Reply #52: I knew it

[RedCon1]

I knew you were a dead head. i followed for a while but didn't commit to the lifestyle fully. I do miss those days something awful though. Those were good times.I used to tie dye too. I still could but the market isn't what it used to be. Black seems to be the color of choice these days. My trip was long and strange and similar to yours I suspect but it seems to have led me down different paths than yours.
Regarding your reply:

<Exactly the same arguments were used to ban interracial marriages a
few decades ago>
There hasn't been a ban on interracial marriage other than the unwritten law imposed by southern racist elements (Democrats I might add). It's not quite the same IMHO anyways. My real issue is the second amendment. It seems as if to vote for a Democrat these days means to vote for homosexual rights and against second amendment rights, a right enjoyed primarily by the heterosexual crowd. With an image such as this, is it any reason that we lose votes to a Republican with a solid NRA record?



Me: it is not within the scope of the Federal governments rights to dictate the moral standards of the states.

You: That would seem to be a good argument against the FMA.

Me: What's the FMA?



<The RW wants to amend the Constitution to forbid it. To "not have
a position" is to allow that to happen.>

Any amendment to the constitution prohibiting gay marriage at the federal level is in violation of the constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional. the RW is wrong but that doesn't make the LW right for playing their game. Edwards had the right position on this issue. He didn't get that message across well enough to the viewers in his debate with Cheney. The Fed has no business enforcing a moral code on the states in any capacity.


<Bring back the Clinton economy
if you want more taxpayers. And bring the troops home from Iraq.
They are paying little or no taxes when they're over there.
Better education and health care will also increase the number of
people paying taxes instead of receiving public assistance.
There are many who stay on welfare because they lose access to health
care if they work (and the jobs available often do not provide it).
Better education will help people find good jobs, as long as the jobs
are not all outsourced overseas. We must provide incentives to create
jobs in the USA, not in India or China.

All of this is vintage Bill Clinton and John Kerry.>

It's vintage Bill Clinton for sure but "Kerry ain't no Bill Clinton." Either way, I think we're in agreement here, deficits are bad, increasing taxes are also bad, increasing tax payers is good, regardless of how it is accomplished.

<They seem to prefer stoning, actually.>

Relax, nobody is being stoned (to death that is) in America. I think if Gays were being oppressed to the extent that you feel they are being oppressed, we would have seen a much more militant gay rights movement evolve than we have seen, something along the lines of the "Purple Panthers" if you get my meaning. People in Iran get stoned to death though; however, what happens in Iran falls under my favorite category: NMFP, "not my fucking problem." The gay rights thing conveniently falls into this category as does the Roe V. Wade issue.

<I do not think we should let the NRA choose our candidate.
They seem to only support Republicans and a few DINOs, and they'll
always prefer the Republican to the DINO anyway.>

The NRA rating is based on objective criteria, namely voting records and such. They assign a point value to each candidate based on the positions that the candidate has held on second amendment related issues. it's a standard system used by many lobbyist type organizations to communicate to their supporters who the most favorable candidate on their particular single issue. It has nothing to do with political affiliation or support for wars.


<Not really. It places a really big premium on fast reflexes (possibly good)
and a willingness to kill without hesitation (not good).>

It's all good. Actually, a well armed citizenry is a huge deterrent to this reality that you describe. In nature, the strong oppress the weak. that is the law. In our reality, this weakness is best manifested as a power distance created by a poorly armed citizenry. The inability of the citizenry to resist the oppression of a tyrannical government can only lead to a tyrannical government that oppresses its citizenry.


<I seem to recall some reference in there to a "well-regulated militia". Why was the 2nd Amendment worded that way?>
Thomas Jefferson was the radical liberal that ensured the second amendment made its way into our constitution based on his reasoning that it was the only thing that would ensure the validity and the longevity of the rest of the document. Once it goes, the rest is history. He is quoted as saying something to the effect of, they can not do anything without removing this first. Also, regardless of the phrase "well regulated militia" there is another part that says " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon." That seems straight forward enough.



<Or is it that we have the right to bear arms so we can try to
protect ourselves FROM the "well-regulated militia"?>

It was to provide balance between the classes in order to prevent our return to feudalism, the path we are currently on.


Have a great weekend.