McCain backs Obama's call for 'stand your ground' review

[Chucktshoes]

Assuming he can, so what? How exactly does that change anything? :screwy:

Why it means is that your so called proper action was completely meaningless. It sent no message other than that is ok acceptable to vote on whether or not to strip people of natural rights. My position is that the vote itself was illegitimate that was the message of those filibustering, we don't take a vote on constitutionally acknowledged rights.

[tnguy]

Hell, Mike...all the third-parties in 2012 combined didn't even quite get 1% of the vote!  I guess they really showed those wrascally Republicans didn't they! ;)

 

I suppose however, that, if in each election cycle, these meaningless third parties garner a few more votes, in about 1,000 years they may be getting enough votes to actually get attention.   :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

 

Haha, yeah... Those funny people with their ideals and principles. Losers. TEAM RED!!! or blue. Just pick one, doesn't matter which.
 

Edited August 9, 2013 by tnguy

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hell, Mike...all the third-parties in 2012 combined didn't even quite get 1% of the vote!  I guess they really showed those wrascally Republicans didn't they! ;)

 

I suppose however, that, if in each election cycle, these meaningless third parties garner a few more votes, in about 1,000 years they may be getting enough votes to actually get attention.   :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

 

Otter: I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.

-- Animal House

[E4 No More]

:lol: Really?! That's the best you got? You don't understand my position at all do you? I don't believe in war adventuring in other countries. I do believe that when we are directly attacked by another country the proper response is to go in and lay waste to everything we encounter Old Testament style until they surrender completely. Then we go home and leave them to clean up the mess they caused. For example, I would have seen us never engage Iraq, but Afghanistan would still be glowing in the dark. Get the idea?

No, YOU don't understand. Taxes, (that were "stolen" from us), and invested in the military is what made us strong to where no other country wants to directly engage with us. Or perhaps you don't recall our military using wooden rilfes and machine guns and trucks sporting signs that read "Tank" on them to train with before we entered WWII?

 

EDIT: Part of the reason so many soldiers died in the Phillipines, BTW.

Edited August 9, 2013 by SWJewellTN

[tnguy]

Being an economic powerhouse that could turn that power to war and swat other countries like a bodybuilder could swat a little girl was responsible for that. Unnecessary military spending and other economic waste has drained that power drastically and made America vulnerable.

[E4 No More]

Being an economic powerhouse that could turn that power to war and swat other countries like a bodybuilder could swat a little girl was responsible for that. Unnecessary military spending and other economic waste has drained that power drastically and made America vulnerable.

Really? They pulled the technology out of their butts magically when needed, huh?

[RobertNashville]

Why it means is that your so called proper action was completely meaningless. It sent no message other than that is ok acceptable to vote on whether or not to strip people of natural rights. My position is that the vote itself was illegitimate that was the message of those filibustering, we don't take a vote on constitutionally acknowledged rights.

Your position?  You can assume any position you wish but it won't change anything.

 

I don't really care if you think it's "acceptable" or not. Please show me in the Constitution or rules of Congress that say a bill introduced in Congress (Senate or House) regarding your "natural laws" is verboten? Unless you can point to such a clause in the Constitution/relevant document then it doesn't matter what your position is because a legitimate bill was introduced according to the law of the land, was sent to the floor and then defeated...call that meaningless...call that anything you want; I'll call that a WIN.

Edited August 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Haha, yeah... Those funny people with their ideals and principles. Losers. TEAM RED!!! or blue. Just pick one, doesn't matter which.
 

It does matter, certainly not as much as it should and most certainly not as much as I would like it to matter but it does matter...it's a party taking less than 1% of the vote in 2012 that doesn't matter.

 

If folks want to vote for the Libertarians, the Greens, the "Roger Rabbit party" or whatever that's fine. It's folks thinking that doing so is actually accomplishing something is rather funny.

[Chucktshoes]

Your position?  You can assume any position you wish but it won't change anything.
 
