|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 16 2013 03:55 farvacola wrote:Well, we can already see how the elections of '14 will go. It all comes down to one big question. "Are You Conservative Enough?" It can be a game show like Whose line  "Are you more conservative than a 4th grader?"
"America's got Conservatives!"
"The Craziest Loser"
"The GOP-Factor"
So many possibilities!
|
On August 15 2013 13:16 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +They clearly state that they disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the Second Amendment protects the right to firearm ownership. That's not a neutral position! Yes it is. If you do not consider that a neutral position, then please describe a neutral position.
"We have no position on the Second Amendment." Alternatively, simply not saying anything at all.
On August 15 2013 13:16 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +My argument is that the ACLU is selective in which civil liberties they protect and how they choose to interpret various issues of civil liberty, demonstrating their adherence to partisan liberal ideology rather than general principles of civil liberty. I see no way to not do that. It is impossible to have an ideal on such civil liberties, because people's civil liberties will intersect with each other. You have to have an interpretation in some way. You're acting like there's some other option.
I agree that you have to have an interpretation in some way. However, as supposedly absolute defenders of civil liberties, one would expect them to come down in favor of them in nearly every instance. One would also not expect any deviations to precisely match liberal ideology.
Are you really arguing that it's a coincidence that the ACLU agrees with liberals on nearly every issue? And even if you are, don't you think that would be indicative of partisanship?
On August 15 2013 13:16 DoubleReed wrote: Why do you consider gun ownership to be an individual right?
Because I agree with the Supreme Court's opinion that the Second Amendment protects it as an individual right, as stated in the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision. My opinion, however, irrelevant to the discussion on the ACLU.
On August 15 2013 13:16 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +By details, I mean that no one is opposed to free speech in general, but people come down against free speech in favor of other things with respect to specific issues, for example, national security or hostile work environments.
The latter is an example of what I mean by hypocrisy on the issue: in Aguilar v. Avis Rent-A-Car System (1999), the ACLU field an amicus brief in which it argued that any speech which contributes to a “hostile work environment” automatically ceases to be speech and simply becomes an unprotected “verbal act.” The TL;DR of the case is that the trial court banned a private-sector employee (with a Hispanic wife) from using racial epithets regarding Hispanics, even if there were no Hispanic people around. The ACLU supported this ban on the basis that such a racial epithet might create a hostile work environment, even if no Hispanics were around to hear it.
One would think that the ACLU, being an absolutely staunch defender of free speech, would never support a ban on such speech, even if it included potentially racist remarks. However, they not only didn't support free speech in this case, they came down against it. This put them squarely in line with liberal ideology on racial issues, rather than absolutely defending free speech as you might expect. That's a good example. Do you think a conservative would disagree on that then? What would be the conservative viewpoint?
There were no amicus briefs from identifiably conservative sources in this case (though the Libertarian Law Council filed an amicus brief criticizing the ban on racial epithets, so it's hard to tell beyond speculation. My guess would be that since conservatives are generally skeptical of protections for minorities, they'd probably fall on the opposite side from the ACLU.
On August 15 2013 13:16 DoubleReed wrote: Obviously the ACLU supports hate speech in a non-work environment, so it seems like in this case they saw in conflict with the 14th Amendment, and their usual adage of "the solution to free speech is more speech" did not apply in this environment
As you might expect, I see this as a pragmatic understanding of free speech, rather than hypocrisy.
I understand that every group has to draw pragmatic lines somewhere, even on the issues they support. However, my point is that there is obviously some sort partisan bias when those lines match up with liberal ideology almost perfectly.
So while it's understandable that the ACLU will sometime deviate from their usual "the solution to free speech is more speech", it's suspiciously partisan when they usually deviate from this only when there are other liberal priorities (such as racial equality) at stake.
It's worth mentioning that I don't bear any ill will towards the ACLU or anything like that. I simply consider it inaccurate to label them as truly nonpartisan, because their positions suggest that they are strongly progressive rather than single-mindedly devoted to civil liberties.
|
On August 15 2013 14:04 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2013 10:41 sunprince wrote:On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote:On August 15 2013 08:54 sunprince wrote:On August 15 2013 07:53 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2013 02:26 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 23:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 14 2013 13:46 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 09:13 kwizach wrote:On August 14 2013 08:43 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Contrary to gun control advocates telling us that "gun control lowers violent crime" and gun rights proponents telling us that "gun rights deter violent crime", the consensus in the field of criminology (as reflected by undergraduate level textbooks and literature reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly journals) is that gun control has no proven significant effect (positive or negative) on crime. There's a difference between not having definitely proved causation (which is often a hard task in social sciences) and causation not existing. Plenty of studies have shown a correlation between stricter gun control laws and smaller numbers of gun-related deaths. Your argument here misses the point. Obviously, lower gun availability will reduce gun-related deaths, just like fewer cars will reduce automobile related deaths. The question, however, is whether reducing gun availability would reduce violent crime. Criminological consensus (which focuses on the issue of violent crime, rather than mere gun deaths) concludes that there is insufficient evidence to even justify any sort of cautionary policy change, let alone conclusively prove a causation. The problem America has, when compared to other first-world nations, is not with gun violence. It is with violent crime in general. Even if you removed all instances of gun violence (which is charitable considering that in many cases the violence would simply be carried out through different means), America is still a bizarre outlier in terms of violent crime. The reasons for this are complex, but range from high levels of social stratification, to racial tensions, to the poor public education system, to the War on Drugs, to high rates of teen pregnancy, to the increasing prevalence of single parent households, and so forth. It's a tangled web for which both Democrats and Republicans have much to answer for. It's also not a simple problem that can be fixed (or even helped) by something as narrow as reducing gun availability. There is no true "consensus" on this topic. You're trying to make this sound like it's just as proven as climate change is, which is complete B.S. There is a consensus within the criminological field that gun control has no established significant effect on rates of violent crime. Non-experts (including experts from other fields) might argue left and right while missing the facts or focusing on off-topic red herrings, but criminology settled this a while ago and continuously publishes studies to reinforce this (which, like studies proving climate change or evolution, are ignored by the skewed political debate). Did you somehow miss my post? Studies on the topic show a significant correlation between firearm availability and number of homicides, as shown in the literature review I posted. In fact, your own study, which only summarily touches on international comparisons on the matter, recognizes that the existing literature can be considered suggestive (although it does not consider it conclusive). Such a correlation doesn't show causation, which is crucial here: National Academy of Sciences wrote: Case-control studies show that violence is positively associated with firearms ownership, but they have not determined whether these associations reflect causal mechanisms. Two main problems hinder inference on these questions. First and foremost, these studies fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. For example, suicidal persons may, in the absence of a firearm, use other means of committing suicide. Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized. Second, reporting errors regarding firearms ownership may systemically bias the results of estimated associations between ownership and violence.
