the people who make up society.  They should work together, live together in harmony.  As for those who don't want to live with anyone, why should they be forced to?  Why can't they choose to live in the middle of nowhere with no one bugging them?  Do they not have rights?  Just because YOU think it's nice to live with people in harmony doesn't mean everyone does.  Some people can't stand humans, and would rather live with dogs.  At times I don't blame them.

this barrier was then broken down (finally!) and people of color were finally given opportunities they didnt have, with some help from their fellow members of society. what a concept!
Having the same rights is a lot different than getting money from the government.  I don't agree with any money handouts no matter your status, race, sex, etc.

have a look at the ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act. In essence, it says people with disabilities have the same rights as people without disabilities.
I'm still waiting to see where it says the federal government is responsible for them.  I never said they shouldn't have the same rights.  All citizens should.  Just because they have the same rights doesn't mean we are supposed to give them monetary hand outs.


@Anthony
Again...Would that make this less of a country to you. Would you leave?
I thought I did answer.  If the constitution said they were supposed to give money to disabled persons, then I would have no problems with it.


@Razmus
Can we get tax-payer funded sterilization passed instead please?
No that's goes against rights as well.  And if you look at the nation's history we did at one time.  And it's still on the books in most states.

Do you somehow think having the gov't raise unwanted kids for 18 years
They shouldn't be raising them to begin with.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say they are supposed to be.

having juvinile criminals running around will somehow be CHEAPER than a single medical procedure
We have juvenile criminals because of lack of parenting, not because of anything to do with government.  The government just keeps creating laws, and the criminals just keep breaking them.  OMG, imagine that.  

I don't want to pay to raise those kids!!
Neither do I, nor should I be required to.

And the Reps don't believe in Birth Control or Sex Ed!
OMG really?  I didn't realize.  Last I heard they didn't believe in TAXPAYER FUNDED birth control and REQUIRED SEX ED in public schools.  I agree with both.  Sorry a school shouldn't be showing my kids how to put condoms on.  That's the parents' responsibility.  If they fail, that's their problem.  The government can't fix stupid.  They are too stupid to begin with.  It's the blind leading the blind.

I sincerely believe men should be completely banned from that program.
Wow, that is such an intelligent argument.  Thanks for that.  I think we are all smarter now.  Where have you been all these discussions.  We've need your wisdom and knowledge.

> Wow, that is such an intelligent argument.  Thanks for that.  I think we are all smarter now.  Where have you been all these discussions.  We've need your wisdom and knowledge.

I know.  The fact that you keep posting questions with the exact same goal displays how much you've needed me.  I can't believe you manage to get yourself dress in the morning.

Well, thanks all for an intense, albeit quick discussion.

I'm outta here now.

>>"Your whole sentence implies that Congress has the power to implement any law that is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution"

>That is true.

>To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

But, it is not the case. They have the ability to issue any Laws which are specifically enumerated to them in the Constitution, and not Laws which are not prohibited. Big difference.

@Clif
Sorry you are taking the statement out of context.  They created the constitution to Insure and promote those.  They never said the fed government was responsible financially for them.

The Federal government is not responsible for people's disabilities, but we as a nation do recognize that, as a whole, we do have a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves.
Moral or political?  We do not have a government responsibility to anything that has to do with the disabled persons.  Now I will give you a moral responsibility to help people.  I'll go with you to help that disabled guy who can't get in his chair.  But for the government to pay for it with my tax money?  nope, sorry.

The problem is that there are far too many who would take advantage of our generosity to the point where it creates cynics such as yourself who decide it's better to help no one at all rather than to give to those who don't need it.
Granted that's a BIG problem I have with it, but I don't agree with wealth distribution in ANY form.

The federal government, specifically congress, has the ability to make laws to govern the masses.  This is in the Constitution (Article I Section 8).
I don't see where it says they can make any law they want to govern the masses.  I do see where it GIVE them powers and it says they are allowed to do certain things with those powers.  I don't see anything there about people with disabilities.

