Arts&Sciences
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Arts&Sciences said:I tend to think that criminals manage to get guns one way or another. Waiting periods are dangerous because, for example, if a woman is being stalked, she could be killed before she could defend herself properly. Licensing and background checks can easily lead to racial profiling. For example, can Arab women buy firearms as easily as Northern European women? I make the exception for fully automatic weapons for the simple reason that only criminals have any use for them.
In a final note, I somehow doubt that any major party would run me as a candidate. Does anyone have an opinion on that? Thank you very much.
Arts&Sciences said:My political platform is probably best described as centrist, but you can be the judge of what (if any) political party I might want to join. Here are its essential points:
1. Shift funds that currently go to abortions to abortion alternatives and to expanding adoption programs. Make a Human Life Amendment banning abortion in all circumstances.
2. Divide Iraq into three countries for the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds and withdraw our troops over the course of 1 year. Focus our foreign policy more on covert aid to enemies of extreme governments than the overt use of force.
3. Pay off the national debt once and for all. Privatize half of all welfare within 10 years and repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
4. Legalize school prayer and lessen federal involvement in education.
5. Re-enter the Kyoto Protocol after negotiating better terms for the United States.
6. End gun control except on fully automatic weapons (machine guns).
7. Aim for fair trade instead of free trade or permanent protectionism.
8. Phase out all regulations on immigration over a 5-year period.
9. Phase out affirmative action over a 10-year period and leave the issue of gay marriage to the states.
10. Ban all soft money in all elections.
I welcome questions about my views on any other issues. I would ask, though, that if you disagree with my ideas you remember that we're not in that "basement".
Arts&Sciences said:I would privatize half of welfare (including social security) over a ten-year period by allowing private social security accounts and by giving a 150% tax deduction for donations to selected private charities. Given that private accounts are a better idea for most young people and that I would raise the eligibility age to 68, I think that I could cut government welfare spending by more than half. I would also eliminate unemployment insurance.
On the issue of trade, I think that we should bargain with other nations as competitors rather than handing them a huge annual deficit. The goal is to protect the dollar while also preventing labor and environmental abuses. "Fair trade" is just another way of saying that the government should slow down the globalization process and not see free trade as a moral obligation.
Arts&Sciences said:That, combined with repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, is how I would pay off the national debt and the trade deficit.
Arts&Sciences said:I think that the majority of Americans would be 100% pro-life if they saw a solution to the underlying social problems such as diverting abortion funds to abortion alternatives (which I already suggested).
Arts&Sciences said:Campaign contributions are not covered by the First Amendment. As a strict constructionist, I would note that there is no reference to campaign funding in the Constitution.
Arts&Sciences said:Money is not a form of speech, and I think that the word speech needs to be taken very literally, especially since the word expression never appears in the Constitution.
Arts&Sciences said:Moreover, banning school prayer is a violation of the First Amendment. Here is an excerpt (the emphasis, of course, is mine):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Voluntary school prayer does not establish religion, whereas forbidding such prayer prohibits the free exercise of religion.
Arts&Sciences said:As for gay marriage, the word marriage does not appear in the Constitution, and I therefore refer to the Tenth Amendment.
Arts&Sciences said:My political platform is probably best described as centrist, but you can be the judge of what (if any) political party I might want to join. Here are its essential points:
1. Shift funds that currently go to abortions to abortion alternatives and to expanding adoption programs. Make a Human Life Amendment banning abortion in all circumstances.
Like it.
2. Divide Iraq into three countries for the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds and withdraw our troops over the course of 1 year. Focus our foreign policy more on covert aid to enemies of extreme governments than the overt use of force.
Hate it. Pull out and division of the country will lead to civil war to battle over resources, through instability Iraq becomes terrorist safe haven.
3. Pay off the national debt once and for all. Privatize half of all welfare within 10 years and repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
How bout banning welfare all together?
4. Legalize school prayer and lessen federal involvement in education.
Not if it's mandatory, 1st Amendment.
5. Re-enter the Kyoto Protocol after negotiating better terms for the United States.
Only if China, India, and all other developing nations will be held up to the same standards, Kyoto was a program intended to kill the U.S. economy while making China's stronger.
6. End gun control except on fully automatic weapons (machine guns).
I don't really have a policy on gun control other than what's in the constitution ie 2nd Amendment.
7. Aim for fair trade instead of free trade or permanent protectionism.
I'm for an FTAA so no.