I don't really care if you think it's "acceptable" or not. Please show me in the Constitution or rules of Congress that say a bill introduced in Congress (Senate or House) regarding your "natural laws" is verboten? Unless you can point to such a clause in the Constitution/relevant document then it doesn't matter what your position is because a legitimate bill was introduced according to the law of the land, was sent to the floor and then defeated...call that meaningless...call that anything you want; I'll call that a WIN.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother having the same argument with you over and over and over. You think it is perfectly acceptable to use government force to rule over people's lives. I don't. To me, you, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Corker and Alexander are all the same. I give up. Not because I think you made a better argument, or that I can't continue to present my views to counter yours, but because our presuppositional world views prevent us from actually bringing forth any fruitful discussion. I'm bored with it at this point. I'm gonna go have a beer.

[RobertNashville]

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother having the same argument with you over and over and over. You think it is perfectly acceptable to use government force to rule over people's lives. I don't. To me, you, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Corker and Alexander are all the same. I give up. Not because I think you made a better argument, or that I can't continue to present my views to counter yours, but because our presuppositional world views prevent us from actually bringing forth any fruitful discussion. I'm bored with it at this point. I'm gonna go have a beer.

What I think is perfectly acceptable is when Congress follows the rules of their body that flow out of the Constitution. I suspect that if Madison or Jefferson wanted to preclude even the possibility of a bill being introduced regarding a particular subject(s) they would have put it in the Constitution somewhere; but maybe I'm just being silly.

 

So keep making your snide insults by likening me to Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Corker and Alexander or whoever...I've come to expect them from Libertarians/libertarians when I don't fall down and genuflict at their special political insight. However, until you can show me in the Constitution why that bill could not be introduced, let alone voted on and defeated, your argument has no substance (which is probably why you resort to insults).

 

Enjoy your bear.  :cheers:

[JAB]

If folks want to vote for the Democrats or Republicans that's fine. It's folks thinking that doing so is actually accomplishing something any more than voting for a third party is rather funny.

 

FIFY.

Edited August 9, 2013 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

It does matter, certainly not as much as it should and most certainly not as much as I would like it to matter but it does matter...it's a party taking less than 1% of the vote in 2012 that doesn't matter.

If folks want to vote for the Libertarians, the Greens, the "Roger Rabbit party" or whatever that's fine. It's folks thinking that doing so is actually accomplishing something is rather funny.

FIFY.

You know; doing that kind of thing is really irritating...what you quoted is not what I said and you damn well know it. Whether it's done as a joke or for whatever purpose, I'm surprised the admins allow it. Edited August 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JAB]

 If I recall correctly, you are Libertarian aren't you? Tell you what, I say recall all our military and put them on the southern border (after they've taken back all the land oo OUR side of the border that the drug lords now have control of) and then close our border and stop the invasion. Oh wait, Libertarians believe in "open borders" don't they. I guess I just don't understand how it's possible to have any sovereign territory with a police of open borders. :rofl:

 

And this is the #1 reason that, while I consider myself to be mostly libertarian (small 'l') I am not going to be joining the Libertarian (big 'L') party any time soon.  That said, at least the candidates that the Libertarians have fielded in the last, couple of elections seem to have realized that open borders wouldn't, really work.

[JAB]

You know; doing that kind of thing is really irritating...what you quoted is not what I said and you damn well know it. Whether it's done as a joke or for whatever purpose, I'm surprised the admins allow it.

 

Yeah, I 'damn well know it' and, I think, so does everyone else who reads the thread so it isn't like you are being falsely represented - especially with the FIFY ('fixed' it for you) tag that I included to indicate that I had, indeed, changed your post.  Sorry if it bothers you.  I would guess, however, that it is no more irritating than constantly being told that my vote for candidate x is actually a vote for candidate y  - and no more dismissive of the original intent.

Edited August 9, 2013 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

Yeah, I 'damn well know it' and, I think, so does everyone else who reads the thread so it isn't like you are being falsely represented.  Sorry if it bothers you.  I would guess, however, that it is no more irritating than constantly being told that my vote for candidate x is actually a vote for candidate y, though - and no more dismissive of the original intent.