They can make any law they see fit, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution (Article I Section 9)
Um, where does it say that specifically?

I do see in Section 8 where it says:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
From what I see, it says only laws to carry out the FOREGOING powers, which means the ones before this statement.  Which would be the powers in section 8.  I don't see where it says they can make any law they want.

nor violates any state's laws (as per the Tenth Amendment).
Boy that's a joke.  They do it all the time.

Perhaps, before you start spouting off anymore "It ain't in the Constitution" posts, you might want to consider joining an eighth grade civics class for a semester.I did sir, and it appears I know it better than you do.  Be careful when you want to try to slander people in that way.

I have yet to see any statement giving them the right to take money from tax payers to pay for the disabled.  I see plenty for paying for navy, militia, postal service, etc.  But sorry nothing about disabled persons.

leon wrote:
Actually Constitution (Article I Section 8) is pretty specific in what the Congress CAN do. If it is not specifically listed then they do not have the power to do so.  "any law they see fit" is just not the case, as proven numerous times by the Supreme Court.
Exactly.  I'm glad someone else knows their Constitution.

Clif wrote:
But if simply the act of displaying these constitutes a de facto law establishing a religion, doesn't a judge ordering their removal also constitute a de facto law preventing the free exercise of a religion?
Nicely put, and I agree.  People should be able to display what they want.  I have yet to see a law saying we all have to be muslim, Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, etc.  Thus the first amendment has not been violated just by displaying the ten commandments.

Razmus wrote:
And America became a better, stronger place in the end.
Do you have proof of this?  Do we know how it would have been if the outcome was different?

Permitting homosexuals not to be prosecuted under sodomy laws.
...
or
Allowing certified sane folks* the option of ending their lives.
You can have all those rights.  Just not when they are tax-payer funded.

NOT teaching children about sex is the equivalent of giving children explosives and matches and blaming them when they blow up the house/their siblings/themselves.  
Not the government's responsibility.  It's parents/family that should be doing it.  Not any tax-payer funded department.  You know as well as I do not every will agree with commonly taught contraceptive methods.  Some go against certain religions.  This even includes Abstinence.

ANY issue of a persons own body, and their life belongs to THEM.  Yes, I understand the whole 'it's another potential life' issue... but unless you want the baby transplanted into YOUR body, it's not YOUR issue.  If someone wants to die for reasonable reasons... that pass a reasonable person test... they should be able to pay someone for assistance in doing so.
I agree, just not tax-payer funded.

Attempts to legislate AGAINST these issues is, IN MY OPINION, an attempt to legislate morality.
completely agree.

Well, thanks all for an intense, albeit quick discussion.

I'm outta here now.

LOL, some people can't handle opposition.  

Razmus wrote:
The fact that you keep posting questions with the exact same goal displays how much you've needed me.

Um, I didn't post this.  Cars did.

One is the elephant in the room - the other is an ass.

>>At first I thought this was an interesting topic for discussion, then I realized that Cars has created another thread whereby he can bash Democrats.

Beetos, do you have a hard time with Democrats being criticized?  Is this why you don't like Fox News?

I have a hard time with the same old tired one sided argument that ignores facts and reality, is vehemently opposed to other points of view, and retorts to reasoned debate with ridicule and inaccurate blanket statements.

That's why I don't like Fox News.

Criticize Dems all you want, I'll even pile on, just make sure the criticism is warranted and not just blind partisan outrage and indignation.

Google the Olmstead Act - it basically says the government does have to provide services to the disabled instead of putting them in an institution. So ya, it is the law. I'll address your other points tomorrow

Can we put Pelosi in an institution?

>>Can we put Pelosi in an institution?

Sorry, Bachmann already has the room.

>>Can we put Pelosi in an institution?

Sorry, Bachmann already has the room.

ROFL

Google the Olmstead Act - it basically says the government does have to provide services to the disabled instead of putting them in an institution. So ya, it is the law.
Aye, but there is a difference between providing services or making things accessible and giving monetary hand outs to disabled peoples as (sorry forgot who) claims the government should do and does.

