Obama Breaks out.. 30% to Clinton 22% Iowa

Cypress said:
he flat out said he'd raise taxes to finance a slew of social programs.

Tiana, I don't know what this means. I don't know what you mean by a "slew of social programs". Its just a buzzword.

He supports universal healthcare. Okay. He supports increases in the minimum wage, strenghthening and enforcing labor laws, negotiating fair trade agreements, anti-predatory lending laws, increasing the EITC for working families, and probably some modest intiatives on education and poverty.

That doesn't seem that radical to me.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't mean social programs in a derogatory sense. Again, I have no problems with them whatsoever. I just don't think raising taxes is the answer. They need to start cutting gov't fat and being a lot more creative with using the funds that they already collect.
 
Cypress said:
Edwards is probably the most pro-gun candidate in the democratic top tier. Probably something to do with his southern heritage.

I don't know what you've been reading, or if you even got the correct context.
Click to expand...
He was ASKED point blank on a YouTube interview if he thought gun ownership was a right or a privlege. He said PRIVLEGE, I WATCHED him say it. WHich means he believes it can be taken away by the government whenever they desire. And just so you can SEE I have the correct context you can carry your ass to this http://www.cynicalnation.com/2007/06/john_edwards_flunks_simple_qui.html and watch him say it yourself. Then you can come back here and educate me to the context it was meant in. I must be too thick to understand.
 
Cypress said:
John Edwards on the Issues:

Right to bear arms protected by Second Amendment, with rules

I believe the right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. I also support reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including closing the gun show loophole and vigorously enforcing gun laws.



Guns are about independence-don't mess with that

"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said John Edwards. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."


http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Gun_Control.htm
Click to expand...
Well my post on the YouTube interview was done May 2007 so he has changed his position. So my context is more up to date than yours. Yours is old mine is new. Mine is from this elections yours is from the last one he helped to lose. The man is on the record right above as saying that access to the internet should be a right and gun ownership should be a privlege.
 
Socrtease said:
Well my post on the YouTube interview was done May 2007 so he has changed his position. So my context is more up to date than yours. Yours is old mine is new. Mine is from this elections yours is from the last one he helped to lose. The man is on the record right above as saying that access to the internet should be a right and gun ownership should be a privlege.
Click to expand...

I had to sit through 5 minutes of that to find you you misquoted him.

He was asked if owning a handgun was a right.

He answered it wasn't, which is consistent with Supremem Court case law. And is consistent with Rudy Guilliani's interpretation, Arnold Scharzneggers interpretation, and Bill Clinton's interpretation.
 
Cypress said:
I had to sit through 5 minutes of that to find you you misquoted him.

He was asked if owning a handgun was a right.

He answered it wasn't, which is consistent with Supremem Court case law. And is consistent with Rudy Guilliani's interpretation, Arnold Scharzneggers interpretation, and Bill Clinton's interpretation.
Click to expand...
A handgun is a firearm just like a shot gun you liberal gun fraidy cat. The second Amendment doesn't say long gun or rifle or anyother crap like that. It says the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed. Does he think that where he comes from them boys that like to hunt don't believe they have a right to keep a handgun as well? That is NOT consistent with supreme Court case law. And I would be willing to bet you that when the Supreme Court FINALLY hears it's FIRST handgun banning case THIS session it will uphold the DC Circuits overturning of the DC gunban as violative of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Wow for the first time I am glad we have a right leaning court.
 
Cypress said:
I had to sit through 5 minutes of that to find you you misquoted him.

He was asked if owning a handgun was a right.

He answered it wasn't, which is consistent with Supremem Court case law. And is consistent with Rudy Guilliani's interpretation, Arnold Scharzneggers interpretation, and Bill Clinton's interpretation.
Click to expand...
Good point. Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democrats (including Edwards) are both a threat to gun rights.
 
Soc, now your just inventing reasons to be against Edwards.


You said you liked Bill Clinton. Well, Bill Clinton, Arnold Shwarznegger, and the Supreme Court themselves, have virtually the same position as Edwards: while a right to bear arms exists, cities and municipalities may have restrictions on hand guns, as public safety needs require. The supreme court has upheld that. Owning a handgun is not a right.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqZrvXk0_fko&refer=home

This is site that will educate you to the fact that the supreme court has NEVER ruled on the issue of directly said whether the Constitution's Second Amendment covers people who don't belong to a state-run militia. NEVER so your quote above, which I KNEW was wrong, about it being consistent with Supreme Court rulings should be immediately withdrawn and acknowledged as being WRONG.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Soc, now your just inventing reasons to be against Edwards.