You want to discuss the effectiveness of voting for a third party, fine...discuss it. You want to argue with or disagree with what I said then fine...argue it but at least do so directly and quoting me accurately,

Edited August 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JAB]

Okay, how's this:

 

If folks want to vote for the Libertarians, the Greens, the "Roger Rabbit party" or whatever that's fine. It's folks thinking that doing so is actually accomplishing something is rather funny.

 

You know, RobertNashville, it would have been more accurate to say, "If folks want to vote for the Democrats or Republicans that is fine.  It is when they act like it really makes a difference which side of the plug nickel they vote for, any more than voting for a third party, that it is rather funny."

 

 

Better?  Happy, now?

Edited August 9, 2013 by JAB

[mikegideon]

You know; doing that kind of thing is really irritating...what you quoted is not what I said and you damn well know it. Whether it's done as a joke or for whatever purpose, I'm surprised the admins allow it.

 

I've been agreeing with you all afternoon. But, I don't get why this bugs you so much. It's common practice on forums. It's also very obvious the that the quote was edited, and NOT what you originally said. I know folks have their pet peeves. Personally, I hate it when somebody turns their eyelids inside out :)

[JAB]

RobertNashville, here is another quote from you.  It is from a different thread but it is 100% unedited and unchanged.  This quote actually gets to the heart of what I was attempting to say when I (yes, somewhat jokingly) 'fixed' your quote, above:

 

 

What really makes you think even the next ten elections will actually make a difference?

 

I've seen nothing form ANY party (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or any other) that gives me any reason to think that either Congress, the Presidency or even the vast majority of their State equivalents have any desire whatsoever to shrink government or try to return to the boundaries of the Constitution.

 

Maybe you or someone has access to information I don't have but unless you do, I don't see how anything is going to change in even a remotely significant way.

 

See, I agree with the above quote from you - it probably won't make any difference who wins.  Therefore, saying that voting for a third party is any more 'ineffectual' than voting for the Big Two makes no, real sense to me.  Further, as it isn't going to make any difference which Dempublican or Republicrat candidate wins, I'd as soon vote my conscience and vote for the candidate whose views I think would be the BEST for the country in the unlikely event they could actually bring about some kind of change.  I mean, if it isn't going to make any, real difference anyhow why worry about whether or not your guy could, actually, win?

 

Truthfully, I guess the most reasonable thing would be to just stop participating in the farce, accept that the whole thing is just a facade and quit voting, period.  Somehow, though, my stubborn nature won't allow me to do that.

Edited August 9, 2013 by JAB

[Chucktshoes]

What I think is perfectly acceptable is when Congress follows the rules of their body that flow out of the Constitution. I suspect that if Madison or Jefferson wanted to preclude even the possibility of a bill being introduced regarding a particular subject(s) they would have put it in the Constitution somewhere; but maybe I'm just being silly.
 
So keep making your snide insults by likening me to Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Corker and Alexander or whoever...I've come to expect them from Libertarians/libertarians when I don't fall down and genuflict at their special political insight. However, until you can show me in the Constitution why that bill could not be introduced, let alone voted on and defeated, your argument has no substance (which is probably why you resort to insults).
 
Enjoy your bear.  :cheers:

Do you need a law or a rule to tell you that you can't take a vote to murder someone? Do you require a law or rule that says you can't take a vote to steal any sum of money from someone else? I don't. Just like I don't require a law or rule that says it is illegitimate and immoral to even take a vote to strip another human being of a natural god given right, such as the right of self defense. Merely taking the vote in the first place lends a level of legitimatacy to an action that I find completely unconscionable.

As far as my likening you to certain politicians, there is nothing snide about it. It was not written in a devious or underhanded manner, but in a direct and forthright manner. I view all authoritarian statists as the same. Your words have placed you squarely in that category according to my views. It wasn't worded as an insult of the "you're a stinky butt poophead" variety. It was simply a statement showing how I view your positions as you have articulated them as seperated from the others I mentioned by the merest of degrees of difference. If it offends you that someone would see no functional difference between your positions and those of the likes of Pelosi and Obama, tough. Deal with it.