Another difference...

Democrats rely on voter fraud to win elections.



Indiana 2008 Presidential Primary Election Fraud Probe Heats Up
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/07/indiana-2008-presidential-primary-election-fraud-probe-heats-up/?test=latestnews


More Acorn Voter Fraud Comes to Light (anyone know who was an acorn attorney?)
Congressional Democrats still want the group to be eligible for federal money.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html




Democrats need fraud in order to win elections.  This is why they hate requiring an ID to vote.

Democrats push back against voter identification laws
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/1/democrats-push-back-against-voter-id-laws/

The Indiana primary is under investigation, and if there was fraud as suggested, the perpetrators should be prosecuted.  

That being said, there have been NO documented cases of voter fraud, despite what Republicans say.  They're drumming up this fear so they can implement new voter registration laws in an attempt to disenfranchise voters who are likely to vote for democrats.

Look at the videos of people trying to get state ID's at the DMV in Wisconsin.  


Acorn was guilty of nothing other than being the victims of a smear campaign.

>>the perpetrators should be prosecuted.  

Or lose the next presidential election.



>>Acorn was guilty of nothing other than being the victims of a smear campaign.

On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year. Larry Lomax, the registrar of voters in Las Vegas, says he believes 48% of Acorn's forms "are clearly fraudulent." On Thursday, prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year's general election.

Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007.

Again, voter fraud and Democrats go hand and hand.  This is why Democrats are against requiring an ID to vote.

You're confusing "Voter Registration Fraud" with "Voter Fraud", which are two entirely different things.  

Acorn has been investigated, and cleared of any wrongdoing.  In fact, Acorn reported the potential fraud THEMSELVES as they are required to do by law.

It's ok Cars, I know you wouldn't know that because Conservative news outlets would never report such a thing.  I'm sure you've seen the edit "sting" videos of Acorn, but did you ever see the full version, which shows what actually happened?  Of course not, because Fox likes to pretend that version doesn't exist.

Another difference is Democrats fear offending Muslims at the expense of national security.


WH classifies Fort Hood massacre as 'workplace violence'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/


"There is no terrorist threat"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ8rpcgCoi4


Obama supports plan for mosque near ground zero
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/nation/la-na-obama-mosque-20100814



Nancy Pelosi:
"Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct. Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal."

>>Democrats rely on voter fraud to win elections.

Bush/Gore in Florida. Nothing fishy there?

>>Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal."

And she is right. I admit that based on past statistics there might be a greater chance a muslim will be a terrorist on an airplane, but when we revert to racial profiling, this country is no longer "the land of the free". It becomes a police state and based on the racial profiling in airports, someone black will be able to be pulled over and searched by cops anytime anywhere as being a potential criminal because jails have proportionately more blacks than whites in them in relation to the population of the country.

Judging by your avatar complexion carsRST, would that be an inconvenience you would want you or your kids to live with?

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december022011/bill-rights-ends.php

In a stunning move that has civil libertarians stuttering with disbelief, the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America.

This bill, passed late last night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a "battleground" upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity.

Does this seem right to you?

>>but when we revert to racial profiling, this country is no longer "the land of the free".

Israel does it and it works.  TSA just raped three old ladies.



>>would that be an inconvenience you would want you or your kids to live with?

I'm all for a statistical approach to solving issues.

>>I'm all for a statistical approach to solving issues.

So if you were black, (which you never mentioned but based on the complexion of your avatar, I am using that example), would you be fine if you, or your wife was pulled over routinely while at the mall to get patted down.

And your children and possibly whole family?

Is that the country you want to live in?

>>Is that the country you want to live in?

 I'm ok with cops using profiling to protect the rest of us.  I don't fit the profile.

>> I'm ok with cops using profiling to protect the rest of us.  I don't fit the profile.

You do if you are black. You statistically fit the profile of a criminal element.

