I'm surprised that no one has created a topic on this:

[Natoma]

Simple solution. You lobby to have an amendment that defines marriage between "any two people" or "any group of people", and the conservatives will lobby for their amendment current one.
As I said, that's a much more difficult thing to achieve (in either direction)...and by design.

As I said before. Conservatives spend their time and energy trying to restrict the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country, and trying to find ways to circumvent the established laws providing the citizens of this country with equal protection under the laws, or trying to come up with new laws to form new restrictions upon law abiding citizens of this country. Liberals spend their time and energy trying to do exactly the opposite.

You would never see a liberal propose a marriage amendment stating that two people can enter into a union of marriage because frankly there shouldn't even be a need, just as there shouldn't be a need for the 15th amendment or the 19th amendment. It should be intrinsic.

 

[Natoma]

p.s.: Your "yes, another common symptom of liberalism" is yet another indictment into your true intent wrt your liberal commentary.

p.p.s. What's my true intent? That I disagree with liberalism in general? And that I think much of it is shallow and rooted in socialism which I also disagree with on a fundamental level? Wow...you really nailed me there Natoma!

Just so that we're clear on this point. No need to veil your true views towards liberals in any way more than your prior unsuccessful attempts to veil your true views towards homosexuality.

Frankly I consider the conservative movement in general to be completely venomous, hate mongering, and fear mongering in order to push its agenda. It operates in religious doggerel cum pseudo-legality, which it then tries to force upon the populace through every channel necessary. See the 1986 Supreme Court decision which upheld Georgia's right to jail homosexuals, which was hailed as a great conservative victory. No need then to do anything. But come the 2003 reversal of that decision, and all of a sudden it has to be taken to the Constitution itself. Why? Religious doggerel which attempts to veils itself in psuedo-legality and fear mongering of "it'll destroy society!!!" It's tired and sad.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I said before. Conservatives spend their time and energy trying to restrict the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country,

Yes, that's it! Our taxes are lower, and we have more of our own money to freely spend as we see fit...because conservatives want to restrict our rights...

and trying to find ways to circumvent the established laws providing the citizens of this country with equal protection under the laws...

Yeah, because we conservatives spear-head things like racial discrimination for college applicants....

or trying to come up with new laws to form new restrictions upon law abiding citizens of this country. Liberals spend their time and energy trying to do exactly the opposite.

Yes, liberals spend all their time trying to convince everyone that the laws simply don't apply to them, because you are special because of reason X-Y-Z. Liberals spend all their time trying to "effectively" legislate morals, without actually legislating them.

You would never see a liberal propose a marriage amendment stating that two people can enter into a union of marriage because frankly there shouldn't even be a need,

Not as long as you have activist judges, correct. What you see is a large push to discredit ANY conservative judge, and a pushing through of any liberal one for that reason. Liberals perfer to "legislate through activism". Conservatives prefer to legislate through legistlation.

just as there shouldn't be a need for the 15th amendment or the 19th amendment. It should be intrinsic.

So why do they exist then? Conservatives running amok?

 

[Silent_One]

Frankly I consider the conservative movement in general to be completely venomous, hate mongering, and fear mongering in order to push its agenda. It operates in religious doggerel cum pseudo-legality, which it then tries to force upon the populace through every channel necessary.

Oh No! We're plotting some evil maniacal scheme to rule the world. Muahahahahahahah! Muahahahahahahah!!! Ahahahahahahah!

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Just so that we're clear on this point. No need to veil your true views towards liberals in any way more than your prior unsuccessful attempts to veil your true views towards homosexuality.

Um, I thought my attemts to put forth my personal views on homosexuality...that it's wrong....were not veiled, but flat out stated several times?

Like I just did above.

Frankly I consider the conservative movement in general to be completely venomous, hate mongering, and fear mongering in order to push its agenda.

Oh, Natoma, please...don't hide behind a viel wrt your feelings toward conservatives.

Amazing that we can have the same viewpoints toward each other's political leanings, isn't it?

It operates in religious doggerel cum pseudo-legality, which it then tries to force upon the populace through every channel necessary.

Yeah, uh, through legislation.

See the 1986 Supreme Court decision which upheld Georgia's right to jail homosexuals, which was hailed as a great conservative victory. No need then to do anything. But come the 2003 reversal of that decision, and all of a sudden it has to be taken to the Constitution itself.

This is my point entirely, Natoma.

And in 2020 we'll get a reversal of the 2003 decision, with a different panel of judges. This is exactly why the goal is to strive for a definitive, constitutional amendment that is a reflection of the will of the people. I'm not saying it's achievable. There might not be enough concensus either way for one. If it doesn't happen, then we'll languish though decandes of trying to plant Supreme Court justices who are believed to vote one way or antother, such that our constitutional morals are at the mercy of an ever flip-flopping Supreme Court.

 

[Natoma]

As I said before. Conservatives spend their time and energy trying to restrict the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country,

Yes, that's it! Our taxes are lower, and we have more of our own money to freely spend as we see fit...because conservatives want to restrict our rights...

If I recall correctly, the liberal "raise taxes" also happened to spear-head one of the greatest booms this country has ever seen. And lets not forget that it was the conservative of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, who realized toward the end of his term that he had made a mistake with his massive 1981 tax cuts and raised taxes to correct it.

and trying to find ways to circumvent the established laws providing the citizens of this country with equal protection under the laws...

Yeah, because we conservatives spear-head things like racial discrimination for college applicants....

Yea just like we liberals spear-head things like legacy discrimination for college applicants....

or trying to come up with new laws to form new restrictions upon law abiding citizens of this country. Liberals spend their time and energy trying to do exactly the opposite.