Ecological studies currently provide contradictory evidence on violence and firearms ownership. For example, in the United States, suicide appears to be positively associated with rates of firearms ownership, but homicide is not. In contrast, in comparisons among countries, the association between rates of suicide and gun ownership is nonexistent or very weak but there is a substantial association between gun ownership and homicide. These cross-country comparisons reflect the fact that the suicide rate in the United States ranks toward the middle of industrialized countries, whereas the U.S. homicide rate is much higher than in all other developed countries.
The committee cannot determine whether these associations demonstrate causal relationships. There are three key problems. First, as noted above, these studies do not adequately address the problem of self-selection. Second, these studies must rely on proxy measures of ownership that are certain to create biases of unknown magnitude and direction. Third, because the ecological correlations are at a higher geographic level of aggregation, there is no way of knowing whether the homicides or suicides occurred in the same areas in which the firearms are owned.
In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide. Emphasis mine. Your are quoting a 2004 review (well published in book form but seemingly peer reviewed) that comes to the conclusion that current data is not enough to justify claiming a causative relation between gun control and crime. It admits that correlations exist but that more and better data needs to be gathered before claims of causation are made. Kwizatch also quotes a 2004 review which claims correlations between gun control and crime rate. "Seemingly peer reviewed"? My source is the National Academy of Sciences, which is quite a bit more legitimate than "seemingly peer reviewed". On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote: Your first post claimed that "liberals ignore reality when it suits them" Citing ignoring criminology literature on the subject of gun control as an example. But as noted even in the review you yourself quoted there are correlations. Liberal politicians letting that correlation inform their position on gun control do the opposite of willfully ignoring the literature even if the authors of one particular review come to the conclusion there is currently (meaning 9 years ago) not enough data to support causation. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. In the absence of any evidence for a causative link, it is absolutely wrong to act upon correlations. Without evidence of causation, correlation is meaningless except perhaps as an indicator that more research is needed. On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote: You could argue that they should claim no position at all until more research has been done and more data gathered and I would disagree. In any case I would say that you had no basis for your original claim (namely that they deliberately ignore the literature.) Liberals typically claim that the availability of firearms causes violent crime and the reducing firearm availability via gun control will reduce violent crime. This is deliberately ignoring the literature, since there is no evidence for these claims. On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote: You also claim that there is a strong consensus among economists that minimum wage lowers employment. Some time on google scholar seems to confirm that this was the case up until the mid 90s. After that more and more studies emerge claiming an insignificant relationship between minimum wage and employment level. The debate seems to be ongoing. Again it seems to me that the fact that there is an ongoing debate leaves no justification for your original claim that liberals willfully ignore an established scientific consensus on the topic. Liberals have supported the minimum wage long before the mid 90s. On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote: I am out of time or energy to go through the remaining claims in that post but my guess is that they are just as contentious as the ones above. In other words, you don't actually have a legitimate argument. Oh you are one of those.
Cowardly snide remarks? Why am I not surprised?
On August 15 2013 14:04 KlaCkoN wrote: From the beginning I guess: I repeat, you have a 2004 review that claims current (at that point) data is not enough to successfully argue causality. Other authors may or may not agree, as far as I know the requirements for causality in the social sciences are even less agreed upon than in the hard ones. Whether the proven correlations should inform policy is a political decision and has nothing to do with science. Legislation has to be made even in the absence of the required data and if your definition of "anti science" includes people that look at a strong correlation with a reasonable explanation and chooses to legislate accordingly while waiting for more data to be gathered then whatever.
Correlations are never a basis for policymaking. The null hypothesis is always that correlations are spurious relationships, not the other way around. Ice cream sales are correlated with drowning rates. Would you argue that in the absence of hard proof ice cream sales don't cause drowning, we should make legislation to restrict ice cream sales just in case?
Regardless, my argument is that liberals claim that gun control will reduce violent crime. This is unsupported by scientific evidence, as I have already demonstrated. Therefore, liberals make unscientific claims, just as conservatives do, but simply less often.
On August 15 2013 14:04 KlaCkoN wrote: Re: the minimum wage thing. You claimed that there was a strong consensus, there turned out to not be one. That's enough for me to not bother reading up on your other claims. If I see them again in a vacuum or made by someone who doesnt demonstrably state falsehoods I will probably be interested enough to look at them, because well they are interesting.
The consensus today, insofar as there is one given increased debate on the topic, is still that raising minimum wages reduces employment. While the consensus view considers such effects relatively minor, it is still a falsehood to claim that raising minimum wages has no effect on employment, or that it will increase employment. When liberals make such claims, they are blatantly disregarding the fact that the literature is at best unclear, if not indicative that the opposite is true.
|
On August 16 2013 06:58 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2013 13:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 15 2013 10:27 sunprince wrote:On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:Every single on of the ACLU's official positions reflect liberal ideology. This includes hypocritical positions in which the ACLU sides against civil liberties, such as in the case of gun ownership (a personal freedom that ended up inverted in which side supports it in American politics due to political expediency), as well as cases such as the due process issue with university judicial policy I talked about in the previous post. The ACLU does not take a position on gun control. Yes, they do; you just failed to understand your own source. The ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right. In other words, they disagree that individual citizens have a right to own firearms. On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly, I always find this position baffling. Free Speech is liberal? Right to Privacy is liberal? Due Process is liberal? This sounds like something a hardcore liberal like me would say. You're basically saying that the opposite of the ACLU are a bunch of authoritarian freaks. That's not the argument I'm making, and you know it. The point I'm making is that wherever there is a debate between liberals and conservatives on an issue, the ACLU agrees with the liberal position. Neither liberals nor conservatives oppose free speech, right to privacy, or due process in general, but the devil is in the details and the ACLU takes the liberal side whenever there's a divide. On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:Yet another red herring, but I'll address this too. My claim was that women, as a class, have not been historically oppressed. Additionally, I didn't dismiss your argument on gays, I fully addressed and debunked it. Except those same arguments you used for gays works precisely with women. Oppression of women has also been established. The Abrahamic Religion stuff applies just as much with women. You're addressing of the issue was simply "Nah, homosexuals were totally oppressed and it's not like women at all for some reason." Whoooosh! Right over your head. That's not what I said and you know it. I clearly addressed the point about gays here. I gave you an example of unjust treatment suffered by gays, which demonstrates why they were oppressed. I also pointed out the quality of life metric issue: women have higher quality of life by virtually all empirical metrics compared to men, which calls the notion of "oppression" into question. Regardless, you're missing the whole "burden of proof" issue in the larger discussion: you don't get to declare that women were oppressed without evidence. If you want to make that claim, then advance evidence to support it. I'm merely being charitable by giving you my counterevidence early. On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote: And saying that "women didn't rise up therefore they weren't oppressed" is a blatant example of Just-World Hypothesis. For example. But in the course of that thread (and pretty much any other topic on feminism), you are prone to the assumption that women are responsible for their own misfortune. Just-World Hypothesis. And the funny part is when you say that anything else is just misogyny. Another strawman. My argument is that women not only didn't rise up, but they were happy to support the status quo. In other words, my argument is that women were content, not oppressed. Their behavior is simply evidence that they were content. The real misogyny here is in your sexist assumption that women were so weak and pathetic that they allowed themselves to be oppressed without doing anything about it, unlike every other oppressed group in the history of the world. Does it make you feel like a big strong man every time you declare that women are too weak to defend themselves? Disgusting. On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:Criticizing feminism does not make one an MRA, just as criticizing sexism does not make one a feminist. MRAs do not have a monopoly on criticizing feminism, and I've indicated before that I while I agree with some MRA arguments, I generally consider them whiners.