So if your mother/wife/kids or you is stopped at every store entered and checked on the way in and out, that is fine for you?

>So if your mother/wife/kids or you is stopped at every store entered and checked on the way in and out, that is fine for you?

No its not, but the mistake most people make is that this is how the Israelis do it. Israelis do not profile based on race, but rather on patterns of behavior and questioning.

>>No its not, but the mistake most people make is that this is how the Israelis do it. Israelis do not profile based on race, but rather on patterns of behavior and questioning.

So if your mother/wife/kids or you is stopped at every store entered and questioned on the way in and out, that is fine for you?

>So if your mother/wife/kids or you is stopped at every store entered and questioned on the way in and out, that is fine for you?

If the pattern of their behaivor is such that it requires them being stopped and questioned, then yes, I would be ok with that.

If the pattern of their behaivor is such that it requires them being stopped and questioned, then yes, I would be ok with that.
Agree

>>If the pattern of their behaivor is such that it requires them being stopped and questioned, then yes, I would be ok with that.

I agree with that as well, however, this was brought up in response to the statement that racial profiling should be used in airports (specifically muslims should go through extra security).

So if this happens due to not behavior, but due to nothing but racial profiling, would that be acceptable to you?

Again, this is not about airports, but just black people stopped at stores or wherever because statistically there is a higher % of blacks in jail than the % in the general population. If it is decided that based on that figure, blacks tend to have a higher chance to be criminals, would this be acceptable to you?

>So if this happens due to not behavior, but due to nothing but racial profiling, would that be acceptable to you?

No, it is not ok based on nothing but race.

>>No, it is not ok based on nothing but race.

So is it OK to profile muslims in airports in this way?

I look forward to CCSOFlag and carsRST and Tlingit answers on this.

When exactly did people decide that the constitution should be interpreted literally word for word? Is the constitution the word of God given to man and deemed infallible because of that?  Or was the constitution written by men and thus a document that can be open to interpretation?  Personally I am in the camp that believes the constitution is much like the people who wrote it.  It is a living, breathing document that must be interpreted in the context of the times when it was written and in the context of present day, so that the intent of the writers can be upheld as best we can do now.
Yes, some of you will say, "But you can amend it if you think it is wrong."
Congress can't pass the simplest laws due to partisan gridlock.  How do you expect them to pass a constitutional amendment?  How many of you remember the Equal rights Amendment? Go back a few years, 70's - 80's.  It was such a radical idea.  Make an amendment to the constitution that says women have the same rights under the law as men.  Couldn't get it ratified.
So, is that what you want?  An inflexible constitutional document that is incapable of changing with the times.  This will lead to an inflexible society that is incapable of changing with the times.  That is a prescription for a society doomed to fail.
I would prefer a living,breathing constitution that can be interpreted in the context of the world today and allows for the fact that circumstance and society change over time, and the principals that govern them must also.
Or we could just revert to Judaic law and stone offenders who wear mixed cloth shirts and eat the wrong food.

Well said sbdt8631.

Congress can't pass the simplest laws due to partisan gridlock.  How do you expect them to pass a constitutional amendment?

It is not supposed to ne "interpreted" to be whatever someone wants it to be.  Yes there needs to be an amendment.  That's the point!  It's not SUPPOSED to be easy to change the rules set by our founding fathers.  Look where it's gotten us...  Closer and closer to a socialist society.  The opposite of what they wanted.

So is it OK to profile muslims in airports in this way?

I look forward to CCSOFlag and carsRST and Tlingit answers on this.

They don't profile muslims anyways.  You can't tell by looking at someone if they are a muslim.  It's what they are wearing.  It's a lot easier to hide something in robes, than it is bootie shorts and spaghetti strap.  That I don't have a problem with.  But then again I say do away with all the security they have anyways.  Go back to the basic stuff they had.  Metal detectors and XRays.  Not worth it imo.

>>They don't profile muslims anyways.

That is correct, but the argument has been made that they should. Not about robes or anything. Even in jeans and t-shirt, they should be given nextra security checks just because they are muslim.

