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


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.

Go to Page: 1