Since you are familiar with me, you may have noticed that my nuanced positions often mean that I both agree with and disagree with most popular ideological camps. I similarly defend abortion rights or gun rights whenever the topic comes up, but that makes me neither a feminist nor an NRA gun nut.
To be fair, I said you had an MRA-like stance. And quite frankly, even though I meant it as an insult, I'm surprised you took it as an insult. I don't take it as an insult. I'm just pointing out that it's untrue, just as it would be untrue to label me a liberal, a conservative, a feminist, or a gun nut, on the basis of a skewed sample of my less popular opinions. On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote:Point out my logical fallacies and errors, instead of merely claiming that I make them. Show, don't tell.
TL;DR: Address my actual arguments instead of resorting to personal attacks, shaming tactics, and logical fallacies. Spend more time researching the topics being discussed, instead of searching through my post history to find mud to fling. You're not fooling me or anyone else here with your failure to engage in reasoned debate, except maybe yourself and your fellow liberal partisan ideologues who already agree with you. I notice that you're asking opposite things of me here. Either I have to go further into your history to point out logical fallacies, or engage with the current debate (which is the ACLU defending the sexual assault stuff). What I meant was, you should be sticking with the current debate, and calling out logical fallacies as they crop up. That's more or less what reasoned debate is: discussing the issue at hand, rather than dragging up unrelated discussions to try to engage in personal attacks. On August 15 2013 09:07 DoubleReed wrote: My point here is to explain why it's not worth to engage you in reasoned debate, because you are actually not a reasonable person. I suppose I could try again with the ACLU sexual assault stuff. Would you like that?
My other major point here is to entertain all the lovely folks out there. Hence the popcorn. If you don't consider me a reasonable person, then feel free to ignore my posts. If you're indeed replying to me purely for the purpose of personal attacks and trolling, as you claim, then that would be not just against TL rules, but the specific rules for this thread, would it not? Ok DO NOT bring your bullshit pseudo-intellectual drivel about women's oppression or lack thereof into this thread. It is not the place for it. I am not the one who brought this up, and I am not speaking to you. If you don't want to discuss this topic, then don't read posts on the topic or respond to them. Show nested quote +On August 15 2013 13:08 Stratos_speAr wrote: You were thoroughly tongue-lashed in the last thread for being so intellectually dishonest and having absolutely no clue what the definition of "oppressed" truly is. Anyone who actually reads the thread will notice that I'm the only one who presented a source for the definition of oppression: the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. The fact that you choose to ignore this definition and come up with convenient definitions of your own in order to suit your argument does nothing to dispute the definition I presented. The only intellectual dishonesty going on is the refusal of you and your ilk to actually present any support for your claims that "women were historically oppressed". Refusing to accept that the burden of proof is on you to make that positive claim, and instead demanding that others debunk you, is clear-cut intellectual dishonesty. The fact that you had the weight of numbers to form a dog pile doesn't at all imply any sort of tongue-lashing, it just means more of you are failing at rational debate. Furthermore, neither you nor anyone else addressed the empirical evidence I showed regarding quality of life metrics: if women were truly historically oppressed, then why have they historically outperformed men on virtually all quality of life metrics (e.g. measurable outcomes)? Notice also how this stands in stark contrast to nearly all oppressed groups ever; peasants, slaves, untouchables, ethnic/religious minorities, etc. all perform worse on quality of life metrics than their counterparts, as we would expect from oppressed groups. Come on, if you're going to start devoting entire posts to this issue, you're going to have to post them in the relevant thread since they are clearly off-topic here (at least for the time being). Since you also don't seem to be remembering how the other thread went, you're the one who ended up leaving the discussion, and your claims with regards to the status of women and the choices they had in terms of status were thoroughly debunked (also, nobody ignored the definition - it was in fact explained to you that it perfectly fit the situation).
|
"We have no position on the Second Amendment." Alternatively, simply not saying anything at all.
I don't understand the difference. Saying that it's not an individual right means they have no position on gun control laws. They're a legal advocacy organization. They sue things and lobby and stuff. If they have no opinion on the second amendment, then they are not suing and defending things on the 2nd Amendment. Same here. There is no difference.
That article I gave you was part of a FAQ. So, I'm not exactly sure how they could not say anything. Obviously, it's a question that's going to arise a lot for the ACLU. The ACLU does not have the option of saying nothing at all.
I agree that you have to have an interpretation in some way. However, as supposedly absolute defenders of civil liberties, one would expect them to come down in favor of them in nearly every instance. One would also not expect any deviations to precisely match liberal ideology.
Are you really arguing that it's a coincidence that the ACLU agrees with liberals on nearly every issue? And even if you are, don't you think that would be indicative of partisanship?
Well, I don't quite know what issues are considered liberal, here. Certainly their stance on most things aligns with the liberals, but it's not like they don't ever oppose democrats. Like you're accusing them of partisanship, as in aligning with the Democratic party, but that's not accurate at all. They've taken on plenty of democrats. It's sort of why I don't like conflating democrats with liberal. You're confusing me and I don't know what you're trying to say.
