• bloc said on Jul 17, 2006....

  "gun ownership is a right that the party has to accept, and accept now. it's bloody well enshrined in the bill of rights, for crying out loud. the time has come for the party to remember that there were 10 items in that document and the framers of the constitution thought enough of it to place it second." I know this is from the other post, but do we have the right to own missiles, tanks, or nukes? The bill of rights uses the term "arms" not "guns" and missiles are arms.

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2006....

  "3) it is the duty of any nation that desires to call itself moral to aid those cultures moving toward peaceful coexistence. a threat against israel is a threat against US interests." This makes no sense to me. Isreal is not the united states. A threat against israel is not a threat agains us. Also, occupying another peoples land, as israel does, is not "moving toward coexistence". Unilateral actions by israel is NOT "moving toward peaceful coexistence". Honestly, if you take out the education part this sounds like a republican platform. Just throw in some jesus and you'll be in the RNC in no time.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 17, 2006....

  bloc: 1. second amendment: no, citizens do not have a right to own military-grade hardware. as we have previously discussed, i believe the second amendment is useful only in the context of self-defense. 2. the US has signed treaties binding us to israel, just as we have with taiwan. taiwan does not exist on the list b/c of the incredible degree of paranoia mainland china has WRT what they consider a rogue province. further, you're oversimplifying the history of the israel/arab conflict. if you trace the history, you'll see the same land has been owned and held by both sides at various times. england and france granted the land to israel and while they didn't have the right, the fact remains that israel exists. i respectfully disagree that this is a RNC platform, bloc. there's no reason to be insulting. :> ed

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2006....

  "1. second amendment: no, citizens do not have a right to own military-grade hardware. as we have previously discussed, i believe the second amendment is useful only in the context of self-defense." This seems to be an arbitrary distinction on your part. Grenades can be used for self-defense just like guns, knives, or fists. I happen to agree with you that guns should be ok, and grenades not, but I don't see any distinction in the constitution so the constitutional argument for gun rights allows everything else as well. The RNC thing was tongue in cheek :)

• silverwhisper said on Jul 17, 2006....

  bloc: i selected that (admittedly arbitrary) line in the sand b/c frankly, asking democrat to change such a core plank would be kinda painful to a lot of folks. i had to go w/ the minimum necessary to be meaningful w/out inviting allegations of supporting total bedlam. :> ed

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2006....

  are you saying that you think we should be allowed to own grenades? the gun issue is a weird one for me. I'm from Virginia but have lived my entire adult life in big cities currently los angeles. I see both sides of it.

• ALIENated said on Jul 17, 2006....

  If the democrats do all that, except for abortion, they will not be the Democratic party. They will be the Republican party.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2006....

  bloc: no, i'm not. grenades constitute military hardware. alienated: i disagree entirely. what i have asked for is that the democrats make 2 changes: one is huge (gun control, traditionally republican) and the other relatively minor (support for israel, which is a logical extension of existing treaties and support for an oppressed people). the rest is actually pretty simple. and surely you aren't suggesting support for gay marriage is traditionally a republican plank? :> ed

• bloc said on Jul 18, 2006....

  i really don't get the israel thing. You mention existing treaties but fail to mention that israel is in violation of a whole bunch of un resolutions for their settlements.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2006....

  bloc: that alone isn't carrying much weight with me, argumentatively. ? ed

• Gibson said on Jul 20, 2006....

  As someone who has lived most of his life in europe I really do not get the american gun fetish. There is a direct correlation between gun ownership and murders by shooting. In the UK where gun ownership is regulated the experience was that when the ol Bill (police) armed it self so did the criminals. But I´ll give you that perhaps you are right to hang unto such romantic concepts as the bill of rights although in my view it is mere words by now. Yet the words clearly state that any free person has the right to bear arms, you cant carry a missile or tank around with you. Regarding Israel it is true that it does excist and that is thanks to the U.S. Risking blaspheymy I must say that sometimes I think the formation of Israle was the nazis victory. Those jews they did not manage to exterminate from europe move to Israel. And sometimes it seems that they took up the habits of their former tormenters against the palistinians. When living in europe I noticed that the news reports where what I thought biased against the Israels, or perhaps they where just not censored. I don´t think news of israeli tanks driving down a palestinian market and backing into each and every shop, destroying sewer and waterlines and cutting power ever made it to the states. Or of the israeli army punishing an entire village for the acts of one terroroist, much like the nazi punished an entire village in france for the acts of the resistance. It is hard to say this without sounding anti semetic but Israel is not the best example of the jewish people, quite the opposite. You are spot on regarding education.