Yes, liberals spend all their time trying to convince everyone that the laws simply don't apply to them, because you are special because of reason X-Y-Z. Liberals spend all their time trying to "effectively" legislate morals, without actually legislating them.

Oh right. And conservative driven Jim Crow most certainly was a law that didn't apply to conservatives because they were special because of reason X-Y-Z. Not to mention the Patriot Act or DOMA or Prohibition or McCarthyism. All instances of conservative morality. Yea. I have so much respect for that.

You would never see a liberal propose a marriage amendment stating that two people can enter into a union of marriage because frankly there shouldn't even be a need,

Not as long as you have activist judges, correct. What you see is a large push to discredit ANY conservative judge, and a pushing through of any liberal one for that reason. Liberals perfer to "legislate through activism". Conservatives prefer to legislate through legistlation.

Oh please. Conservatives are just as guilty of trying to load up the courts with judges who will rule in their favor. There is no preference for one or another. Whatever works.

just as there shouldn't be a need for the 15th amendment or the 19th amendment. It should be intrinsic.

So why do they exist then? Conservatives running amok?

Exactly. The 15th amendment was required because conservatives in the south attempted to keep blacks from voting after the end of the civil war, by issuance of state laws. The 19th amendment was required because conservatives attempted to keep women from voting, acheiving full citizenship status. Conservatives run amok indeed.

 

[Natoma]

Frankly I consider the conservative movement in general to be completely venomous, hate mongering, and fear mongering in order to push its agenda. It operates in religious doggerel cum pseudo-legality, which it then tries to force upon the populace through every channel necessary.

Oh No! We're plotting some evil maniacal scheme to rule the world. Muahahahahahahah! Muahahahahahahah!!! Ahahahahahahah!

Actually, see Pax Americana, aka the United States National Security Strategy, laid out by the neo-cons roughly 20 years ago, and enacted by this administration.

World domination in a nutshell, all laid out.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If I recall correctly, the liberal "raise taxes" also happened to spear-head one of the greatest booms this country has ever seen.

Point being?

Who said that raising or lowering taxes could curtail the internet boom?

And lets not forget that conservative of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, who realized toward the end of his term that he had made a mistake with his massive 1981 tax cuts and raised taxes to correct it.

I'd love to see the source that misconstrues facts and builds in assumptions to come up with that one...

Yea just like we liberals spear-head things like legacy discrimination for college applicants....

Sure...as long as those legacies aren't minorities, though, right?

Oh right. And conservative driven Jim Crow most certainly was a law that didn't apply to conservatives because they were special because of reason X-Y-Z.

Did I say it wasn't? The point is, it was an overt law. Was it wrong? Yup, I believe it was. Move along...

Not to mention the Patriot Act or DOMA or Prohibition or McCarthyism. All instances of conservative morality. Yea. I have so much respect for that.

Oh, but you DO have respect (documented earlier in this thread) for laws which deny or limit freedoms...when other freedoms are at risk of being violated. (Who decides what freedom is the correct one to violate is I guess, just up to YOU.)

I presume that you also agree that it is right to curtail certain freedoms are for purpose of providing our own security? Or do you think we should all just get on an airplane without any ID whatsoever. (After which of course you'll sue someone for not knowing terrorists were on the plane...)

Of course not. But as ususal, you like to make blanket statements. "They're taking away liberties for no reason!"

Wrong. There is a reason, and a similar one for which you agree is valid in "other cases." You just don't agree with the reason in this case.

Oh please. Conservatives are just as guilty of trying to load up the courts with judges who will rule in their favor.

There has NEVER been the kind of filibustering and slamming of appointees that there has been during this past administration.

Exactly. The 15th amendment was required because conservatives in the south attempted to keep blacks from voting after the end of the civil war, by issuance of state laws.

I don't understand, Natoma. Won't the Supreme Court just handle those cases? Why do you need an AMENDMENT to do it?

 

[Natoma]

If I recall correctly, the liberal "raise taxes" also happened to spear-head one of the greatest booms this country has ever seen.

Point being?

Who said that raising or lowering taxes could curtail the internet boom?

Point being that raising or lowering taxes has nothing to do with personal freedoms, as you tried to make a connection. The only personal freedom wrt taxes is the right to not be taxed without representation.

And lets not forget that conservative of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, who realized toward the end of his term that he had made a mistake with his massive 1981 tax cuts and raised taxes to correct it.

I'd love to see the source that misconstrues facts and builds in assumptions to come up with that one...

Did or did not Ronald Reagan raise taxes, effectively repealing much of his 1981 tax cut, because the economy was facing a massive drain on funds? This is most certainly not up for misconception and built in assumptions. It happened.

The conservative of conservatives, the person all supply siders look to when making the case for lowering taxes, ended up raising taxes.

Oh right. And conservative driven Jim Crow most certainly was a law that didn't apply to conservatives because they were special because of reason X-Y-Z.

Did I say it wasn't? The point is, it was an overt law. Was it wrong? Yup, I believe it was. Move along...

What exactly is your point wrt the overtness of the law eh? Please tell me there's something useful in that. The point in all of this remains that that was a prime example of conservative "morality" winding its way through our country. I'm sorry if I can't buy into that kind of "morality."

Not to mention the Patriot Act or DOMA or Prohibition or McCarthyism. All instances of conservative morality. Yea. I have so much respect for that.

Oh, but you DO have respect (documented earlier in this thread) for laws which deny or limit freedoms...when other freedoms are at risk of being violated. (Who decides what freedom is the correct one to violate is I guess, just up to YOU.)

I presume that you also agree that it is right to curtail certain freedoms are for purpose of providing our own security? Or do you think we should all just get on an airplane without any ID whatsoever. (After which of course you'll sue someone for not knowing terrorists were on the plane...)

