HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » appal_jack » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: North Carolina
Member since: Wed Aug 11, 2004, 06:57 PM
Number of posts: 3,813

Journal Archives

Your rationale makes far too much sense to ever persuade the likes of Graham.

Skittles' summation of him is as accurate as it gets.

I want every Democrat and rational-thinking Independent to stand up for women's health, privacy, choice, and the separation of church and state. Graham opposes all of this, and unfortunately has a mighty big megaphone which he is not shy about using. Bt every minute he spends sniping at other Republicans is a moment he could otherwise be doing worse things, so there is a bit of a silver lining...


What a bunch of poorly-reasoned, ill-conflated nonsense.

Morford is just spluttering word salad throughout this 'article.' Even when he's making sense, he's veering and careening:

Here’s a point: Every single accusation the GOP has leveled at Planned Parenthood has been false, an outright lie, revoltingly so. Republicans do not care that they have painted a world-renowned health organization, one that’s helped millions of women (including, surely, countless Republican women, GOP members’ own wives and daughters), as as merely a “seller of baby parts.” It’s a vicious lie. But Robert Dear, for one, believed them.

I agree with every bit of the paragraph quoted above. But what do Republican lies about Planned Parenthood and an ongoing war to deprive women of their critical reproductive rights and access to health services have to do with the entirely separate right to keep and bear arms? Morford wanting to deprive citiens of the RKBA will not help women's rights one whit.

And then he veers off in another wrong direction:

By the way, here’s the gun lobby, arguing that suspected terrorists should continue to have access to guns in the US, without background checks.

And here’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on Thursday and for the third time, offering an amendment requiring that suspected terrorists undergo background checks – something the vast majority of gun owners and even most NRA members (and George W. Bush) supported.

So here's Morford calling for the systematic violation of people's right to due process and "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." So he's not only against the Second Amendment; he's also perfectly willing to trash the Sixth Amendment.

Morford favors tyranny. This is not who we want defining or protecting any rights, women's included.



And this is why I understand and admire the muscular defensive posture Israel often (by necessity) takes. Well more than a billion of their neighbors want to see them wiped off the map. If US aid can help stop that, I feel the money is well spent.


Does the existence of army barracks render the Third Amendment void?

I'm glad that we have a standing army in this day and age (it's certainly larger than it needs to be, but that's another discussion), but its existence is only one facet of "the security of a free State." The right to keep and bear arms exists separately and entirely, regardless of the Second Amendment's prefatory clause. Indeed, the right of self defense existed in common law long before the US Constitution and its first ten amendments enumerated some of our most important rights.

RBG is grinding an axe here, rather than upholding the Constitution as she swore to do. As they say in meme-land, "I am disappoint." She might as well say that the Third Amendment could be dispensed with since we have bases and barracks. That's as may be, but soldiers still can't quarter in my house.


Who's this 'we,' kemo-sabe?

Pipoman, myself, and many many others here at DU are not willing to shred the Constitution as you would like. That does not make us bad Democrats; that makes us good Americans, thank you very much.

The US Constitution delineates specific and (ideally) absolute limits upon government power. It says that we all have the right to "keep and bear arms." For "we the people" (as you fancy yourself, yallerdawg) to change that, it would take 2/3 of both houses of COngress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures. Let us know when you get to that...

Regarding the no-fly list (a Bush-era unconstitutional boondoggle which you defend - are you sure YOU are on the right site yallerdawg?), the US Constitution guarantees us all that we shall not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I would say that travel falls well within the sphere of liberty, and is also protected by the 9th Amendment. Putting people on a government list MUST follow a due process, as mandated by the 14th Amendment ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But when you propose to use this unconstitutional, secret, Bush-era list to deny people arms, you further compound its unconstitutionality by also violating the 2nd Amendment.

And you claim to be a liberal? Shame on you.


Huckabee is un-Koalafied! nt

Absolutely essential history in that documentary.

I'd also recommend this song of Randy Newman's:


with an updated verse I sang to myself to make sense of it all back in 2005:

President Bush flew over in an aeroplane,
With a fat man named Karl Rove hired to be his brain.
Then he said "Heck of a job" to his friend Mike Brown,
'Cuz the plan all along was to let the brown folk drown.

Lyrics for this one updtaed verse copyright 2005 by appal_jack, fwiw, and writtin in commemoration of these photos:



I commit myself as a bulwark AGAINST going down that road.

Given that actual American blood was shed in order to achieve the successful codification and enumeration of the precious rights in both Second and Fourteenth Amendments (and all the rest of our Constitutional rights besides), how about we as Democrats be the ones who REALLY stand up for the whole Constitution? We can let the Trumpuglicans be the ignorant revsionists...


She systematically excluded any discussion of single-payer from her show until it was too late.

I called twice when the health care debate was happening, and each time when I got through (to ask about single-payer) the operator ("Dorie," I think at the time) told me that my question or point was not germane to the conversation. I translated that as "we find single payer to be outside the realm of acceptable possibilities."

I count that as a dirty trick. These days, I'm thinking that she considers Bernie Sanders to be outside the realm of acceptable possibilities as well, and is ready and willing to employ similar dirty tricks.

While my second example may not have universal agreement on DU, Diane Rehm also never (and I mean NEVER) lets facts get in the way of her advocacy for more gun control laws.

I agree that she often hosts and facilitates a good discussion. But there seem to be a few issues where she has an axe to grind, and with them she can be ruthless and play dirty. I actually like and appreciate that she is as every bit as much an advocate for women's health and reproductive freedom issues. Anti-choicers can get away with no shit on her show, and that's rare in mainstream media.


Is the effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood a Bill of Attainder?

All the discussions I have heard and read about Republican efforts to de-fund Planned Parenthood seem to state that Planned Parenthood would be specifically and arbitrarily excluded from receiving federal funds for normal and proper non-abortion medical services to women. This specific and arbitrary exclusion strikes me as the very definition of a Bill of Attainder:


As the Wiki link notes:
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.

And, the US Constitution specifically prohibits Bills of Attainder:
The United States Constitution forbids legislative bills of attainder under Article I, Section 9. The provision forbidding state law bills of attainder, Article I, Section 10, reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue.

Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial or executive functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was partially reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".

(Again from the above Wiki link - emphases in above quotes are mine)

While I certainly hope that the effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood fails on its own merits: it's a terrible idea that will only harm women (and children too) by hobbling an important nonprofit element of the medical services community, I wonder if challenging this ridiculous legislative push on Constitutional grounds would also be worthwhile.

What do the legal scholars and incisive minds of DU say?

Let's stand up for women's reproductive freedom and health every way we can.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »