Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by dylandog

I believe the context here is guns, not mass media, but anyways I was kinda playin'. Hope I didn't give offense. The line about thoughts of peace and calm struck me as funny given the nature of the thread.

Josh, I've broken bread with a lot of Arabs and I disagree with you about as much as it's possible to disagree with a person. But I've also read a lot of your posts over time and gotten a kick out of them, and I know you're a good guy. Politics is only one dimension of things, esp. on a razor forum. If my irony went amiss, my apologies.

Well we can civily agree to disagree, I dont have a problem with that.

Originally Posted by Feng_Li

I'm not terribly happy about the ever-expanding interpretation of those grants, but that's a different debate.

I've alwys looked at it as an inevitable development. Most of it happened so long ago that it's not really an issue. Eliminating segregation would have been impossible without it, so would fighting organized crime and terrorism, drug dealing with regional disasters, like Katrina, and those kinds of things.

On a somewhat related topic: What is your opinion of McCain/Feingold? I've seen a lot of convincing arguments saying it's unconstitutional, but I am not a lawyer.

It's not really related to the thread, but I'll answer briefly, and if you want to discuss these issues, I suggest breaking out into a separate thread. The rampant corruption makes it clear that some sort of effective campaign finance control is necessary. McCain/Feingold was a reasonable effort, and it's not unconstitutional per se, but as always, the devil s in the details.

Originally Posted by dylandog

These are 1st amendment arguments, premised on the idea that special interest money is a form of speech.

If money is speech in America, and speech is free in America, then money is free in America. It's our constitutional right!

I could come around to this way of thinking.

I know, but I think it's really a stretch. Free speech is not unlimited- there's the screaming fire in a theater example and libel. Similarly, it shouldn't serve as a shield for blatant corruption.

It really amazes me that some members who contributed to this thread are on the one hand full of theri own civil rights while on the other hand they say things like: eradicate the rats etc. when writing about Arabs etc. Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.? 99% of Arabs are just as peace loving as you and me, they want to raise their families in peace and have a quiet life.

Is this the ultimate test of civility?

I was under the impression that it's less the money aspect, but the restrictions on how and when particular kinds of statements/ads may be made.

Originally Posted by Kees

Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.?

That would depend upon the country in which they live...

Originally Posted by Kees

It really amazes me that some members who contributed to this thread are on the one hand full of theri own civil rights while on the other hand they say things like: eradicate the rats etc. when writing about Arabs etc. Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.? 99% of Arabs are just as peace loving as you and me, they want to raise their families in peace and have a quiet life.

Is this the ultimate test of civility?

Don't know for sure, but eradication would be a last resort in my books. One more airliner in a building would do it for me.

Criminals here in the US lose their rights when they commit acts of violence against society. Don't see why those responsible for terrorist acts should be afforded the slightest consideration for even another breath of air. Our criminals lose those rights before trial, by the way. So there goes one of your follow-up arguments about being innocent. Y'see, I am fine with anybody and everybody, and don't care what direction they face when they are on their knees, as long as they leave me alone.

And a trial? I hope your idea of a fair trial doesn't mean a duplication of the one for OJ Simpson. I don't know why I get the impression that is what you really mean by fair.

I am also curious. I'm not quite sure if you are trying to stimulate honest answers through debate, or just goad people into responding harshly. I'd kinda like to know where you got the 99% from, as well. Are you privy to some information that the rest of us don't have. I, personally, don't think that number is accurate. Then again, I may not know as much as you.

I hope that response was polite enough for everybody... If you don't like this one, I know you won't like the rest of them...

Originally Posted by Kees

It really amazes me that some members who contributed to this thread are on the one hand full of theri own civil rights while on the other hand they say things like: eradicate the rats etc. when writing about Arabs etc. Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.? 99% of Arabs are just as peace loving as you and me, they want to raise their families in peace and have a quiet life.

Is this the ultimate test of civility?

Im pretty sure if I killed many of your close friends with pride that your ideals would change. Civil rights are lost when a group you are associated admits (with glee) that they planned and funded mass murder. Remember, you are dealing with acts of war, not penny theft. As far as I am concerned everyone associated with the organization in any way shape or form who admits to carrying out these acts should suffer the same consiquences.

Besides, they are the ones that want to die violantly for their god, we would just be expediting the process a bit, technically they should pay extra for that.

Originally Posted by urleebird

Criminals here in the US lose their rights when they commit acts of violence against society. Don't see why those responsible for terrorist acts should be afforded the slightest consideration for even another breath of air. Our criminals lose those rights before trial, by the way. So there goes one of your follow-up arguments about being innocent. Y'see, I am fine with anybody and everybody, and don't care what direction they face when they are on their knees, as long as they leave me alone.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Fortunately or unfortunately (well, fortunately for me, because I'd otherwise be out of a job), inmates have a pretty significant panoply of rights. They retain all rights that are not inconsistent with incarceration. So, for example, they have a wide array of religious freedoms. Believe me, we get sued /all the time/ for supposed violations of inmate rights, anything from not letting them wear a kufi to someone getting beaten down (by another inmate or occasionally a CO).

Of course, they do lose one of the most signifcant rights - the freedom to be at liberty and go wherever you wish. Something which, by the way, warms the cockles of my heart when I get particularly frustrated with a case.

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

I know, but I think it's really a stretch. Free speech is not unlimited- there's the screaming fire in a theater example and libel. Similarly, it shouldn't serve as a shield for blatant corruption.

I'm kidding. I think the auctioning off of access to power under the aegis of the 1st amendment is a travesty.