Of course not. But as ususal, you like to make blanket statements. "They're taking away liberties for no reason!"

Wrong. There is a reason, and a similar one for which you agree is valid in "other cases." You just don't agree with the reason in this case.

No liberties or freedoms are taken away by carrying an ID onto a plane. Hello it's called a Passport. That's so that law abiding people can freely travel. If you've committed a felony, you've already taken away your own liberties and freedom.

And as for what you were referring to as earlier in this thread, driving is not a freedom. It is a responsibility and a privilege that each person must be capable of fulfilling in order to partake in that activity. If you are not capable of it, then you can't have a license. There is a distinct difference.

Oh please. Conservatives are just as guilty of trying to load up the courts with judges who will rule in their favor.

There has NEVER been the kind of filibustering and slamming of appointees that there has been during this past administration.

Conservatives such as Strom Thurmond and his followers built entire careers out of filibustering "liberal" judges and laws in the congress. Just because it's in the media more often today doesn't mean that there has NEVER been the kind of filibustering and slamming of appointees.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Point being that raising or lowering taxes has nothing to do with personal freedoms, as you tried to make a connection.

Oh, I have to truly laugh out loud at this one. This statement, coming from someone who talks about all the "opportunity" lost by virtue of just not having enough money? If they just had more money, they would be freer to do more things and have more opportunity?

Yes, contradiction is another trait of the "overly proud" liberals.

Did or did not Ronald Reagan raise taxes, effectively repealing much of his 1981 tax cut,

Was the 1981 tax cut repealed?

Did Reagan enact any new taxes on the basis that the income tax cut was a mistake? Please. I asked for a source, but I suppose the reasonsing didn't come from a source, but your own convoluted thought process? The same one that believes the constitution can be unconstitutional?

"Effectively" is a popular word with you, isn't it? If it didn't actually happen, then just say it "effectively" happened, right/

What exactly is your point wrt the overtness of the law eh? Please tell me there's something useful in that.

Sure. The fact that you can see the law in black and white, vs. leaving it up to interpretation?

For example, what would have been better with UN Resoltion 1441:

1) "If Iraq doesn't comply, then the U.S. can go to war with Iraq?"T
2) "If Iraw doesn't comply, then there won't be a war, but there will be further consequences including economic ones..."
3) "If Iraq doesn't comply, there will be serious consequences."

Being as overt as possible means there is no hidden agenda to protect. Excuse me if I prefer to actually know to as large an extent possible, the consequences of a particular stance on policy.

Because resolution version 3 was passed, we had months (and continued) figer pointing toward the coalition and their "right" to do what they did. If either 1 or 2 was taken, there'd be little question.

the point in all of this remains that that was a prime example of conservative "morality" winding its way through our country. I'm sorry if I can't buy into that kind of "morality."

Nor can I. But the point is, I can point to a law and strike it down. I can point to an amendment and in clear terms know what "the people" mean it to be.

The more ambiguous, the more "open to interpretation of the day" it is. That's sufficient for lots of stuff. But particularly with issues that are very "touchy", and ones where "depending on which 9 people populate the court at any given time", can lead to significant differences in interpretation, I'd rather have an OVERT law / amendment in place. If it's deemed "wrong" in the future, it can still be changed...by the same overt process that got it there in the first place.

No liberties or freedoms are taken away by carrying an ID onto a plane.

Now, that depends on who you talk to. Why should anyone have the "right" to know that I'm on the plane?

I might be getting on a plane to fly somewhere to cheat on my girlfriend. It's my right to cheat on her, and I should have the "freedom" to do so without fear of being caught.

Hello it's called a Passport.

Yes, and they are basic violations of freedom to be anonymous. Why else do you hear public outcry everytime the words "national ID" are brought up every few years?

That's so that law abiding people can freely travel. If you've committed a felony, you've already taken away your own liberties and freedom.

Ah, so again, you come up with "some reason" to restrict freedoms. I don't have to have broken the law to not want the government or anyone else know where I'm going. That's against my "right to privacy!'

What about searching scool lockers? Are you saying it's OK to search the lockers of kids, only if they've been previously conviceted of some drug charge? Why is there even a DEBATE over "random searches". If you're "law abiding" you have nothing to worry about, right?

And as for what you were referring to as earlier in this thread, driving is not a freedom.

Tell that to the 70 year old that's having his license taken away.

Now, to be perfectly clear...I AGREE with you that driving is a privledge and a responsibility. However, the point is, what means freedom to YOU and ME, does not mean freedom to everyone else.

To others, being able to travel freely, being able to NOT have your locker searched, being able to travel anonymously, very well fits in with the "constitutional spirit" of FREEDOM.

And when these issues arise, the best approach to dealing with them, IMO, and in the conservative approach, is to overtly bring them up and attempt to legistlate them.

It is a responsibility and a privilege that each person must be capable of fulfilling in order to partake in that activity. If you are not capable of it, then you can't have a license. There is a distinct difference.

Since when is it a definition that at one age, you are capable, and at another age, you aren't? I agree there should be re-testing to get drivers licenses, but there shouldn't be any law that states "after age X, you can't get a license."

I would even be against a "after age X, you must get re-tested" law. I'd prefer a "you must get retested at regular intervals, at any age." There's quite a few NON seniors who don't deserve the privledge of being able to drive...

Conservatives such as Strom Thurmond and his followers built entire careers out of filibustering "liberal" judges and laws in the congress. Just because it's in the media more often today doesn't mean that there has NEVER been the kind of filibustering and slamming of appointees.

Oh yeah...I forgot Clarence Thomas...

I didn't say there has NEVER been filibustering or slamming. It has NEVER BEEN TO THIS EXTENT.