8. Phase out all regulations on immigration over a 5-year period.
Hell no.
9. Phase out affirmative action over a 10-year period and leave the issue of gay marriage to the states.
For the latter as specified by Amendment X it is a state matter, I'm for getting rid of AA immediatly.
10. Ban all soft money in all elections.
It's a free speech first amendment issue at least that's how the courts interpret it.
I welcome questions about my views on any other issues. I would ask, though, that if you disagree with my ideas you remember that we're not in that "basement".
Arts&Sciences said:It is precisely because the Constitution does not mention campaign funding that it may be regulated on a federal level. States may regulate their own campaigns, but the people are then to be given the authority to regulate further as stated in the Tenth Amendment. It is incorrect to say that money is a form of free speech. Spending money is not a form of speech. The word speech must be taken by this simple definition:
the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)
None of the definitions in Merriam-Webster's mention anything about money or campaigns. Extending the First Amendment to "anything political" is judicial activism. As for gay marriage, the Constitution takes precedence over the laws that you mention, which, by inference, are un-Constitutional. As for abortion, you know as well as I do that it is murder. Ultrasounds and photographs prove it and basic biology proves it. If you are in denial there is no point in debating the matter.
Thank you, Trajan, for giving an actual conservative analysis of my platform (unlike a certain liberal Republican who will hear from me tomorrow- in the basement if necessary). I should mention that I would make school prayer voluntary, not mandatory, so there is no conflict with the First Amendment. Trajan disagreed or mostly disagreed with five of my ten statements and agreed or mostly agreed with five. That puts me exactly in the center.
Arts&Sciences said:It is precisely because the Constitution does not mention campaign funding that it may be regulated on a federal level. States may regulate their own campaigns, but the people are then to be given the authority to regulate further as stated in the Tenth Amendment. It is incorrect to say that money is a form of free speech. Spending money is not a form of speech. The word speech must be taken by this simple definition:
the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)
None of the definitions in Merriam-Webster's mention anything about money or campaigns. Extending the First Amendment to "anything political" is judicial activism. As for gay marriage, the Constitution takes precedence over the laws that you mention, which, by inference, are un-Constitutional. As for abortion, you know as well as I do that it is murder. Ultrasounds and photographs prove it and basic biology proves it. If you are in denial there is no point in debating the matter.
Thank you, Trajan, for giving an actual conservative analysis of my platform (unlike a certain liberal Republican who will hear from me tomorrow- in the basement if necessary). I should mention that I would make school prayer voluntary, not mandatory, so there is no conflict with the First Amendment. Trajan disagreed or mostly disagreed with five of my ten statements and agreed or mostly agreed with five. That puts me exactly in the center.
Arts&Sciences said:That, combined with repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, is how I would pay off the national debt and the trade deficit. I think that the majority of Americans would be 100% pro-life if they saw a solution to the underlying social problems such as diverting abortion funds to abortion alternatives (which I already suggested). Campaign contributions are not covered by the First Amendment. As a strict constructionist, I would note that there is no reference to campaign funding in the Constitution. Money is not a form of speech, and I think that the word speech needs to be taken very literally, especially since the word expression never appears in the Constitution.
Moreover, banning school prayer is a violation of the First Amendment. Here is an excerpt (the emphasis, of course, is mine):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Voluntary school prayer does not establish religion, whereas forbidding such prayer prohibits the free exercise of religion. As for gay marriage, the word marriage does not appear in the Constitution, and I therefore refer to the Tenth Amendment. As for foreign policy, I do not think that any other nation's government would despise us for aiding opposition to the North Korean or Iranian governments. As for me being well right-of-center, permitting states to legalize gay marriage, opening our borders, supporting fair trade over free trade, repealing Bush's tax cuts for the rich and withdrawing from Iraq are all left-of-center ideas, so (no offense) I have to suspect that you are well to the left. I agree with Russell Hammond's assessment of my political centrism (and he is a liberal).
Arts&Sciences said:Thank you, Trajan, for giving an actual conservative analysis of my platform (unlike a certain liberal Republican who will hear from me tomorrow- in the basement if necessary).
Trajan disagreed or mostly disagreed with five of my ten statements and agreed or mostly agreed with five. That puts me exactly in the center.