This is kind of the difference I'm trying to present here. I find the ACLU to be far more consistent and rational than the democratic party and whatever the fuck "liberal" means nowadays. So calling them liberal and democrat when these things seem very fluid and dynamic when the ACLU is more consistent doesn't seem accurate.
So if anything, I would go the other way. Democrats and liberals often line up with the ACLU.
Edit: A good example of this would be Gay Marriage. The ACLU supported Gay Marriage long before the Democrats did.
Because I agree with the Supreme Court's opinion that the Second Amendment protects it as an individual right, as stated in the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision. My opinion, however, irrelevant to the discussion on the ACLU.
And they agree with the Supreme Court's opinion as stated in U.S. vs Miller.
Again, where is the hypocrisy? Did it count as hypocrisy 5 years ago? They don't consider gun ownership to be a civil liberty issue. I'm not exactly sure why you do, and why you are calling them hypocritical. That's why your opinion matters. Because otherwise this conversation makes no sense. So your opinion on why gun ownership is an individual right might clarify this for me.
I understand that every group has to draw pragmatic lines somewhere, even on the issues they support. However, my point is that there is obviously some sort partisan bias when those lines match up with liberal ideology almost perfectly.
So while it's understandable that the ACLU will sometime deviate from their usual "the solution to free speech is more speech", it's suspiciously partisan when they usually deviate from this only when there are other liberal priorities (such as racial equality) at stake.
It's not suspicious, it's the only way it would happen. Obviously if they're going against free speech, then it has be because it violates some other position that they have. And you've declared that all their positions are liberal, so your statement is a tautology. Tautologies ain't so suspicious.
|
On August 16 2013 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +"We have no position on the Second Amendment." Alternatively, simply not saying anything at all. I don't understand the difference. Saying that it's not an individual right means they have no position on gun control laws. They're a legal advocacy organization. They sue things and lobby and stuff. If they have no opinion on the second amendment, then they are not suing and defending things on the 2nd Amendment. Same here. There is no difference.
Actually, the debate over the Second Amendment works like this:
Conservatives: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to ban individual ownership of firearms. Liberals: The Second Amendment protects a collective right to own firearms. Therefore, there is no constitutional right for individuals to own firearms.
Thus, the ACLU is asserting that they agree with liberals on this issue, in opposition to the right to firearm ownership.
To use an analogy, if the ACLU were to say that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion, then that would clearly indicate that they opposed abortion rights.
On August 16 2013 08:11 DoubleReed wrote: That article I gave you was part of a FAQ. So, I'm not exactly sure how they could not say anything. Obviously, it's a question that's going to arise a lot for the ACLU. The ACLU does not have the option of saying nothing at all.
What I mean by this is that they did not have to provide an article showing their opinion on the Second Amendment. They do not provide their opinion on every Amendment. The reason they provide their opinion here is because of it's relevance to the firearms debate, and by declaring that they don't consider firearms ownership a protected legal right, they are saying that they will not defend it.
On August 16 2013 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +I agree that you have to have an interpretation in some way. However, as supposedly absolute defenders of civil liberties, one would expect them to come down in favor of them in nearly every instance. One would also not expect any deviations to precisely match liberal ideology.
Are you really arguing that it's a coincidence that the ACLU agrees with liberals on nearly every issue? And even if you are, don't you think that would be indicative of partisanship? Well, I don't quite know what issues are considered liberal, here. Certainly their stance on most things aligns with the liberals, but it's not like they don't ever oppose democrats. Like you're accusing them of partisanship, as in aligning with the Democratic party, but that's not accurate at all. They've taken on plenty of democrats. It's sort of why I don't like conflating democrats with liberal. You're confusing me and I don't know what you're trying to say. This is kind of the difference I'm trying to present here. I find the ACLU to be far more consistent and rational than the democratic party and whatever the fuck "liberal" means nowadays. So calling them liberal and democrat when these things seem very fluid and dynamic when the ACLU is more consistent doesn't seem accurate. So if anything, I would go the other way. Democrats and liberals often line up with the ACLU.
My argument is simply that the ACLU's positions do not reflect a staunch defense of civil liberties; rather, they defend civil liberties that liberals typically support, and oppose civil liberties that liberals typically oppose.
On August 16 2013 08:11 DoubleReed wrote: Edit: A good example of this would be Gay Marriage. The ACLU supported Gay Marriage long before the Democrats did.
Gay marriage was supported by liberals in general, long before the Democratic party leadership felt confident enough in it's popular acceptance to officially endorse it.
On August 16 2013 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Because I agree with the Supreme Court's opinion that the Second Amendment protects it as an individual right, as stated in the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision. My opinion, however, irrelevant to the discussion on the ACLU. And they agree with the Supreme Court's opinion as stated in U.S. vs Miller. Again, where is the hypocrisy? Did it count as hypocrisy 5 years ago? They don't consider gun ownership to be a civil liberty issue. I'm not exactly sure why you do, and why you are calling them hypocritical. That's why your opinion matters. Because otherwise this conversation makes no sense. So your opinion on why gun ownership is an individual right might clarify this for me.
Because gun control is fundamentally an issue of civil liberties vs. security. It's no different from the Patriot Act in its general function: restricting the freedom of citizens in return for a safer society.
On August 16 2013 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +I understand that every group has to draw pragmatic lines somewhere, even on the issues they support. However, my point is that there is obviously some sort partisan bias when those lines match up with liberal ideology almost perfectly.
So while it's understandable that the ACLU will sometime deviate from their usual "the solution to free speech is more speech", it's suspiciously partisan when they usually deviate from this only when there are other liberal priorities (such as racial equality) at stake. It's not suspicious, it's the only way it would happen. Obviously if they're going against free speech, then it has be because it violates some other position that they have. And you've declared that all their positions are liberal, so your statement is a tautology. Tautologies ain't so suspicious.