I'll try and get some stats for you. One that I recall was that to date less than 40% of Bush's appointess have even had a committee hearing. When at least going back several presidents (to Ford or Carter?), that figure is over 90%.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Here's some reading on the current mess with judicial nominations, that more than anything, just illustrates the hypocricy of the Democrats:

http://www.judicialselection.org/media/Behind_the_left.htm

 

[Natoma]

Point being that raising or lowering taxes has nothing to do with personal freedoms, as you tried to make a connection.

Oh, I have to truly laugh out loud at this one. This statement, coming from someone who talks about all the "opportunity" lost by virtue of just not having enough money? If they just had more money, they would be freer to do more things and have more opportunity?

Yes, contradiction is another trait of the "overly proud" liberals.

Ok now you're just making stuff up and running with it. One of the many detestable traits of conservatives.

Did or did not Ronald Reagan raise taxes, effectively repealing much of his 1981 tax cut,

Was the 1981 tax cut repealed?

Did Reagan enact any new taxes on the basis that the income tax cut was a mistake? Please. I asked for a source, but I suppose the reasonsing didn't come from a source, but your own convoluted thought process? The same one that believes the constitution can be unconstitutional?

"Effectively" is a popular word with you, isn't it? If it didn't actually happen, then just say it "effectively" happened, right/

If the tax cuts of 1981 weren't a mistake, why then did Reagan raise taxes later on in the decade? In order to close the budget deficits caused by lower taxes, while not lowering spending. Sound familiar? That same supply side economic hogwash is in practice today tyvm mr. bush.

Google reagan raise taxes. Here's a link to whet your appetite:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TotW/Reagan_taxes.html

Being as overt as possible means there is no hidden agenda to protect. Excuse me if I prefer to actually know to as large an extent possible, the consequences of a particular stance on policy.

Oh, so because conservative laws are generally very overt in the way in which they seek to repress, you prefer them. Gotcha.

the point in all of this remains that that was a prime example of conservative "morality" winding its way through our country. I'm sorry if I can't buy into that kind of "morality."

Nor can I. But the point is, I can point to a law and strike it down. I can point to an amendment and in clear terms know what "the people" mean it to be.

That didn't stop the conservatives of the day from committing egregious acts against their fellow citizens now did it.

No liberties or freedoms are taken away by carrying an ID onto a plane.

Now, that depends on who you talk to. Why should anyone have the "right" to know that I'm on the plane?

Uhm, because you're on it, and it's not public property?

I might be getting on a plane to fly somewhere to cheat on my girlfriend. It's my right to cheat on her, and I should have the "freedom" to do so without fear of being caught.

Oh now this is absurd. The Passport just tells them that you're on a plane. It doesn't tell them what the intent of the flight is, obviously.

Hello it's called a Passport.

Yes, and they are basic violations of freedom to be anonymous. Why else do you hear public outcry everytime the words "national ID" are brought up every few years?

If you purchase a private plane, you don't need a passport. The airline industry, however, is not private. Besides, you already have a "national ID". It's called your social security #. That's all that's required by the government.

That's so that law abiding people can freely travel. If you've committed a felony, you've already taken away your own liberties and freedom.

Ah, so again, you come up with "some reason" to restrict freedoms. I don't have to have broken the law to not want the government or anyone else know where I'm going. That's against my "right to privacy!'

Uhm, they'd know where you're going by sheer fact that you purchased a flight ticket with a destination. You don't need a passport to know where someone is headed.

What about searching scool lockers? Are you saying it's OK to search the lockers of kids, only if they've been previously conviceted of some drug charge? Why is there even a DEBATE over "random searches". If you're "law abiding" you have nothing to worry about, right?

The constitution protects against unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure. If a school has proof that a student has been convicted of a drug charge, then that is a reasonable and warranted reason to search their locker randomly.

Students who have committed no crime most certainly should not have their lockers searched without reason suspicion and proof, and this has been argued successfully in quite a few jurisdictions

And as for what you were referring to as earlier in this thread, driving is not a freedom.

Tell that to the 70 year old that's having his license taken away.

Now, to be perfectly clear...I AGREE with you that driving is a privledge and a responsibility. However, the point is, what means freedom to YOU and ME, does not mean freedom to everyone else.

To others, being able to travel freely, being able to NOT have your locker searched, being able to travel anonymously, very well fits in with the "constitutional spirit" of FREEDOM.

And when these issues arise, the best approach to dealing with them, IMO, and in the conservative approach, is to overtly bring them up and attempt to legistlate them.

I addressed the locker search above. The ability to travel anonymously on a plane is given up the minute you purchase a ticket and give your destination. Even before you provide a passport, you are no longer anonymous.

It is a responsibility and a privilege that each person must be capable of fulfilling in order to partake in that activity. If you are not capable of it, then you can't have a license. There is a distinct difference.

Since when is it a definition that at one age, you are capable, and at another age, you aren't? I agree there should be re-testing to get drivers licenses, but there shouldn't be any law that states "after age X, you can't get a license."

I would even be against a "after age X, you must get re-tested" law. I'd prefer a "you must get retested at regular intervals, at any age." There's quite a few NON seniors who don't deserve the privledge of being able to drive...

And there aren't any laws that say you can't drive after a certain age. The laws for revoking a drivers license have to deal with increased testing after certain ages where it is scientifically known the human body begins to noticeably deteriorate in reflexes and skill, proving a danger not only to the individual driver but to others on the road who share that responsibility.

And to be sure, if you are convicted of drunk driving in some states, or have had an accident, you do have to go in for increased testing. The responsibility is given to you fully until you show yourself unable to cope with it completely. Then restrictions are placed on you.

Conservatives such as Strom Thurmond and his followers built entire careers out of filibustering "liberal" judges and laws in the congress. Just because it's in the media more often today doesn't mean that there has NEVER been the kind of filibustering and slamming of appointees.

