Has there ever been a worse time to be a Democrat?

[Larry Gude]

I could re-post what I wrote but...

National Security. We already had a discussion on this, and people like Larry think we are already spending too much money on this. If we begin cut backs to please people like Larry, the rest of us will be worried about the notion of cutting national security spending.

...then I'd still have to expect you to actually read what I said, which you haven't done so far, so...

I am AGAINST the intrusive, overboard mess that is 'homeland security' especially the untold billions that have been spent to correct a problem cockpit door retrofits would have fixed for pennies on the dollar.

I am all for spending way more on real national defense; the military. Pay, benefits, weapons, training, bullets.

I am all for tracking and running down and violating the civil rights of people where their is reason to believe they are up to no good. I am all for greater cooperation between our existing security agancies.

We need not become a police state. We simply need to kill those who would kill us, but kill them first.

 

[Bruzilla]

Tax cuts: Can only cut so far. And regardless of how low taxes becomes, people will feel the need for lower taxes.

That is all true but... all the Democrats have been able to muster as a counter argument is to roll back tax cuts, which most people see as a tax increase, which never sells well in the US.

National Security. We already had a discussion on this, and people like Larry think we are already spending too much money on this. If we begin cut backs to please people like Larry, the rest of us will be worried about the notion of cutting national security spending.

I agree with Larry on that one, and I think that after we keep killing terrorists for another four years, and attacks are rare, most people will agree also.

Tax reform. Every politician I have ever heard has discussed this. .

You're right. Every politician talks about it, but I think Bush is going to actually do something about it and the 2008 candidate will be able to campaign on that success.

SS reform. Will be interesting to see how this pans out. But once (if) Bush's plan goes through, can't really campaign on that in the future. It will have already been done..

That's true and untrue. If Bush's successor was vital in the passage of SS reform, while the Dem challenger was a foot dragger... Ouch!

Crime. No brainer. each side wants less crime. You would be better off making an argument of how your plan to fight crime is better..

True, or he/she can campaign on being more willing to fry some bad folks.

Banning gay marriage. Nice. Are you suggesting adding something to the constitution that essentially takes away instead of gives rights? I suppose you did get the memo that Bush will not push for this after all. A good campaign idea, but in reality it isn't something that will take place on the national level.

I thought the Constitution restricted government power, not granted rights to the people? Oh yeah... I was right. That aside, how can you remove a right that was never given by any government instrument? When did marriage become a right? I did miss that memo. The Gays want the "right" to marry in order to tale one more step up the legitimacy ladder, and they'll want the government to grant them that right. The Dems can either actively support them, or distance themselves from a sizeable segment of their membership. Since another sizeable portion of their membership is against Gays, neither option looks good for the Dems. So, and the VRWC memo points out, Republicans don't need to campaign on this issue - they just need to respond to what the Dems are doing.

 

[SmallTown]

I am AGAINST the intrusive, overboard mess that is 'homeland security' especially the untold billions that have been spent to correct a problem cockpit door retrofits would have fixed for pennies on the dollar.

But as you are always so quick to point out, we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Perhaps these intrusive actions are part of the reason for that.

 

[Bruzilla]

But as you are always so quick to point out, we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Perhaps these intrusive actions are part of the reason for that.

Or it could be that we've allowed pilots to arm themselves; there's no way to tell if a pilot is armed or not; and the only way to beat a gun in the cockpit is to have a gun in the cabin. And while it may be possible to smuggle a gun through security, the odds of success would be too small for any terrorist group to go to the bother.

Or it could be that terrorists no longer have the luxury of hanging out in Afghanistan hatching their next evil plan. Now they have to worry if that jet overhead is a Boeing 767 or a Boeing B-52. Bush has them on the defensive now, which makes offensive planning very, very difficult.

 

[SmallTown]

I thought the Constitution restricted government power, not granted rights to the people? Oh yeah... I was right.

yes and no. it restricts government power by not allowing governent to take certain items away. Which is why no and not appear so often. Going by this, seems like the amendment would state something like "... Will not pass any laws for the purpose of defining marriage. "

An amendment stating something like "A marriage is defined as a man and woman, no other combinations will be allowed" doesn't exactly go along with the rest of the constitution. They tried something like that with prohibition, and we know how that one ended.