What is your thoughts on this?

Another difference is Democrats hate free speech.
They'd do anything to silence Limbaugh, Fox News, Hannity, and any other conservative outlet.

See Beetos' posts as evidence.  Or follow Media Matters.  See the Fairness Doctrine.

What does it take to get a straight answer out of a conservative???

So is all if your avoidances of the question mean you do or do not mind all black people getting searched/questioned a lot based on nothing but race?

>>What does it take to get a straight answer out of a conservative???

When a fish is out of water...

Whether they're red, yellow, black or white, and a cop sees someone in a nice area who they think or knows doesn't belong, I'm fine with the po-leece stopping them to investigate.  

It's not so much the color but where they are and how suspicious they look.  All the cops are doing is investigating.  

Reminds me of my old NWA days and these lyrics..

"You'd rather see, me in the pen
than me and Lorenzo rollin in a Benz-o"

>>Whether they're red, yellow, black or white, and a cop sees someone in a nice area who they think or knows doesn't belong, I'm fine with the po-leece stopping them to investigate.  

What you just described is not racial profiling and I also believe this is the way it should work.

What you quoted from Nancy Pelosi above though was racial profiling. A completely different reason to stop and investigate someone.

So again, for the umpteenth time since those on these forums who seem to support muslims being checked extra in airports now being pressed up on it are using every chance to skew it to real investigation:

Do you think a muslim, in american clothes with no other suspicious activity should be checked extra by security in an airport? Do you think blacks should be checked extra in stores? What is the difference if the stopping is based on only race?

If you need a way out of the corner, perhaps something like "Muslims should be treated like everyone else in an airport just like blacks should be treated like everyone else in stores" might be a good response (if that is what you believe.)

Anthony wrote:
What does it take to get a straight answer out of a conservative???
If this is directed to me, I apologize.  I'm not trying to skirt around anything.  I've always been straight up.  Sometimes I don't explains things the best way though.

What is your thoughts on this?
Profiling is acceptable as long as there is a reason to do it.  That is the ultimate rule as far as I'm concerned.  So I'll explain this, since people aren't liking the answers given.  If there is a crime committed by ANY individual with a description, whether this is race, clothing, religion, etc profiling is acceptable for these specific conditions to find who this person is.  

To apply it to an airport, if there is a KNOWN threat (such as intelligence saying that there is someone attempting a hijacking, bomb, etc), then it is ok to profile these people in the airport.  A lot of the time we do not KNOW about any sort of intelligence the government (including the TSA) has, so we are too quick to judge when we do see them profiling out people who look like Muslims.  Now, if there is no KNOWN threat, there should not be any profiling going on.  At this point it should be done by simply watching those coming in.  For example checking the people with robes, dresses, etc.  They require you to take coats, hats, etc off so they can look at you to make sure you are not carrying anything that could be threatening.  When you don't or can't take those things off (robes, dresses, turbans), then yes you should be pulled out so they can investigate further.  Typically it is Muslims that I see wearing the robes, thus it's going to appear they are being singled out to some.

Does that sufficiently answer your question?

As far as blacks being pulled over, it should adhere to the same rules as I said above.  If there is a crime that was committed that had a description of a black person, you betcha, pull every one of them over in that area.  But if it's across the country, then no they shouldn't be allowed to profile like that.  Profiling should be a local matter as in where the crime happened or is where the threat of the crime is to take place.

>>To apply it to an airport, if there is a KNOWN threat (such as intelligence saying that there is someone attempting a hijacking, bomb, etc), then it is ok to profile these people in the airport.

>>If there is a crime that was committed that had a description of a black person, you betcha, pull every one of them over in that area.

The difference in your two examples are that in the latter you mention the race in the threat, but in the former you do not.

So I ask you, if there is no known race in either, do you profile muslims in regards to the bomb, and blacks in regards to the crime?