Oh yeah...I forgot Clarence Thomas...

I didn't say there has NEVER been filibustering or slamming. It has NEVER BEEN TO THIS EXTENT.

I'll try and get some stats for you. One that I recall was that to date less than 40% of Bush's appointess have even had a committee hearing. When at least going back several presidents (to Ford or Carter?), that figure is over 90%.

I'd like to see the source for this.

 

[Silent_One]

If the tax cuts of 1981 weren't a mistake, why then did Reagan raise taxes later on in the decade? In order to close the budget deficits caused by lower taxes, while not lowering spending. Sound familiar? That same supply side economic hogwash is in practice today tyvm mr. bush.

Google reagan raise taxes. Here's a link to whet your appetite:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TotW/Reagan_taxes.html

Uh...Natoma....where does it say Reagan raised taxes?

 

[Natoma]

Good lord. It was called the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The article is referring to this. Walter Mondale lost in 1984, in part, because he was honest about having to raise taxes in order to address the deficits created by the 1981 tax cuts. Little did he know that 2yrs later, Reagan would fulfilll this reality.

Oh, and lets also not forget "Read my lips, No new taxes" from Reagan's #2, which further eroded the 1981 tax cuts. Conservative tax cuts indeed.

[EDIT]In summation, deficits and deficit spending caused by the supply side conservative 1981 tax cuts were addressed by reagan in 1986, Bush in 1990, and Clinton in 1993.[/EDIT]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Ok now you're just making stuff up and running with it. One of the many detestable traits of conservatives.

Really? So you never argued for special treatment of the "less economically well-off?"

If the tax cuts of 1981 weren't a mistake, why then did Reagan raise taxes later on in the decade?

What taxes did he raise, by how much, and what was his stated reason for it?

Google reagan raise taxes. Here's a link to whet your appetite:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TotW/Reagan_taxes.html

Don't see any reference in their for Reagan raising taxes...

Oh, so because conservative laws are generally very overt in the way in which they seek to repress, you prefer them. Gotcha.

Wrong.

Because laws are generally very overt....it can be DETERMINED to much more significant extent their ramifications. That's why I prefer that approach to relying on Judges. That's why the Constitution prefers that method as well.

That didn't stop the conservatives of the day from committing egregious acts against their fellow citizens now did it.

And it doesn't stop liberals from doing the same.

Uhm, because you're on it, and it's not public property?

Oh...so being PUBLIC determines if you can discriminate or infringe upon freedom? (See GAY HIGH SCHOOL debate.)

Why is there FEDERAL SECURITY, and FEDERAL LAWS regarding IDENTIFICATION for U.S. air travel? It's not because the PRIVATE industry requires it, Natoma. Here we have the government infringing on so-called "private" property and industry with their own freedom curtailing laws. All the airlines care about is that they get paid for each passenger.

Oh now this is absurd. The Passport just tells them that you're on a plane. It doesn't tell them what the intent of the flight is, obviously.

Um, your photo ID required to board an airplane is proof that you say who you say you are. Your whereabouts can be tracked.

If you purchase a private plane, you don't need a passport.

.

If I board a plane that is owned by private company, I need photo ID. Whether or not that private industry wants it or not.

The airline industry, however, is not private.

Of course it is.

Besides, you already have a "national ID". It's called your social security #. That's all that's required by the government.

Right....and there are laws in place about who and what can even ASK for this number. Why is that?

Uhm, they'd know where you're going by sheer fact that you purchased a flight ticket with a destination.

Wrong.

I can have my friend buy a ticket for me. Airlines don't need to know who's flying. All they need to know is that the ticket is paid for.

You don't need a passport to know where someone is headed.

No, you need someone tracking your ID. That's the point.

The constitution protects against unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure. If a school has proof that a student has been convicted of a drug charge, then that is a reasonable and warranted reason to search their locker randomly.

Great. Define "unreasonable and unwarranted". That's the problem, isn't it? I presume anyone who disagrees with YOUR definition of "reaonable and unwarranted" is just looking to unreasonably curtail freedoms?

I addressed the locker search above. The ability to travel anonymously on a plane is given up the minute you purchase a ticket and give your destination.

WHY.

Even before you provide a passport, you are no longer anonymous.

WHY.

What business does the Airline have knowing who I am? Why can't I go up to a counter, slap down $200 in cash, and say "give me a ticket to L.A.".

And there aren't any laws that say you can't drive after a certain age.

And there shouldn't be.

The laws for revoking a drivers license have to deal with increased testing after certain ages where it is scientifically known the human body begins to noticeably deteriorate in reflexes and skill, proving a danger not only to the individual driver but to others on the road who share that responsibility.

Right...AGE DISCRIMINATION.

Do I think such age discrimination is reasonable?. Absolutely. "But WAH! It goes against the constitutional ideal of "equality."

That's the whole point, Natoma.

Again, it doesn't matter WHY there is unequal treatment applied. When a law is considered, the WHYs are debated. If enough people agree with the law, it becomes law.

I'd like to see the source for this.

For your enjoyment:

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1206051.html#http___www_crosswalk_com_news_1206051_html

From Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton, over 90 percent of circuit court nominees received a Judiciary Committee hearing during a president’s first Congress. In President Bush’s first term, however, only about one-third of his circuit court nominees (37.9 percent) have received so much as a committee hearing.

 

[Silent_One]

Tax Reform Act of 1986
http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/tax-reform-act-of-1986.htm

Federal legislation that eliminated many tax shelters and deductions previously allowed. It also reduced individual and corporate tax rates. It restricted personal tax deductions for individual retirement accounts, restricted use of corporate sponsored 401(k) payroll deduction plans, and increased corporate expenses to start and maintain pension plans. An alternative minimum tax for corporations originated with this Act and has had a material effect on insurance company tax payments.