My argument is that some of their positions do not reflect an emphasis on civil liberty.
|
On August 16 2013 07:39 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2013 14:04 KlaCkoN wrote:On August 15 2013 10:41 sunprince wrote:On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote:On August 15 2013 08:54 sunprince wrote:On August 15 2013 07:53 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2013 02:26 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 23:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 14 2013 13:46 sunprince wrote:On August 14 2013 09:13 kwizach wrote: [quote] There's a difference between not having definitely proved causation (which is often a hard task in social sciences) and causation not existing. Plenty of studies have shown a correlation between stricter gun control laws and smaller numbers of gun-related deaths. Your argument here misses the point. Obviously, lower gun availability will reduce gun-related deaths, just like fewer cars will reduce automobile related deaths. The question, however, is whether reducing gun availability would reduce violent crime. Criminological consensus (which focuses on the issue of violent crime, rather than mere gun deaths) concludes that there is insufficient evidence to even justify any sort of cautionary policy change, let alone conclusively prove a causation. The problem America has, when compared to other first-world nations, is not with gun violence. It is with violent crime in general. Even if you removed all instances of gun violence (which is charitable considering that in many cases the violence would simply be carried out through different means), America is still a bizarre outlier in terms of violent crime. The reasons for this are complex, but range from high levels of social stratification, to racial tensions, to the poor public education system, to the War on Drugs, to high rates of teen pregnancy, to the increasing prevalence of single parent households, and so forth. It's a tangled web for which both Democrats and Republicans have much to answer for. It's also not a simple problem that can be fixed (or even helped) by something as narrow as reducing gun availability. There is no true "consensus" on this topic. You're trying to make this sound like it's just as proven as climate change is, which is complete B.S. There is a consensus within the criminological field that gun control has no established significant effect on rates of violent crime. Non-experts (including experts from other fields) might argue left and right while missing the facts or focusing on off-topic red herrings, but criminology settled this a while ago and continuously publishes studies to reinforce this (which, like studies proving climate change or evolution, are ignored by the skewed political debate). Did you somehow miss my post? Studies on the topic show a significant correlation between firearm availability and number of homicides, as shown in the literature review I posted. In fact, your own study, which only summarily touches on international comparisons on the matter, recognizes that the existing literature can be considered suggestive (although it does not consider it conclusive). Such a correlation doesn't show causation, which is crucial here: National Academy of Sciences wrote: Case-control studies show that violence is positively associated with firearms ownership, but they have not determined whether these associations reflect causal mechanisms. Two main problems hinder inference on these questions. First and foremost, these studies fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. For example, suicidal persons may, in the absence of a firearm, use other means of committing suicide. Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized. Second, reporting errors regarding firearms ownership may systemically bias the results of estimated associations between ownership and violence.
Ecological studies currently provide contradictory evidence on violence and firearms ownership. For example, in the United States, suicide appears to be positively associated with rates of firearms ownership, but homicide is not. In contrast, in comparisons among countries, the association between rates of suicide and gun ownership is nonexistent or very weak but there is a substantial association between gun ownership and homicide. These cross-country comparisons reflect the fact that the suicide rate in the United States ranks toward the middle of industrialized countries, whereas the U.S. homicide rate is much higher than in all other developed countries.
The committee cannot determine whether these associations demonstrate causal relationships. There are three key problems. First, as noted above, these studies do not adequately address the problem of self-selection. Second, these studies must rely on proxy measures of ownership that are certain to create biases of unknown magnitude and direction. Third, because the ecological correlations are at a higher geographic level of aggregation, there is no way of knowing whether the homicides or suicides occurred in the same areas in which the firearms are owned.
In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide. Emphasis mine. Your are quoting a 2004 review (well published in book form but seemingly peer reviewed) that comes to the conclusion that current data is not enough to justify claiming a causative relation between gun control and crime. It admits that correlations exist but that more and better data needs to be gathered before claims of causation are made. Kwizatch also quotes a 2004 review which claims correlations between gun control and crime rate. "Seemingly peer reviewed"? My source is the National Academy of Sciences, which is quite a bit more legitimate than "seemingly peer reviewed". On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote: Your first post claimed that "liberals ignore reality when it suits them" Citing ignoring criminology literature on the subject of gun control as an example. But as noted even in the review you yourself quoted there are correlations. Liberal politicians letting that correlation inform their position on gun control do the opposite of willfully ignoring the literature even if the authors of one particular review come to the conclusion there is currently (meaning 9 years ago) not enough data to support causation. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. In the absence of any evidence for a causative link, it is absolutely wrong to act upon correlations. Without evidence of causation, correlation is meaningless except perhaps as an indicator that more research is needed. On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote: You could argue that they should claim no position at all until more research has been done and more data gathered and I would disagree. In any case I would say that you had no basis for your original claim (namely that they deliberately ignore the literature.) Liberals typically claim that the availability of firearms causes violent crime and the reducing firearm availability via gun control will reduce violent crime. This is deliberately ignoring the literature, since there is no evidence for these claims. On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote: You also claim that there is a strong consensus among economists that minimum wage lowers employment. Some time on google scholar seems to confirm that this was the case up until the mid 90s. After that more and more studies emerge claiming an insignificant relationship between minimum wage and employment level. The debate seems to be ongoing. Again it seems to me that the fact that there is an ongoing debate leaves no justification for your original claim that liberals willfully ignore an established scientific consensus on the topic. Liberals have supported the minimum wage long before the mid 90s. On August 15 2013 09:54 KlaCkoN wrote: I am out of time or energy to go through the remaining claims in that post but my guess is that they are just as contentious as the ones above. In other words, you don't actually have a legitimate argument. Oh you are one of those. Cowardly snide remarks? Why am I not surprised? Show nested quote +On August 15 2013 14:04 KlaCkoN wrote: From the beginning I guess: I repeat, you have a 2004 review that claims current (at that point) data is not enough to successfully argue causality. Other authors may or may not agree, as far as I know the requirements for causality in the social sciences are even less agreed upon than in the hard ones. Whether the proven correlations should inform policy is a political decision and has nothing to do with science. Legislation has to be made even in the absence of the required data and if your definition of "anti science" includes people that look at a strong correlation with a reasonable explanation and chooses to legislate accordingly while waiting for more data to be gathered then whatever. Correlations are never a basis for policymaking. The null hypothesis is always that correlations are spurious relationships, not the other way around. Ice cream sales are correlated with drowning rates. Would you argue that in the absence of hard proof ice cream sales don't cause drowning, we should make legislation to restrict ice cream sales just in case? Regardless, my argument is that liberals claim that gun control will reduce violent crime. This is unsupported by scientific evidence, as I have already demonstrated. Therefore, liberals make unscientific claims, just as conservatives do, but simply less often. Show nested quote +On August 15 2013 14:04 KlaCkoN wrote: Re: the minimum wage thing. You claimed that there was a strong consensus, there turned out to not be one. That's enough for me to not bother reading up on your other claims. If I see them again in a vacuum or made by someone who doesnt demonstrably state falsehoods I will probably be interested enough to look at them, because well they are interesting. The consensus today, insofar as there is one given increased debate on the topic, is still that raising minimum wages reduces employment. While the consensus view considers such effects relatively minor, it is still a falsehood to claim that raising minimum wages has no effect on employment, or that it will increase employment. When liberals make such claims, they are blatantly disregarding the fact that the literature is at best unclear, if not indicative that the opposite is true.