[RobertNashville]

See, I agree with the above quote from you - it probably won't make any difference who wins.  Therefore, saying that voting for a third party is any more 'ineffectual' than voting for the Big Two makes no, real sense to me.  Further, as it isn't going to make any difference which Dempublican or Republicrat candidate wins, I'd as soon vote my conscience and vote for the candidate whose views I think would be the BEST for the country in the unlikely event they could actually bring about some kind of change.  I mean, if it isn't going to make any, real difference anyhow why worry about whether or not your guy could, actually, win?

 

Truthfully, I guess the most reasonable thing would be to just stop participating in the farce, accept that the whole thing is just a facade and quit voting, period.  Somehow, though, my stubborn nature won't allow me to do that.

I understand.  I have all but given up hope that there will be any change regardless of who votes for whom. However the logical (or maybe just hopeful) part of me knows that voting for a party that can't even get 1% of vote is certainly not going to make the Republicans change their ways or put forth better candidates.

 

Now I can hear people thinking right now that "if all those conservative Republicans and conservative independents would just see the light and come over to the Libertarian party (or some other third-party) then the Republicans would  have to take notice of that".  The problem with that line of thought is that there is simply no reason to think that enough conservative Republicans/independents will ever do that and if they did do that; all they would effectively do is split the Republican/conservative-leaning vote so much that the Democrats will just keep winning election after election - one thing I do know with absolutely clarity and certainty; no Democrat in the last century (except perhaps JFK) has or is going to do make any positive changes or move the country back to a point where the Constitution is honored and obeyed.

Edited August 10, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Do you need a law or a rule to tell you that you can't take a vote to murder someone? Do you require a law or rule that says you can't take a vote to steal any sum of money from someone else? I don't. Just like I don't require a law or rule that says it is illegitimate and immoral to even take a vote to strip another human being of a natural god given right, such as the right of self defense. Merely taking the vote in the first place lends a level of legitimatacy to an action that I find completely unconscionable.

As far as my likening you to certain politicians, there is nothing snide about it. It was not written in a devious or underhanded manner, but in a direct and forthright manner. I view all authoritarian statists as the same. Your words have placed you squarely in that category according to my views. It wasn't worded as an insult of the "you're a stinky butt poophead" variety. It was simply a statement showing how I view your positions as you have articulated them as seperated from the others I mentioned by the merest of degrees of difference. If it offends you that someone would see no functional difference between your positions and those of the likes of Pelosi and Obama, tough. Deal with it.

When it comes to matters of our government and how it operates, I look to the Constitution; not what you "feel" is illegitimate and immoral". Just because you don't like the fact that the bill was introduced at all may be meaningful to you but has nothing to do with the proper operation of the Congress.  Feinstein (or whoever it was) had every right to introduce the bill at which point, getting it to the floor and then defeating it in an up or down vote was precisely the right thing to do.  In fact, I wish it would happen that way all the time...it's the shenanigans that keep bills from getting an up or down vote that should be causing heartburn in those who believe that the Constitution is supposed to be followed and not just printed out and hung on the walls of Congress.

 

Thanks for clarifying your comments...at least now I know the insults were absolutely intentional.

Edited August 10, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

When it comes to matters of our government and how it operates, I look to the Constitution; not what you "feel" is illegitimate and immoral".

Thanks for clarifying your comments...at least now I know the insults were absolutely intentional.

I too look to the Constitution in regards to matters of how our government is supposed to operate. The real question is through what lens do you view it? Do you view it as a document that grants the people rights and privileges from an all powerful government, or do you view it as a document that narrowly enumerates what the government is allowed to do within a limited set of powers while merely acknowledging the natural rights that all people possess by endowment from their creator simply because they draw breath? I view it through the latter lens.