Oh... that tax reform,..... the one that lowered individual and corporarte tax rates...

Good lord. It was called the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The article is referring to this.

Good Lord yourself. The article made no reference to the 1986 tax reform at all. would it be too much to ask of you that your links are pertinent?

 

[Natoma]

Ok now you're just making stuff up and running with it. One of the many detestable traits of conservatives.

Really? So you never argued for special treatment of the "less economically well-off?"

I have argued "special treatment," but has nothing to do with personal freedoms and moreso to do with equal treatment in facilities provided for an education so that everyone has an equal opportunity to be educated.

If the tax cuts of 1981 weren't a mistake, why then did Reagan raise taxes later on in the decade?

What taxes did he raise, by how much, and what was his stated reason for it?

Google reagan raise taxes. Here's a link to whet your appetite:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TotW/Reagan_taxes.html

Don't see any reference in their for Reagan raising taxes...

1986 Tax Reform Act. Addressed in further detail in my last post.

Oh, so because conservative laws are generally very overt in the way in which they seek to repress, you prefer them. Gotcha.

Wrong.

Because laws are generally very overt....it can be DETERMINED to much more significant extent their ramifications. That's why I prefer that approach to relying on Judges. That's why the Constitution prefers that method as well.

Equal Protection doesn't sound very overt in intent to me. Judges, such as the ones on the supreme court, then take that decision and apply it to certain cases. The constitution already provides equal protection for homosexuals and heterosexuals wrt legal, NOT religious, marriage. It is simply a matter of time before this is stated verbally. /me waits for the Massachussetts Supreme Court decision.

That didn't stop the conservatives of the day from committing egregious acts against their fellow citizens now did it.

And it doesn't stop liberals from doing the same.

Show me anything liberals have created that compares with DOMA, Jim Crow, Prohibition, confederate flag day, or the patriot act, for instance.

Uhm, because you're on it, and it's not public property?

Oh...so being PUBLIC determines if you can discriminate or infringe upon freedom? (See GAY HIGH SCHOOL debate.)

Not at all. But that is what the airlines use in order to help screen their passengers.

Why is there FEDERAL SECURITY, and FEDERAL LAWS regarding IDENTIFICATION for U.S. air travel? It's not because the PRIVATE industry requires it, Natoma. Here we have the government infringing on so-called "private" property and industry with their own freedom curtailing laws. All the airlines care about is that they get paid for each passenger.

Actually the airlines lobbied and co-wrote for these identification purposes. To identify citizens from non-citizens, those with a criminal history from those without, because flights can span not only the US, but international as well. If this was forced upon the airlines then you might have a point, but it wasn't.

Oh now this is absurd. The Passport just tells them that you're on a plane. It doesn't tell them what the intent of the flight is, obviously.

Um, your photo ID required to board an airplane is proof that you say who you say you are. Your whereabouts can be tracked.

Only as much as your take off and destination. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you purchase a private plane, you don't need a passport.

.

If I board a plane that is owned by private company, I need photo ID. Whether or not that private industry wants it or not.

That is their requirement for flying their airlines, as guidelines setup by the airline industry and the US government.

Besides, you already have a "national ID". It's called your social security #. That's all that's required by the government.

Right....and there are laws in place about who and what can even ASK for this number. Why is that?

Because there are certain instances when identification is required, such as when you want to access your bank records in some instances, or your education records. So they know who to look for.

Uhm, they'd know where you're going by sheer fact that you purchased a flight ticket with a destination.

Wrong.

I can have my friend buy a ticket for me. Airlines don't need to know who's flying. All they need to know is that the ticket is paid for.

If you're really this paranoid about it, get a fake passport with your photo and a different name, address, etc.

You don't need a passport to know where someone is headed.

No, you need someone tracking your ID. That's the point.

For your take off and destination. And that's all.

The constitution protects against unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure. If a school has proof that a student has been convicted of a drug charge, then that is a reasonable and warranted reason to search their locker randomly.

Great. Define "unreasonable and unwarranted". That's the problem, isn't it? I presume anyone who disagrees with YOUR definition of "reaonable and unwarranted" is just looking to unreasonably curtail freedoms?

And what would YOU or anyone else define as unreasonable and unwarranted? I gave my definition above. Proof of a drug charge, i.e. the courts found that person guilty, or prior evidence of drugs found on their person.

I addressed the locker search above. The ability to travel anonymously on a plane is given up the minute you purchase a ticket and give your destination.

WHY.

Why not? There's nothing in the constitution or any law that states you have the right to board a plane without giving identification that you are who you say you are.

Even before you provide a passport, you are no longer anonymous.

WHY.

Why not?

What business does the Airline have knowing who I am? Why can't I go up to a counter, slap down $200 in cash, and say "give me a ticket to L.A.".

You can most certainly do that. That does not exclude the need for Passport identification.

The laws for revoking a drivers license have to deal with increased testing after certain ages where it is scientifically known the human body begins to noticeably deteriorate in reflexes and skill, proving a danger not only to the individual driver but to others on the road who share that responsibility.

Right...AGE DISCRIMINATION.

Do I think such age discrimination is reasonable?. Absolutely. "But WAH! It goes against the constitutional ideal of "equality."

It is most certainly equal. Everyone ages and deteriorates in ability.

I'd like to see the source for this.

For your enjoyment:

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1206051.html#http___www_crosswalk_com_news_1206051_html

From Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton, over 90 percent of circuit court nominees received a Judiciary Committee hearing during a president’s first Congress. In President Bush’s first term, however, only about one-third of his circuit court nominees (37.9 percent) have received so much as a committee hearing.

From Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton. Uhm, that would be Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton. 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Gee. Nothing uneven about that. And again, you said NEVER at this level. Never extends all the way back to the beginning of this country. So again, I'd like to see the source.

 

[Natoma]

Tax Reform Act of 1986
http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/tax-reform-act-of-1986.htm

Federal legislation that eliminated many tax shelters and deductions previously allowed. It also reduced individual and corporate tax rates. It restricted personal tax deductions for individual retirement accounts, restricted use of corporate sponsored 401(k) payroll deduction plans, and increased corporate expenses to start and maintain pension plans. An alternative minimum tax for corporations originated with this Act and has had a material effect on insurance company tax payments.

Oh... that tax reform,..... the one that lowered individual and corporarte tax rates...

The tax reform act created the 15% and 28% tax brackets which raised overall taxation for the majority of americans, while reducing the upper tax bracket. The majority of americans experienced a tax increase. Why do you think the individual tax rates were "reduced" while the income tax receipts increased 0.3% the first year of inception?

Good lord. It was called the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The article is referring to this.

Good Lord yourself. The article made no reference to the 1986 tax reform at all. would it be too much to ask of you that your links are pertinent?

Hello there was only one Reagan tax increase in the 80's. And there was one Bush increase, and one Clinton increase.

What does the article say?

The story of how the 1981 tax-cut shift in America's political economy was eroded away to nothing has three parts: the 1980s deficits, the early 1990s forecasts, and the late 1990s boom.

the fact of the deficits of the 1980s created slow but inexorable pressure to raise taxes to close the deficit.

Thus the early 1990s saw increasingly pessimistic and horrifying deficit forecasts. They further increased the pressure for tax increases. And by 1994-95 federal revenues as a share of GDP were as high as they had been during Jimmy Carter's presidential term.

Again, what is this in reference to? Tax increases in 1986, 1990, and 1993. Two by conservative supply side republicans, and one by a democrat.

[EDIT]Why were the deficit forecasts pessimistic and horrifying? Because income was not in line with spending. You spend more than you make, and that creates a very bad situation. Thus taxes were increased thrice until the 1981 tax cuts had no effect at all anymore as a share of GDP, helping to restore the balanced budget. There were two separate booms. One was a boom based on borrowing (tax cuts + military spending of the 80s). The other was a boom based on real economic productivity (and the elimination of that borrowing), which we still see today, and is one of the main reasons this economy didn't slip that far into a recession and high inflation as it could have, given the overall tact of the economy.[/EDIT]

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

The tax reform act created the 15% and 28% tax brackets which raised overall taxation for the majority of americans, while reducing the upper tax bracket. The majority of americans experienced a tax increase. Why do you think the individual tax rates were "reduced" while the income tax receipts increased 0.3% the first year of inception?

Wrong. The majority did not experence a tax increase-
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/tra0100.pdf

Taxes of most families Ion average, all but the best-off tenth) were reduced. (The table showes the tax changes by income group.)

Natoma wrote:

Did or did not Ronald Reagan raise taxes, effectively repealing much of his 1981 tax cut, because the economy was facing a massive drain on funds? This is most certainly not up for misconception and built in assumptions. It happened.

The conservative of conservatives, the person all supply siders look to when making the case for lowering taxes, ended up raising taxes.

Good Lord!
You write it as if everything he did was reversed. You talk out your ass then backtrack on everything, editing your bold statements to now include Bush and Clinton.


Here's what the Tax Reform did....
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/tax1986.htm

The Tax Reform Act of 1986

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was one of the major accomplishments initiated by the Reagan Administration, passed by a Democratic House and Republican Senate. One of the most important pieces of tax legislation since WWII, it sought to "level the playing field" by curbing tax shelters, lowering corporate tax rates, and eliminating special treatment for capital gains. Thereafter, capital gains, earned income, and unearned income were all taxed at the same rate. In economists' language, it brought the average marginal tax rates on labor and capital income closer together.

Since 1986, other tax legislation has again increased taxation on earned income to a higher rate than that on capital gains, which again received preferential status. While the top rate on capital gains remained at 28%, the top earned income tax rate was increased to 31% in 1991 in a package endorsed by President Bush as a tactic for addressing burgeoning federal deficits. This violated his "Read my lips...No new taxes." campaign pledge as was thought to be a factor underlying his defeat in the 1992 elections. In 1993, under President Clinton, the earned income rate climbed even higher, to 39.6%.

Other features of the Tax Reform Act of 1986:

Tax cut. The top marginal tax rate on wealthiest individuals was reduced 44% (from 50% percent to 28%). The marginal rates for less wealthy individuals were also reduced, but not by as high a percentage. Tax reductions were said by some critics to underly the massive mushrooming of the federal deficit during the Reagan administration.

Tax base. The tax base was broadened as fewer individuals and businesses were allowed to escape taxation.

Tax simplification. Tax laws were simplified.

Investment tax credit repeal. The investment tax credit for purchase of depreciable assets was eliminated. Both short term depreciation schedules and the use of accelerated depreciation were eliminated, setting new cost recovery periods of 27.5 years for residential rental property and 31.5 years for nonresidential property. This, along with new passive loss limitation rules, caused a sharp decline in the use of tax shelters by the wealth. (The passive loss limitation rule disallowed losses from activities in which the taxpayer did not materially participate as a current deduction against all sources of income except for other passive activities. )

IRA deductions. The tax deduction for contributing to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) was eliminated for high-income taxpayers.
Bank deductions for bad debts. From 1969 to 1986, for corporate income tax purposes banks could deduct from their income allocations to loan-loss reserves. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 allowed this practice to continue for banks with $400 million or less in total assets but larger banks were restricted to deducting only actual loan-loss charges during a given year.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I have argued "special treatment," but has nothing to do with personal freedoms and moreso to do with equal treatment in facilities provided for an education so that everyone has an equal opportunity to be educated.