You said you liked Bill Clinton. Well, Bill Clinton, Arnold Shwarznegger, and the Supreme Court themselves, have virtually the same position as Edwards: while a right to bear arms exists, cities and municipalities may have restrictions on hand guns, as public safety needs require. The supreme court has upheld that. Owning a handgun is not a right.
Click to expand...
Ok there COnstitutional law genius give me the Case cite on the Supreme Court case that has the same position. This should be rich. Just give me the Cite I HAVE Lexis Nexus legal search software. I get the case.
 
Oh by the way my LAST post was sarcastic. As you will see in the bloomberg article there is NO CASE that says that cities have the right to blanket ban handguns. This session will be the first time. You telling me about Constitutional law is like me telling Emiril Lagasse what spices go best in an ettoufe
 
Socrtease said:
Ok there COnstitutional law genius give me the Case cite on the Supreme Court case that has the same position. This should be rich. Just give me the Cite I HAVE Lexis Nexus legal search software. I get the case.
Click to expand...


Didn't mean to make you angry Soc. I really don't have time to do constitutional debates right now.

When you said you liked clinton, and you would like edwards except for his position on guns, I didn't think it'd make you angry for me to point out that edwards position on handguns is entirely consistent with bill clinton as well as a host of other moderate republican city mayors.


But, if you must hate Edwards, carry on! :clink: No worries!
 
okay Soc, I had a couple minutes free.

Evidently, it was U.S. v. Miller, where SCOTUS interpreted the Second Amendment in such a way, that the States were free to place certain restrictions on weapons (in this case, a sawed off shotgun), that could not reasonably be construed to be a weapon used for the common defense, per a well regulated militia.

I believe that would be the basis for a few cities having handgun restriction. Which is why Edwards answer on Youtube was the correct one. And would be consistent with how other politicians - including ones you say you like (Bill Clinton) - have interpreted it.


In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith 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 with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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.''7
Click to expand...
 
US v. Miller is narrowly tailored ONLY to sawed off shotguns. Handguns on the other hand have been used in the Military and the Militia since the time of flintlocks. The thing is, Miller does not answer the direct question of whether or not the 2d amendment applies to individuals. This upcoming DC case will and my bet is that after that, there will be no more talk about gun bans.
 
Soc, if you can't vote for Edwards, because he said something that is entirely consistent with US law for most of the 20th century (municipal restrictions on handguns), that's fine.

You said you liked Clinton, and Clinton must have had the same view as Edwards.

I'm not going to get worked up over handguns. People in this country are always going to have guns. That's a given.
 
Darla said:
enough of them won't. I'm not trying to be deep. I'm trying to avoid a Rudy Guliani President, because that is the end of this country, that's it. It's over.
Click to expand...

Nothing has been done to adequately avoid another election theft like that of 2000 and 2004 .. and that fault lies directly with the American people .. not politicians, the American people. If they want to install Guiliani, they can install Guilani and they know there is nothing the American people woud do about it.

If blacks can't run at the top of the democratic ticket, why are they voting for them? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, it's an honest question.

And btw bac, Edwards has more progressive policies than Obama does. On health care alone, but across the board.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I didn't intend to sound as if I fully support Obama, but the question of whether a viable black candidate should be supported by democrats who vitally need black votes is another question.

"Wait your turn" has gone stale.
 
Socrtease said:
America is NOT going to vote for a leftist like Edwards. The Repubs would spend every waking hour painting him as an in the pockets of the trial lawyers, wealth redistibutin', gun grabbin', socialist. I know he is not that bad, but his positions on guns and taxes will lose him my vote. So what does losing MY vote really mean?

I am 42 years old on Dec 27, and I have voted in every election Since Reagan Mondale. In that time I have voted Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. I was president of College Democrats in 1992 and 1994, I was VP of students for choice. I have refused to vote Republican because of the overwhelming control of the party by the RR and their theological bend and authoritarian biological imperative. I will NEVER vote for Edwards. Not EVER. If he is the Dem nominee and anyone but Paul is the Repub nominee I will for the first time in my life vote for a third party. And I am not alone. There are lots of Fiscally conservative to moderate dems and independants that will not be able to stomach Edwards. By election night of 2008 Edwards will have been called every thing from a fellow traveler to a pinko and it will stick.
Click to expand...

The reason republicans run roughshod over America is because they have the balls to do it, while the left and center stand around worrying about what republicans will do.

There is far too much time spent on worrying about what republicans will do, especially considering their diminshed importance and control of the political stage. They've blundered into devastating failure after devastating failure .. yet the left and center still cringe like rabbits at republican shadows.

There are far more democrats and independents who won't vote for a kook like Ron Paul than there are who wouldn't vote for Edwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top