One big problem with your original claim (liberals also ignore scientific evidence e.g. gun control).
You haven't given us a lick of evidence that actually says that gun control does not help reduce crime. You've merely given us a study that says that current studies are inconclusive on the link between gun control and crime rates.
Actually, the debate over the Second Amendment works like this:
Conservatives: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to ban individual ownership of firearms. Liberals: The Second Amendment protects a collective right to own firearms. Therefore, there is no constitutional right for individuals to own firearms.
Thus, the ACLU is asserting that they agree with liberals on this issue, in opposition to the right to firearm ownership.
To use an analogy, if the ACLU were to say that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion, then that would clearly indicate that they opposed abortion rights.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You may think that's what the "liberal agenda" thinks of the Second Amendment, but that is most definitely not the prevailing sentiment. The prevailing sentiment is somewhere between "The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to bear arms with absolutely no filters or restrictions" and "Just because the Second Amendment says so doesn't mean it's a good idea". The first one is probably the most popular view in the Democratic party.
Also, contrary to your incredibly narrow view of reality, the Constitution is not the Bible. It is incredibly fallible, has and should be revised, and just because the ACLU interprets the 2nd amendment as not being an individual right doesn't mean that they support total gun control or anything like that. If pro-gun laws are on the books, the ACLU would no doubt fight for the person's right to keep their guns based on those laws.
Your idea that "The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to abortion" = "Anti-abortion" is so ridiculous that I almost can't believe you said it. Just because the Constitution doesn't give it doesn't mean that someone can't support it. I believe that a fully developed nation not giving its citizens a universal healthcare system is ridiculous and barbaric, yet that isn't enshrined in the Constitution.
|
On August 16 2013 07:39 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2013 14:04 KlaCkoN wrote: From the beginning I guess: I repeat, you have a 2004 review that claims current (at that point) data is not enough to successfully argue causality. Other authors may or may not agree, as far as I know the requirements for causality in the social sciences are even less agreed upon than in the hard ones. Whether the proven correlations should inform policy is a political decision and has nothing to do with science. Legislation has to be made even in the absence of the required data and if your definition of "anti science" includes people that look at a strong correlation with a reasonable explanation and chooses to legislate accordingly while waiting for more data to be gathered then whatever. Correlations are never a basis for policymaking. The null hypothesis is always that correlations are spurious relationships, not the other way around. Ice cream sales are correlated with drowning rates. Would you argue that in the absence of hard proof ice cream sales don't cause drowning, we should make legislation to restrict ice cream sales just in case? Regardless, my argument is that liberals claim that gun control will reduce violent crime. This is unsupported by scientific evidence, as I have already demonstrated. Therefore, liberals make unscientific claims, just as conservatives do, but simply less often.
While scientific works that prove causation add a lot to any discussion, they are not 100% necessary for policymaking. Correlations, along with intuition (either scientific intuition or just common sense) have been the basis for policymaking since the first group of people banded together. Rigorous application of statistical and econometric methodology in social sciences is a relatively new thing (in economics it's barely 50 years old, and that's without considering that it only really took off in the last two decades) and is frequently incapable of arriving at conclusive results.
|
I do not follow US Politics that much but I am always wondering how does US politics compare to Canadian politics. It must be important for people to care about politics as they are growing up right? I think a lot of 22 year olds or younger generation are having a tough time adjusting to politics or is it just me?
|
WASHINGTON -- The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, The Washington Post reported Thursday.
Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by law and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. emails and telephone calls, the Post said, citing an internal audit and other top-secret documents provided it earlier this summer from NSA leaker Edward Snowden, a former systems analyst with the agency.
In one of the documents, agency personnel are instructed to remove details and substitute more generic language in reports to the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The Post cited a 2008 example of the interception of a "large number" of calls placed from Washington when a programming error confused U.S. area code 202 for 20, the international dialing code for Egypt, according to a "quality assurance" review that was not distributed to the NSA's oversight staff.
In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.
The NSA audit obtained by the Post dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.
In a statement to the newspaper, the NSA said it attempts to identify problems "at the earliest possible moment, implement mitigation measures wherever possible and drive the numbers down."
Source
|
On August 16 2013 11:21 Alborz wrote: I do not follow US Politics that much but I am always wondering how does US politics compare to Canadian politics. It must be important for people to care about politics as they are growing up right? I think a lot of 22 year olds or younger generation are having a tough time adjusting to politics or is it just me?
The average American is much more conservative than in pretty much any other developed country and the average American is also much less likely to be politically literate/vote. Even a surprising amount of voters don't really know the issues/candidates much/if at all.
|
Actually, the debate over the Second Amendment works like this:
Conservatives: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to ban individual ownership of firearms. Liberals: The Second Amendment protects a collective right to own firearms. Therefore, there is no constitutional right for individuals to own firearms.
Thus, the ACLU is asserting that they agree with liberals on this issue, in opposition to the right to firearm ownership.
This is not accurate. The fact is that it was only recent history (post-1970) that the individual ownership of firearms ever was considered as the meaning of the second amendment, even by conservatives. This was a myth that was catapulted to the American stage by the NRA at this time and caught on. Your portrayal of this is incorrect.
Conservatives like Chief Justice Warren Burger explained that second amendment is not an individual right to gun ownership. He even described the NRA's subversion of the Supreme Court's interpretation to bear arms as "a fraud."
The 2008 Heller decision marked a substantial difference in how the courts had ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment. Obviously, the ACLU, which has been around during all this time, simply maintained the position it has always had, even pre-1970. So you calling them hypocritical is ahistorical nonsense, considering they're the ones that have maintained the longstanding consistent position.
It sounds like you expect them to completely change their position in 2008 to reflect the new court determination. If anything, that would have been completely inconsistent and hypocritical.
To use an analogy, if the ACLU were to say that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion, then that would clearly indicate that they opposed abortion rights.
No it wouldn't. I have no idea why you think it would. An organization would actually have to advocate for pro-life policies to be opposed to abortion rights.
Just because someone is against the death penalty does not mean they consider it unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
Gay marriage was supported by liberals in general, long before the Democratic party leadership felt confident enough in it's popular acceptance to officially endorse it.
Exactly why I don't like you conflating the ACLU, liberals, and democrats together. They have different positions at different times and have different rates of change.
Because gun control is fundamentally an issue of civil liberties vs. security. It's no different from the Patriot Act in its general function: restricting the freedom of citizens in return for a safer society.