Right.

In oirder to have equal treatment, we must have unequal treatment. I know...standard liberal logic.

1986 Tax Reform Act. Addressed in further detail in my last post.

Addressed by Silent_One, and I 'll readress it here.

1) The article makes no reference to that.
2) The 1986 Tax Act was aimed primarily at BALANCING tax liability, and providing for simpler tax code, which is definitely a conservative trait. It significantly LOWERED the top ("for the rich," as you would say) corporate and personal marginal rate. It broadened the taxable base. Again, this is a conservative trait. Spread tax liability across more people, rather than concentrate it at higher income levels.

Conservatives are not about NO taxes. We're about FAIR taxes. We're CERTAINLY not about fewer people paying taxes.

The constitution already provides equal protection for homosexuals and heterosexuals wrt legal, NOT religious, marriage.

I don't recall there being a Supreme Court case to decide that, Natoma. I don't recall homosexuals having any more or less a right to get married either. I'm a heterosexual, and I can't marry someone of the same sex any more than you can. Legally or otherwise.

It is simply a matter of time before this is stated verbally. /me waits for the Massachussetts Supreme Court decision.

Which of course, refers to Massachussetts law, and is not the final say on U.S. Constitutional Law.

Show me anything liberals have created that compares with DOMA, Jim Crow, Prohibition, confederate flag day, or the patriot act, for instance.

Geezus, I thought just yesterday we were taling about gay public high schools...

Not at all. But that is what the airlines use in order to help screen their passengers.

Wrong. It's what the government REQUIRES the airlines use to screen passengers.

Actually the airlines lobbied and co-wrote for these identification purposes. To identify citizens from non-citizens, those with a criminal history from those without, because flights can span not only the US, but international as well. If this was forced upon the airlines then you might have a point, but it wasn't.

Of course they lobbied for certain aspects of it. It was going to happen regardless...so they're damn well going to have some say in it.

The fact of the matter is the government requires it. the horror! My freedoms are infringed upon!

Only as much as your take off and destination. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and that's bad enough. Just the fact that it's know that I was on an airplane at a specific point in time is a breach of my privacy.

quote]That is their requirement for flying their airlines, as guidelines setup by the airline industry and the US government. [/quote]

Right.
1. Requirement
2. U.S. Government.

quote]

Right....and there are laws in place about who and what can even ASK for this number. Why is that?

Because there are certain instances when identification is required, such as when you want to access your bank records in some instances, or your education records. So they know who to look for. [/quote]

Natoma, you keep on giving me REASONS why personal rights / freedoms are infringed upon. And I keep telling you....THAT'S THE PONT!

If you're really this paranoid about it, get a fake passport with your photo and a different name, address, etc.

Now I've heard it all. Now, I'm the one who's "paranoid" about my freedoms? Now you're suggesting I do something illegal to allay those fears? This is too much!

And what would YOU or anyone else define as unreasonable and unwarranted? I gave my definition above. Proof of a drug charge, i.e. the courts found that person guilty, or prior evidence of drugs found on their person.

Hey Natoma, in a court of law in almost all cases, I can't consider a person's prior record when considering the current case before me. You did know that right?

So why is this criteria now reasonable for searching someone's locker? That's absurd! Certainly unreasonable?

And again, Natoma, in this case, I generally agree with you. My POINT is, there are logical arguments for other criteria for "reasonable and warranted".

If 1 seemingly random person a month is dying of a drug overdose on school grounds, is that not "reasonable" to institute a random locker search policy for drugs?

Why not? There's nothing in the constitution or any law that states you have the right to board a plane without giving identification that you are who you say you are.

Exactly. But there's this "so called inherent, general principal of freedom" according to you. So that should just be "inherently realized" shouldn't it?

The whole point of this exercise is to get you to admit that these "inherent principals" are not without exception. We carve out exceptions (or APPARENT exceptions) in cases where we feel it is for "the greater good".

[edit]And my point is, such exceptions, or even apparent exceptions, (those that not everyone would agree is actually an exceptoin) should be legislated by the people. Not left up to the "judicial panel of the day" to decide.[/edit]

Even before you provide a passport, you are no longer anonymous.

WHY.

Why not?

Huh? Because my "right to privacy" (inherent aspect of "freedom," right? According to liberals), is infringed upon when I'm not anonymous.

You can most certainly do that. That does not exclude the need for Passport identification.

I cannot do that. I need to provide an identity when purchasing a ticket, and I need to verify that identity when I board.

It is most certainly equal. Everyone ages and deteriorates in ability.

Amazing how the liberal mind works. Everyone does NOT age equally. So putting some age requirement is discrimination.

From Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton. Uhm, that would be Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton. 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Gee. Nothing uneven about that.

Right...nothing uneven. 50% democrats and 50% republicans.

And again, you said NEVER at this level. Never extends all the way back to the beginning of this country. So again, I'd like to see the source.

Um, I VOLUNTEERED, to try and find you statistics from the very onset. And that the one particular statistic that I DID recall and state off the top of my head, I then EXACTLY VERIFIED that statistic upon your request.

I said: "I'll try and get some stats for you. One that I recall was that to date less than 40% of Bush's appointess have even had a committee hearing. When at least going back several presidents (to Ford or Carter?), that figure is over 90%. "

You replied:

I'd like to see the source for this.

And I gave you an exact source for the 40%/90% figure. The others will come assuming I find them. Keep your pants on.

I only wish you would do the same for me wrt to sources....but then...living up to the same expectations that you impose on others is not "the liberal way", is it?