The difference in your two examples are that in the latter you mention the race in the threat, but in the former you do not.
In the first example I had, you can throw any religion, race, sex in there.  If there was intelligence saying that a muslim was going to bring a bomb on board, then yes let them pull aside every muslim they can find passing through the checkpoints.

So I ask you, if there is no known race in either, do you profile muslims in regards to the bomb, and blacks in regards to the crime?
If there is no known race then no you don't profile a race.  That's pointless.  Now on the other hand, if you have a string of hijackings/bombings happening by Muslims, but there is no specific threat on the next day, you can profile Muslims.  This is probably where most people are saying to profile them because of the Sep 11 incidents.  To me that is not enough to profile Muslims.  That's just like saying we need to profile all whites because of the OKC bombing.  A once in a while incident is not enough to warrant any sort of profiling.

The idea of profiling muslims in airports is a very conservative viewpoint.
I don't know about that.  I think it's just more of an aggressive stance, I've talked to both Dems and Repubs who support this.  I really do not think this has anything to do with political parties.   A true conservative is not aggressive militarily.  They tend to want a strong military, but not be aggressive with it.  For example T Roosevelt was a conservative and he believed in "Speak softly and carry a big stick".  I'm a believer in this, as Ron Paul is as well.  A true conservative does not believe the Constitution gives us the power to go police the world.  The military is supposed to protect us from danger, not aid us in political wars.  Political wars should be fought with paper and pen, not with bullets.

If you disagree, but call yourself conservative, then perhaps you are being a bit more independent. Thinking for yourself on an issue as opposed to whatever your party seems to want to do. Perhaps the beginning of a bridge to understand the other side a bit more, even if you choose not to side with them.
The problem is I only classify one republican candidate as truly conservative.  That's Ron Paul.  Republicans are more center now, and Democrats are quite a bit left of center.  IMO, a true conservative is actually a Libertarian.  So I think maybe we define conservative different is why there is some confusion on what I believe.  My definition of the spectrum is a 100% conservative believes in personal rights/responsibility meaning everyone is responsible for themselves only from a political stand point.  The government doesn't provide for individuals.  Then a 100% liberal believes in Republic Socialism essentially.  Everyone is provided for by everyone else via the government.


And it's not a problem.  In the political realm there is no winning a debate.  It's mostly opinion and preference, thus it's impossible to win.  

Excellent explanations CCSOFlag.

I still am wondering where cars stands on the issue, and a few of the others.

I believe when I am referencing conservatives/liberals I am equating them too republican/democrats as in today's political parties. This is probably my error as they are not true representations, but the most common accepted form of the views.

I believe that anyone who does side with Ron Paul is more of an independent thinker than any of the other candidates. It would take a very independent mind to accept some of what Paul suggests. I think he would  win the race if the repubs gave him the nomination actually.

As much as they dislike his views, they would vote for him instead of Obama in a heartbeat. The independents would most likely go towards him as well, and he could probably pull a few of the dems.

The Repubs though will never give him the nomination because he will never win the primaries and his ideology seems to scare the hell out of them as well.

I do think it would be an interesting race with Paul though, and an even more interesting presidency.

I believe when I am referencing conservatives/liberals I am equating them too republican/democrats as in today's political parties. This is probably my error as they are not true representations, but the most common accepted form of the views.
Yea, I do not classify a Republican as Conservative any more.  I think it has just turned into a comparative system.  The majority of Republicans are conservative compared to the majority of Democrats, but I think that's about where it ends.  If you are creating new agencies for example (Homeland Security by Bush), you are not a conservative in my eyes.  You are center.  Conservatives are exactly that, conservative with government involvement.

I believe that anyone who does side with Ron Paul is more of an independent thinker than any of the other candidates.
Yes he is definitely a different cut than the others.  The others just seem like the same ol thing.  The same ol thing just isn't getting anything done for the country.  We need something that is going to shake things up and get people thinking.  The status quo has become detrimental to society, and I want to see some change.  We NEED change.  But I'm sure Romney (who I feel is quite center, and as much liberal as conservative) will win the nomination and we will once again be stuck with the status quo.