But gun ownership is not an issue of "civil liberties vs security" because gun ownership is not a civil liberty. It's simply a pragmatism issue.
You keep saying it is, and I don't know why. You won't tell me why. Why won't you tell me why???
What I mean by this is that they did not have to provide an article showing their opinion on the Second Amendment. They do not provide their opinion on every Amendment. The reason they provide their opinion here is because of it's relevance to the firearms debate, and by declaring that they don't consider firearms ownership a protected legal right, they are saying that they will not defend it.
No, the reason why they provide their opinion is because everyone keeps asking them their opinion. It's on their FAQ. I wanted to know their opinion on the 2nd Amendment when I looked at them. And I wouldn't be surprised if you did too. It's incredibly common question because it's such a hot topic issue. As far as other amendments, no one gives a shit what the ACLU has to say on income tax.
|
On August 16 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Actually, the debate over the Second Amendment works like this:
Conservatives: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to ban individual ownership of firearms. Liberals: The Second Amendment protects a collective right to own firearms. Therefore, there is no constitutional right for individuals to own firearms.
Thus, the ACLU is asserting that they agree with liberals on this issue, in opposition to the right to firearm ownership. This is not accurate. The fact is that it was only recent history (post-1970) that the individual ownership of firearms ever was considered as the meaning of the second amendment, even by conservatives. This was a myth that was catapulted to the American stage by the NRA at this time and caught on. Your portrayal of this is incorrect. uhhhhh.... (emphasis my own)
+ Show Spoiler +"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason -Co-author of the Second Amendment -during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…" -Richard Henry Lee -writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788. "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." -Zachariah Johnson -Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution." "… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" -Philadelphia Federal Gazette -June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 -Article on the Bill of Rights "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" -Samuel Adams -quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this -State" "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences [sic] and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -George Washington -First President of the United States "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee -American Statesman, 1788 "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." -Patrick Henry -American Patriot "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry -American Patriot "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " -Thomas Jefferson -letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45. "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton -The Federalist Papers at 184-8
I never knew all those guys were born in the 1970s...
|
On August 16 2013 17:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 13:12 DoubleReed wrote:Actually, the debate over the Second Amendment works like this:
Conservatives: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to ban individual ownership of firearms. Liberals: The Second Amendment protects a collective right to own firearms. Therefore, there is no constitutional right for individuals to own firearms.
Thus, the ACLU is asserting that they agree with liberals on this issue, in opposition to the right to firearm ownership. This is not accurate. The fact is that it was only recent history (post-1970) that the individual ownership of firearms ever was considered as the meaning of the second amendment, even by conservatives. This was a myth that was catapulted to the American stage by the NRA at this time and caught on. Your portrayal of this is incorrect. uhhhhh.... (emphasis my own) + Show Spoiler +"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason -Co-author of the Second Amendment -during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…" -Richard Henry Lee -writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788. "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." -Zachariah Johnson -Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution." "… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" -Philadelphia Federal Gazette -June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 -Article on the Bill of Rights "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" -Samuel Adams -quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this -State" "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences [sic] and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -George Washington -First President of the United States "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee -American Statesman, 1788 "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." -Patrick Henry -American Patriot "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry -American Patriot "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " -Thomas Jefferson -letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45. "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton -The Federalist Papers at 184-8 I never knew all those guys were born in the 1970s...
Wow, not a single one of those quotes supports the individual right to bear arms (except maybe for Patrick Henry, which is just obvious hyperbole). All of them talk about the right of the people to bear arms. Particularly in reference to militias.
As in Miller vs United States:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power — "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
That is the interpretation of ACLU as far as the second amendment. They even state:
However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
In other words, the ACLU would protect such 2nd Amendment rights if it conflicted with US v. Miller's interpretation. Although it sounds to me like they don't really deal with 2nd Amendment stuff much at all. So again, the ACLU is neutral on this issue, and I don't understand why it is relevant to the ACLU being a 'liberal' organization. They have the tools and resources to advocate for gun control, but as far as I know, they don't do it.
|
Businesses seek cure for health care cost surge related to Affordable Health Care Act
NEW YORK — A year ago, Teresa Hartnett was on the verge of expanding her small business. The company had hit $1 million in sales, and requests from clients were flowing in. She planned to transition from nearly 30 freelancers to a full-time staff of 60 by 2014.
Then the reality of the Affordable Health Care Act hit. Hartnett realized she might not be able to afford to carry out her plan.
"At the end of that marathon of effort and sweat and stress, I'd face the impact of the ACA. I decided against it," says Hartnett, whose company, Hartnett Inc., transforms printed documents into digital content. ...
A survey of owners taken last month by the advocacy group National Small Business Association found that 20 percent have held off on implementing a growth strategy because of rising health care costs. Thirty-six percent said they had refrained from raising salaries and 26 percent have held back on hiring. ...
Hartnett was getting enough steady business that she was ready to take on 60 employees.
"I was particularly excited about offering benefits," she says.
That enthusiasm died when Hartnett met with her accountant to be sure she could afford the expansion. Hartnett was faced with the prospect that, once she had 50 workers, she'd be subject to the ACA. She considered expanding her company with part-timers who wouldn't be covered under the law, or keeping her staff below 50. But none of those options would help her meet the goals she set for her business.
"I couldn't even figure out what health care I could offer without it being a problem," says Hartnett, whose company is based in Alexandria, Va.
Her solution was to stay a very small business, with just a handful of freelancers. She's turning down offers of business.
"'I'm going to ratchet it down for a while,'" she says. ... Link
Republicans should focus their efforts on repealing the employer mandate, rather than the ACA wholesale.
|
On August 17 2013 02:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Businesses seek cure for health care cost surge related to Affordable Health Care Act
NEW YORK — A year ago, Teresa Hartnett was on the verge of expanding her small business. The company had hit $1 million in sales, and requests from clients were flowing in. She planned to transition from nearly 30 freelancers to a full-time staff of 60 by 2014.
Then the reality of the Affordable Health Care Act hit. Hartnett realized she might not be able to afford to carry out her plan.
"At the end of that marathon of effort and sweat and stress, I'd face the impact of the ACA. I decided against it," says Hartnett, whose company, Hartnett Inc., transforms printed documents into digital content. ...
A survey of owners taken last month by the advocacy group National Small Business Association found that 20 percent have held off on implementing a growth strategy because of rising health care costs. Thirty-six percent said they had refrained from raising salaries and 26 percent have held back on hiring. ...
