Amnesty and my membership in the Republican party

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Except that the work that the illegals do is legal necessary work.

More to the point, not everyone who is working illegally is in the country illegally.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

So says the Ninth Amendment, but I don't think the Supreme Court has ever tried to figure out what that means.

We all disagree with various rulings of the Supreme Court. I would guess (though I cannot be certain) that you may be a proponent of certain decisions that place limitations on various listed Constitutional protections as well as non-specific. I really do not propose to know for sure. Even the staunchest civil libertarians might support smoking bans on private property or campaign finance laws.

All I know is that the second amendment says I can have firearms, but there are laws restricting that freedom. I know the first amendment says I can say what I want, but there are laws on the books that prohibit ads critical of elected officials 60 days prior to an election.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Except that the work that the illegals do is legal necessary work. The majority of abused drugs can't be sold by pharmacists even with a prescription. I suppose if recreational drugs were ever legalized, there would still be a street trade devoted to undercutting the prices passed down by the drug companies to the pharmacists. Then you'd hear the drug companies complain about the street dealers the way the white and black working class complain about the Latinos.

Umm...Strangler....it was meant to be humorous not literal. That's why I said I found it to be humorous.

And I respectfully disagree that it is the white and black working class complaining about the Latinos. A large portion of hispanics that are here legally have problems with hispanic illegals. And while hispanics no doubt represent the vast majority, the objection is to illegal immigration from anywhere regardless of race.

The biggest opponent of illegal immigration was a hispanic labor organizer that is honored here in AZ named Cesar Chavez. He understood that every illegal immigrant working here drove down the wages for those that were here legally, and he encouraged those he organized to turn in the illegals and have them deported.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

We all disagree with various rulings of the Supreme Court. I would guess (though I cannot be certain) that you may be a proponent of certain decisions that place limitations on various listed Constitutional protections as well as non-specific. I really do not propose to know for sure. Even the staunchest civil libertarians might support smoking bans on private property or campaign finance laws.

All I know is that the second amendment says I can have firearms, but there are laws restricting that freedom. I know the first amendment says I can say what I want, but there are laws on the books that prohibit ads critical of elected officials 60 days prior to an election.

If you support the idea of non-specific constitutional protections, you're more liberal than I thought.

Is there a level of destructive power, the possession of which you would think could be prohibited?

The First Amendment has been interpreted to permit reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Everyone can't parade down the street at the same time or block the steps to City Hall. The law you describe sounds like it goes beyond that and restricts content.

[blueerica]

This is bordering on an argument in semantics. Take driving for an example:

To one, driving is a privilege bestowed because you've proven yourself to be a good driver. To another, driving is a right because you've proven yourself to be a good driver.

Humm...

It's funny, I should have a stronger opinion on the topic of immigration, but I just don't.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I hate when the words "right" and "privilege" are bandied about as axioms. The idea that every person has an equal right to anything at all is a very young creation of modern times. We only have rights because we decided we did. Same goes for "privilege", as well.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, no CP ... with all due respect, you've got that completely backwards. Humans are endowed with inalienable rights by nature ... and we have only been denied them on a vast scale until modern times in modern places.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Is there a level of destructive power, the possession of which you would think could be prohibited?

The problem with this, whether I think there is a level or not, is that there are thousands (millions?) of differing opinions as to what could (or should) be prohibited. This doesn't just go for firearms, but for any right, enumerated or not.

Even as a non smoker it fries me that private property owners can't allow smoking on their property. A majority clearly believes this ban is OK.

So we come down to a line where society determines, whether through the courts, passage of laws, or a popular vote, as to where the right to whatever should begin and end.

In regards to firearms, I see no reason as to why someone should need a fully automatic firearm. Someone else may have what they believe to be a valid reason. Therefore, why not just allow the possession and prosecute any crime that comes as a result of that possession? Same with drugs. Why is it that someone can't shoot heroin if they so choose? As long as they pay for their own healthcare and don't commit crimes to gain that heroin, then what harm has come?

Same with smoking, fatty food, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, prostitution, selling my left kidney or cornea, and whatever other kind of law there may be. If I'm willing to take the responsibility for my actions, I should pretty much be able to do what I want. The problem? No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. It isn't the fault of the smoker for getting lung cancer, it's those tricky tobacco companies.

However....society has deemed that certain things are harmful to society and are therefore disallowed. I have my issues that bug me, you have yours, as does everyone. Debates such as this will rage for eternity because there will never be agreement as to what should be allowed or restricted in the name of freedom.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Except that the work that the illegals do is legal necessary work. The majority of abused drugs can't be sold by pharmacists even with a prescription. I suppose if recreational drugs were ever legalized, there would still be a street trade devoted to undercutting the prices passed down by the drug companies to the pharmacists. Then you'd hear the drug companies complain about the street dealers the way the white and black working class complain about the Latinos.

The example of alcohol and cigarettes (our two widely available legal drugs) would seem to argue against this.

While there is a certain black market for these products it is minimal and rather than attempting to undercut the manufacturer it is almost entirely focused on avoiding the taxes.

[Tramspotter]

Originally Posted by blueerica

TS - are you a supporter of Bush simply because he pisses off the "classic progressive liberal" ?


No, it's a fringe benefit.

You do know you can be Republican, you can hate the Democrats, all without supporting Bush... (I can't stand the card-carrying mentality, on any side of an issue.)

Hmmm, is being judged as having this card-carrying mentality caused by not sufficiently bowing or compromising your positions or is it simply not getting fully on board with the Bush=Hitler bandwagon. Or the Reagan commandment to not speak ill of another Republican... How might one disavow the possibility of this "Mentality" ? You know what I cant stand? Actual sanctimony and condensation that is most prevalent when wearing the cloak of being above the fray Which I am not.

As for me, I've been a Democrat. I've been a Republican. Right now, I'm neither and I think it keeps me from being further disillusioned from the whole process. I don't get to be disgruntled with "my party" when I don't have one.


That way you get to be disgruntled with everyone else it would allow one to be not only to be un-engaged, but disillusioned with the entire process (A pox on both their houses). Which is not at all undeserved or unreasonable. Yet it seems to me the only danger becomes from this vantage is to develop an insufferable political superiority complex. But I am sure you guard against that by being as measured as you are in most of your discourse and non-discourse for that matter you always strive for balance and non-confrentation. I myself couldn't to the same degree you do nor would want to, and crap I'm a Libra

Make sense?