It would take a very independent mind to accept some of what Paul suggests.
To me it just requires a literal Constitutional approach to government, rather than those who decide to "interpret" the Constitution instead.  We've already discussed that a little bit.  Ultimately, Ron Paul ALWAYS goes back to the Constitution and what is says in reference to the legitimacy of an agency or law.  THAT is what I like about him.  I believe in STATE rights, rather than Federal rights as he does.  A lot of Democrats do as well, they just don't realize it.  Like for example abortion.  Dems are against a national ban on abortion.  Even Obama believes it should be left up to the states.  I think everyone has a little bit of Libertarian in them, some more than others.

As much as they dislike his views, they would vote for him instead of Obama in a heartbeat. The independents would most likely go towards him as well, and he could probably pull a few of the dems.
Yes, I do believe Paul would have the best chance of beating Obama.  For the following reasons:
1. The Republicans who vote for Republican no matter what are going to vote for him.
2. The independents and Libertarians are going to vote for him.
3. Since even Democrats have libertarian in them, some will vote for him.
4. The Republicans that don't like Obama are going to vote for him.

This encompasses MOST Republicans, pretty much all independents and Libertarians, and some Democrats.  But in the end, I can't see any Republican voting for Obama no matter the Republican candidate.  I think Obama is probably the most hated Democratic President ever by the Republican party.

The Repubs though will never give him the nomination because he will never win the primaries and his ideology seems to scare the hell out of them as well.
Unfortunately I think you are right.  But only time will tell.  I guarantee you there will be hell raised if he gets the popular vote, but someone else gets the nomination.

I do think it would be an interesting race with Paul though, and an even more interesting presidency.
I agree.  He may not be able to get much of his agenda done due to conflict in congress, but I think it's needed to get his ideas and thoughts out there in the open so people can start mulling it around.  Take the Fed for example.  He's been saying get rid of them forever and now it's finally catching on.  The same with the Department of education.  He was pretty much the first to be so outspoken about it, and it gaining steam.  Some of the other repub candidates are even running with that one.

>> I guarantee you there will be hell raised if he gets the popular vote, but someone else gets the nomination.

I would love to see this happen.

HAHA, I don't, cuz that means Paul wouldn't have gotten the nomination.  LOL  But yea I would too.  I think the electoral college thing was the one big mistake in the Constitution, but meh, what can you do?  Personally I think it should be amended to popular vote.

>> I think the electoral college thing was the one big mistake in the Constitution,

Careful man, someone might take that as an Independent thought.

HAHAHAH, very true.  I still try to figure out why they did it that way.  I don't understand how that's an advantage over popular vote.  

>I don't understand how that's an advantage over popular vote.

The founding fathers did not totally trust the masses, and wanted enlightened individuals to interceded on their behave.

Hmm, interesting.  Prolly rolling in the graves now since the "enlightened ones" base everything off political gain now.

>>Prolly rolling in the graves now since the "enlightened ones" base everything off political gain now.

That kind of sounds like how it turned out. Maybe they weren't all knowing and the constitution does need interpretation. Whose to say they were right about everything they put in the constitution.

That kind of sounds like how it turned out. Maybe they weren't all knowing and the constitution does need interpretation. Whose to say they were right about everything they put in the constitution.
I agree.  This is why they gave us the capability to amend the Constitution.  I don't agree with changing an interpretation though.  I think it just needs to be flat out changed without any questions/loopholes, etc, just as how the constitution was written.  Most of it is quite explicit as to what it says in my opinion.

>>Most of it is quite explicit as to what it says in my opinion.

But is it right? Is it outdated?

If our ass-backwards politicians can barely get a bill or budget together, you think they ever are going to get an amendment passed again?

Interpretation my be all that is left to get things right and/or modernized.

@Anthony
I definitely do not think the procedures to change/alter the Constitution are bad in wrong.  I think this is part of what they envisioned and is WHY they made it hard to do so.  Otherwise we'd have amendments every year then amendments to those every next year, and it's just go back and forth.  That's not a way to run a government.  Any changes definitely need to be a super majority which prevents this from happening.  If it doesn't have super majority support then obviously it's not such a great idea, thus shouldn't be implemented.  If you ask me, ALL bills should require a super majority, but that's not what the Constitution says.

The problem isn't the Constitution, it's the people who WE keep voting into office.  America needs to wake up and start voting competent people into office who can get stuff done.

No I do not think the Constitution is outdated by any means.  The problem is it's not followed any more, and I believe that's part of the reason we are in the mess we are in.  Too much Federal involvement when most of it should be up to the states.

>>The problem isn't the Constitution, it's the people who WE keep voting into office.  America needs to wake up and start voting competent people into office who can get stuff done.

But until that unicorn rides in, we get nothing done.

HAHAHAAH, yes I know, and believe me, it frustrates the dickens out of me.  BUT imo, it's not worth breaking our Constitution.  It made us a powerful (economically, militarily, socially, etc) nation at one time, and I just hope the squabbling and corruption can stop long enough so we can follow it once again to make us successful nation.

>>...and I just hope the squabbling and corruption can stop long enough so we can follow it once again to make us successful nation.

You have more hope than I do.

What stuff?
Ultimately following out what the constitution tells them to.  No less, no more.  They should be protecting our rights, rather than making so many laws and regulations.

I always use the example of when the feds forced all states to use 55 mph as the law of the land, is anything more stupid than that?
Yes, Just another example of how Fed govt is waaaaaay too big.  That was just stupid and over the top.

LOL at the rest of your post.

It's kinda funny, I work with a guy here that maybe even futher right than cars, but he runs a save the planet, plant a tree website.  Takes donations to plant trees in the donating persons name.  He doesn't really plant anything, he photoshops a picture and sends it back to the person.  He makes enough to make it worth his while.  I'll ask him "Don't you feel bad."  He says "I'm just giving the person a little piece of mind.".I guess a fool and their money are.......whats that saying again?

O.O  wouldn't that be illegal?

I'm a little slow sometimes connection the dots.......instead of getting that part time job, all I need to do is find a cause.  Lets see, save the earth (Taken), make oil (taken), take down bankers (taken), heathcare (taken), dand, they all seem to be taken, maybe one where I just bemoan all the injustices of our society, damn it!!  That's taken to by huffingtonpost.com.  Crap, didn't that just get bought out by AOL for $315 million.  Damn it's a good day to be a dem.

>>How about saving the moon from unscrupulous developers?

Hopefully the lameness of that website will deter anyone for falling for that crap.

Unfortunately I doubt it.

As if we needed one, but here's another reason why people hate Democrats.  
Solid proof Dems can't stand not spending and buying votes at the tax payer's expense.


Senate defeats rival balanced-budget amendments
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/199353-senate-defeats-rival-balanced-budget-amendments

Republicans of every stripe, from Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) to centrist Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), came down to the floor throughout Tuesday and Wednesday to express support for Sen. Orrin Hatch’s (R-Utah) plan, arguing it represented the last chance to keep the United States from falling into the sort of crisis in which Europe is currently embroiled.  

What do you expect from the party of NO.....We will spend as much as we want.

Further proof that democrats either (1) cater to the irresponsible or (2) want to encourage voter fraud in order to win elections.  I think it's a combo.

How could one object to requiring an ID?

Holder issues challenge to Texas on voter rights
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Holder-issues-challenge-to-Texas-on-voter-rights-2401340.php

>>I still am wondering where cars stands on the issue<<
Isn't the answer obvious now?

Another difference...

Democrats coddle evil.


Ex-President Carter sends condolences to Kim Jong-un
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/dec/21/ex-president-carter-sends-condolences-kim-jong-un/

(let's not forget it was Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter that gave NK nukes)



Biden: 'The Taliban Per Se Is Not Our Enemy'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-taliban-se-not-our-enemy_613579.html