Just as many of us think people have things backwards when they look to the law for permission to engage in an action ("where does it say that I can do X") I think that you have it backwards when you ask where it says that Congress can't vote on a matter concerning a natural right acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. The question you should be asking is, "Where does it say that they CAN act in that capacity?" Our founding documents as they were written limit government, not individuals.

Once again, my likening of you to others is only an insult if you take it as such. I simply made a statement of opinion based upon my worldview. Hence my exhortation for you to "deal with it" as it is you who are bothered by it, not me. Edited August 10, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

I too look to the Constitution in regards to matters of how our government is supposed to operate. The real question is through what lens do you view it? Do you view it as a document that grants the people rights and privileges from an all powerful government, or do you view it as a document that narrowly enumerates what the government is allowed to do within a limited set of powers while merely acknowledging the natural rights that all people possess by endowment from their creator simply because they draw breath? I view it through the latter lens.

Just as many of us think people have things backwards when they look to the law for permission to engage in an action ("where does it say that I can do X") I think that you have it backwards when you ask where it says that Congress can't vote on a matter concerning a natural right acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. The question you should be asking is, "Where does it say that they CAN act in that capacity?" Our founding documents as they were written limit government, not individuals.

Once again, my likening of you to others is only an insult if you take it as such. I simply made a statement of opinion based upon my worldview. Hence my exhortation for you to "deal with it" as it is you who are bothered by it, not me.

The lens I view it through are the lenses in my eyes...I READ it and nothing I've read indicates to me that the bill in question could not be introduced, voted on and defeated which is all that happened here.  If you get your panties in a wad over just the procedural process in Congress I can't help but wonder what happens to you when they actually pass a horrible bill.  In any case, until you can point to a clause in the Constitution or the rules of the Congress that says otherwise, your feelings about whether the bill was "illegitimate" and "immoral" is irrelevant.

[Chucktshoes]

The lens I view it through are the lenses in my eyes...I READ it and nothing I've read indicates to me that the bill in question could not be introduced, voted on and defeated which is all that happened here. If you get your panties in a wad over just the procedural process in Congress I can't help but wonder what happens to you when they actually pass a horrible bill. In any case, until you can point to a clause in the Constitution or the rules of the Congress that says otherwise, your feelings about whether the bill was "illegitimate" and "immoral" is irrelevant.

I will reiterate, I reject your premise as faulty, but if you really want a specific clause of the Constitution that shows the bill to be illegitimate, how about Amendment 2 where it says "shall not be infringed". Does that sufficiently meet your criteria? ;) You should really consider going into politics, I think you would be at home there amongst its current crew ( <- That was a snide comment! ;) )as that was a pretty skilled attempt at deflection. I will however ask again, through what lens do you view the Constitution? Does it grant rights and privileges to the people from the government, OR does it limit government to a few specifically enumerated powers of limited scope while merely acknowledging that all of the rights both listed and unlisted reside in the people who were endowed with the, by their creator?

Oh, and my panties are fine and un-bunched. I appreciate your concern about my undergarments. Edited August 10, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

I will reiterate, I reject your premise as faulty,..

I don’t care if you reject it or not; it doesn't change anything.

 

 

...but if you really want a specific clause of the Constitution that shows the bill to be illegitimate, how about Amendment 2 where it says "shall not be infringed". Does that sufficiently meet your criteria?...

Nope; it doesn’t.

Nothing in the Constitution as originally written or in its amendments, the second amendment included, prevents a Senator from proposing, introducing or voting on any bill they want to propose, introduce or vote on. In fact, bills being proposed, introduced and voted on is precisely how it supposed to work. If you think there is such wording in the Constitution or the rules of the Congress that flow from it, please point it out. Until you can, I doubly-don't care that you reject my premise.

 

If you don’t like the bill then you make your opinions known to your Senators…if they don’t listen then you seek to replace them at the next opportunity. That’s how the government was laid out; your feelings about any particular bill notwithstanding.

 

You won't hear me say this very often but I'll say it again, in this instance, Corker and Alexander did precisely the right thing.

Edited August 10, 2013 by RobertNashville