Hartnett was getting enough steady business that she was ready to take on 60 employees.
"I was particularly excited about offering benefits," she says.
That enthusiasm died when Hartnett met with her accountant to be sure she could afford the expansion. Hartnett was faced with the prospect that, once she had 50 workers, she'd be subject to the ACA. She considered expanding her company with part-timers who wouldn't be covered under the law, or keeping her staff below 50. But none of those options would help her meet the goals she set for her business.
"I couldn't even figure out what health care I could offer without it being a problem," says Hartnett, whose company is based in Alexandria, Va.
Her solution was to stay a very small business, with just a handful of freelancers. She's turning down offers of business.
"'I'm going to ratchet it down for a while,'" she says. ... LinkRepublicans should focus their efforts on repealing the employer mandate, rather than the ACA wholesale.
Republicans should focus their efforts on actually offering some kind of beneficial alternative to Obamacare.
|
On August 17 2013 03:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 02:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Businesses seek cure for health care cost surge related to Affordable Health Care Act
NEW YORK — A year ago, Teresa Hartnett was on the verge of expanding her small business. The company had hit $1 million in sales, and requests from clients were flowing in. She planned to transition from nearly 30 freelancers to a full-time staff of 60 by 2014.
Then the reality of the Affordable Health Care Act hit. Hartnett realized she might not be able to afford to carry out her plan.
"At the end of that marathon of effort and sweat and stress, I'd face the impact of the ACA. I decided against it," says Hartnett, whose company, Hartnett Inc., transforms printed documents into digital content. ...
A survey of owners taken last month by the advocacy group National Small Business Association found that 20 percent have held off on implementing a growth strategy because of rising health care costs. Thirty-six percent said they had refrained from raising salaries and 26 percent have held back on hiring. ...
Hartnett was getting enough steady business that she was ready to take on 60 employees.
"I was particularly excited about offering benefits," she says.
That enthusiasm died when Hartnett met with her accountant to be sure she could afford the expansion. Hartnett was faced with the prospect that, once she had 50 workers, she'd be subject to the ACA. She considered expanding her company with part-timers who wouldn't be covered under the law, or keeping her staff below 50. But none of those options would help her meet the goals she set for her business.
"I couldn't even figure out what health care I could offer without it being a problem," says Hartnett, whose company is based in Alexandria, Va.
Her solution was to stay a very small business, with just a handful of freelancers. She's turning down offers of business.
"'I'm going to ratchet it down for a while,'" she says. ... LinkRepublicans should focus their efforts on repealing the employer mandate, rather than the ACA wholesale. Republicans should focus their efforts on actually offering some kind of beneficial alternative to Obamacare. Obamacare less the employer mandate would be a beneficial alternative to vanilla Obamacare
|
An unlikely alliance of left and right
ERIC HOLDER and Rick Perry (pictured) have little in common. America’s attorney-general is black, liberal and uses the word “community” a lot. The governor of Texas is white, conservative and says “God” a lot. Last month Mr Holder’s Justice Department sued Texas for allegedly trying to make it harder for blacks to vote. Last year Mr Perry ran to unseat Mr Holder’s boss, Barack Obama.
On one thing, however, the two men agree. On August 12th Mr Holder said: “Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law-enforcement reason.” He then unveiled reforms to reduce the number of people sent to America’s overcrowded federal prisons. In this, he was following the perfectly-coiffed Texan’s lead. Several years ago, Mr Perry enacted similar reforms in the Lone Star State, and they worked. ...
As Mr Holder noted, these policy shifts mirror similar ones that more than half of all American states have enacted over the past decade. The wave began with Texas—then as now led by Mr Perry—which in 2003 passed a law sending people convicted of possessing less than a gram of drugs to probation rather than prison. In 2007 Texas allocated $241m for drug-treatment and alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders. Between 2003 and 2011 violent crime in Texas fell by 14.2%. The state’s prison population has also declined steadily. Sentencing reform passed in Georgia—where one in 13 adults is imprisoned, on probation or on parole—will save the state an estimated $264m over the next five years. Kentucky’s is forecast to save the state $400m while reducing its prison population by 3,000 over the next ten years. ... Link
Interesting! I wouldn't have thought of Texas as a leader in prison reform.
|
On August 17 2013 03:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2013 03:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 17 2013 02:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Businesses seek cure for health care cost surge related to Affordable Health Care Act
NEW YORK — A year ago, Teresa Hartnett was on the verge of expanding her small business. The company had hit $1 million in sales, and requests from clients were flowing in. She planned to transition from nearly 30 freelancers to a full-time staff of 60 by 2014.
Then the reality of the Affordable Health Care Act hit. Hartnett realized she might not be able to afford to carry out her plan.
"At the end of that marathon of effort and sweat and stress, I'd face the impact of the ACA. I decided against it," says Hartnett, whose company, Hartnett Inc., transforms printed documents into digital content. ...
A survey of owners taken last month by the advocacy group National Small Business Association found that 20 percent have held off on implementing a growth strategy because of rising health care costs. Thirty-six percent said they had refrained from raising salaries and 26 percent have held back on hiring. ...
Hartnett was getting enough steady business that she was ready to take on 60 employees.
"I was particularly excited about offering benefits," she says.
That enthusiasm died when Hartnett met with her accountant to be sure she could afford the expansion. Hartnett was faced with the prospect that, once she had 50 workers, she'd be subject to the ACA. She considered expanding her company with part-timers who wouldn't be covered under the law, or keeping her staff below 50. But none of those options would help her meet the goals she set for her business.
"I couldn't even figure out what health care I could offer without it being a problem," says Hartnett, whose company is based in Alexandria, Va.
Her solution was to stay a very small business, with just a handful of freelancers. She's turning down offers of business.
"'I'm going to ratchet it down for a while,'" she says. ... LinkRepublicans should focus their efforts on repealing the employer mandate, rather than the ACA wholesale. Republicans should focus their efforts on actually offering some kind of beneficial alternative to Obamacare. Obamacare less the employer mandate would be a beneficial alternative to vanilla Obamacare  I'd be much happier with Republicans looking to improve the law as is. Right now, the only steps they're willing to take are ones to directly or indirectly undermine the law. I could definitely see a change to the 50 worker requirement to make it far less shocking of a threshold.
|
Cause when you can't hide the clown car, attempt to conceal the circus.
The Republican National Committee voted unanimously Friday at its summer meeting in Boston for a resolution banning CNN and NBC from hosting 2016 primary debates if they go forward with proposed programs about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Source
|
|
|
|