RightatNYU said:Your plans are well intentioned, but you really misunderestimate the costs. First off, how much do you think repealing the tax cuts will save? A few hundred billion? You need 8 trillion. There's absolutely no way that would balance out. And how do you "pay off" a trade deficit. You're saying something akin to "I want to raise Social Security to 10,000 a month, but I'll pay for it by raising the tax 0.3%" Just doesn't work.
The majority of americans are NOT 100% pro life and won't be.
The court has held that money IS speech.
As to school prayer, you're focusing on the wrong clause there. It's not a free exercise case, it's an establishment clause case. Court case after court case has established that school prayer is unconstitutional. I can explain to you the reasonings if you like, but I'd rather you just took my word for it.
Marriage doesn't appear in the constitution, but the Full Faith and Credit clause is still applicable on the states.
If you wish to suspect that I'm "well to the left" that's your prerogative. I don't think many other than Navy Pride would agree with you...
Arts&Sciences said:It is precisely because the Constitution does not mention campaign funding that it may be regulated on a federal level. States may regulate their own campaigns, but the people are then to be given the authority to regulate further as stated in the Tenth Amendment.
Arts&Sciences said:It is incorrect to say that money is a form of free speech. Spending money is not a form of speech.
Arts&Sciences said:As for gay marriage, the Constitution takes precedence over the laws that you mention, which, by inference, are un-Constitutional.
Arts&Sciences said:As for abortion, you know as well as I do that it is murder. Ultrasounds and photographs prove it and basic biology proves it. If you are in denial there is no point in debating the matter.
Arts&Sciences said:Okay, until you find a reputable dictionary that defines speech as being in any way related to money,
Arts&Sciences said:your position has no Constitutional precedent.
Arts&Sciences said:As for gay marriage, the laws that you mention infringe on the rights of states. If New York legalized gay marriage, for example, it would be un-Constitutional to require South Carolina to do the same- just as it would be un-Constitutional to require New York to ban it if South Carolina did.
Arts&Sciences said:I have probably been on half of the political forums on the Internet, and I have never seen such absurdity. To quote Pat Buchanan:
I might add that the Jacobins and Cordeliers were very "hawkish" on foreign policy, yet they were well to the left. As for your specific points, you very neatly avoided addressing my plan to privatize 50% or more of welfare, which is far more comprehensive than anything that Bush is doing. Keeping the surpluses from that alone would quickly pay off the national debt. How would I pay off the trade deficit? Well, you probably don't really care, since you undoubtedly agree with Dick Cheney's bold pronouncement that, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". But I'll tell you any way. We're the most economically powerful nation in the world. We can pay off the trade deficit with tariffs in the short term. In the longer term, we can drill in the ANWR while giving tax incentives for alternative energy production.
I would guess that the words "pro-life" in your statement on abortion could be replaced by "anti-slavery" and that they were said by a slave owner 200 years ago. I've also got some sad news for you: Supporting stare decisis over the wording of the Constitution is very liberal. You still haven't grasped the concept, moreover, that the Constitution takes precedence over un-Constitutional laws. You never had a chain of logic to start with.
So, in conclusion, your platform is simple and direct. Kill 1.3 million babies a year, increase our deficits and political corruption, ignore the Constitution and punish religious expression- all while calling yourself "conservative" because you support an all-around destructive foreign policy. You know, if it weren't for people like you, I'd be a Republican, and I'm far from being the only person who feels that way. The Democrats really should be paying you.
Arts&Sciences said:All right, here is the part of the Constitution in question:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
In the case of gay marriage, that would mean only that a state could not arrest a homosexual couple based on a marriage that took place outside the state. Any further requirement regarding the legality or illegality of the practice in any particular state is a violation of the Tenth Amendment:
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.
The emphasis, of course, is mine. I put that in bold text to make this case. If the Constitution does not forbid a law, such as a ban on federal soft money, a matter is left to the states. But since we are dealing with federal elections, the power is then delegated to the people on the national level. In other words, the people may choose leaders who support or oppose a ban on soft money.
As for your case about money and speech, I could use your logic to call nearly anything "speech". For example, if I were a radical environmentalist and I stole automobiles and destroyed them, I would be expressing something related to speech- but it would not be speech. You might respond that such an environmentalist would be stealing the property of others, but soft money is essentially a massive, legal form of bribery from corporations, unions and special interest groups. Hence, if a corporation gives money to a political party (and hence to its candidates) and in return there is an implicit promise of tax breaks for the company, money is being stolen from the federal government and ultimately from taxpayers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?