 

[Bruzilla]

But what they can say is "Congress shall not issue any law that effects marriage..." or words to that effect. That would eliminate the possibility of Gay groups suing for marriages in churches and enable legal civil unions.

 

[SmallTown]

But what they can say is "Congress shall not issue any law that effects marriage..." or words to that effect. That would eliminate the possibility of Gay groups suing for marriages in churches and enable legal civil unions.

correct. and churches could, if they wanted, still perform gay marriages. So you could still have them, as well as civil unions. A far cry from the gay marriage ban that was first proposed, but a feasible compromise.

 

[2ndAmendment]

yes and no. it restricts government power by not allowing governent to take certain items away. Which is why no and not appear so often. Going by this, seems like the amendment would state something like "... Will not pass any laws for the purpose of defining marriage. "

An amendment stating something like "A marriage is defined as a man and woman, no other combinations will be allowed" doesn't exactly go along with the rest of the constitution. They tried something like that with prohibition, and we know how that one ended.

I don't think you have it quite right. The U.S. Constitution defines exactly what powers the federal government has. It mentions certain rights of the people but goes on to say that these rights of the people are not the only rights the people have. Too many people overlook the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

These are the amendments that say there are no implied powers. Of course, like the rest of the Constitution, the people currently in power ignore it because it limits their power.

 

[Larry Gude]

You've got to be right...

Perhaps these intrusive actions are part of the reason for that.

I mean, all that hard work, taking my daughters compass, making me take my shoes off, going through vrai's purse.

By God, you must be right!

I still say focus on the motives first and foremost and let my people go free!

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think profiling is valid, but they can't use it because it is not PC. Sorry, I did not read of any 12 year old girls or 80 year old men or American or European looking men taking over airplanes or blowing up buildings. Profiling is used in criminal cases all the time. These are the ultimate in criminals that we are trying to catch.

 

[Bruzilla]

correct. and churches could, if they wanted, still perform gay marriages. So you could still have them, as well as civil unions. A far cry from the gay marriage ban that was first proposed, but a feasible compromise.

Too bad "compromise" isn't a word in our vocabulary!

I would agree with you except for the fact that I think the Gays are not going to be happy until they get the major players in the churches to accept their lifestyle. They can already get civil unioned in several states, and under your compromise measure they could get married by the Church of the Flaming Bushes (think about it ), but they won't have any real legitimacy until they can get married in a real church, with real being defined as Catholic, Protestent, or Methodist.

I've never bought into the Gay arguments for marriage. I don't know of any hospital that won't allow in a life partner, most insurance agreements have provisions for life partners, you can designate a life partner to be someone to pick up your kid at school, etc. The real goal of the Gays is to be seen as legitimate, and there's no way they can say they really are legitimate with the major churches saying they aren't.

 

[SmallTown]

I mean, all that hard work, taking my daughters compass, making me take my shoes off, going through vrai's purse.

By God, you must be right!

I still say focus on the motives first and foremost and let my people go free!

People tend to forget that our freedoms are utilized by the terrorists as well. Where as we enjoy our freedom of movement, they do as well.

 

[Bruzilla]

... going through vrai's purse.

I think that should be a standard operating procedure anyway. I think it's good for a man to know what's in his wife's purse from time to time. If a TSA official ever pulls out a weapon and your insurance policy from Vrai's purse, it could be a lifesaver!

 

[SmallTown]

If a TSA official ever pulls out a weapon and your insurance policy from Vrai's purse, it could be a lifesaver!

 

[Larry Gude]

Man, I'm in her purse...

...all the time.

She reads the funniest stuff. "Life Insurance, the Bahamas, 'accidents' and you"...

 

[vraiblonde]

And he thought "How to Fix Your Husband's Brakes" was a Chilton's manual

 

[Larry Gude]

And you're enough of a geek...

...to know what Chiltons is.