• stark said on Jul 20, 2006....

  @gibson Canada has lax gun laws very similar to America, but they don't have the same crime rate. I.e. there isn't a direct correlation.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 20, 2006....

  gibson: i similarly wonder if news made it to you that prior to his demise, israel actively [i]protected[/i] yasser arafat from his rivals in the PLO. i have known israelis, i have known arabs. i know that they are all good and decent men, not ravening monsters. and note that i am not suggesting that israel is exactly wearing a white hat. but note that israel hasn't borne down on terrorists w/ anything remotely resembling the kind of power they could if they wanted. israel has among the most powerful militaries in the world. when the IDF takes action, it is generally a very precise and calculated attack w/ limited collateral damage. they do [i]not[/i] however firebomb an entire city, which listening to some folks talk, appears to be how they're viewed. ed

• Gibson said on Jul 20, 2006....

  I generally agree with you. If only Israel was remove from its facist elements, thats right there do exict nazi jews who only want more "lebensraum" for the jewish immigrants. The Israeli army is mighty and that is because it is largely sponsored by USA. It is sponsored so because the middle east is an important powerpoint on account of oil, not because jews have any greater divine right to a piece of turf than any other. If hydro power would would replace oil tomorrow Israel would be left to its own device. There is no question. The US foreign affair mechanism has learned long time ago (probably as early as the civil war) that cold capitalism and huminanitarian ideals do not mix well.

• Gibson said on Jul 20, 2006....

  @ Stark: You are semi-wrong in regards to that, Canadas gun control works (that is to say, those registerd to own a gun continue owning it), USA´s does noes not (there is very lax control of how guns change hands).

• silverwhisper said on Jul 20, 2006....

  actually, i'm not so sure re: the role of oil and israel in middle east politics--wait, OK, now i catch your meaning. it would completely remove any reason for the US to play nice. ed

• Gibson said on Jul 20, 2006....

  I´m not sure if I get your response, wether you agree with me or not (and that is a semi ok feat by any writer :=) If you think about it, do you think that if oil did not exist that the great United States of America foreign affairs would take any notice what so ever? How long did it take to take notice of the genocide in Yougoslavia (almost 10 years)? How long did it take to take notice of the genocide in Somalia (i.e. Darfur, actually they still havent)? I do wish uppon wish that when the Simon Wiesenthal institute (that I do respect greatly) runs out of nazy war criminals, they will focus on preventing genocide in the world.

• stark said on Jul 20, 2006....

  @gibson "There is a direct correlation between gun ownership and murders by shooting." Not to be pendantic, but you said gun ownership. canada has very similar gun ownership rates, much much lower murder rate to america.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 20, 2006....

  gibson: the former yugoslavia is in europe, where there are already a large number of well-established nations. ditto, somalia/africa. i would think that most europeans or africans would look at any american intervention onto their continent as highly unwelcome. this touches on one of my big problems about some of the criticism leveled at the US. we're criticized for playing world cop, but now and again, [i]non-americans want that[/i]. none of our industry is anywhere nearly as dependent upon europe or most of africa as it is on the middle east, but then again, [i]this is true of every first-world nation[/i]. germany and france are said to have sold military hardware to iraq in violation of an international boycott. i'm not some crazy, flag-waving jingoist. obviously, the US has a wealth of faults, some of which you probably don't know just yet. but some of the criticisms are simply not reasonable. ed

• hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jul 20, 2006....

  silver, You are spot on in your observations. But you left out a couple of things that are dear to my heart. I really believe that EVERY child born in this nation should be entitled to all the education without charge his/her intellect can absorb. I really believe that best available Healthcare should be a RIGHT for all Americans not a commercial industry. I really believe that the best legal council should be a RIGHT for all Americans not a lobby group for a few wealthy law firms. I really believe the best possible Food should be freely available to all Americans, thereby ending hunger in this nation. I really believe the best possible housing should be freely available to all Americans, thereby ending homelessness in this nation. Some might call me a Communist....or Socialist....I really don't care. 1)Any person who profits from making education the privilege of the wealthy is a criminal and should be imprisoned. 2)Any person who profits from making Healthcare margins greater than any other industry is a criminal and should be imprisoned. 3)Any person who profits from exploiting the discrepancy in the availablity of adequate legal representation is a criminal and should be imprisoned. 4)Any person who profits from making foodstuffs increase in cost is a criminal and should be imprisoned. 5)Any person who profits by Urban Renewal that is in reality "African Removal" is a criminal and should be imprisoned. I am not a Communist. I just believe the current system of government in this country will only lead to a few wealthy Jack Welchs and Neal Cavutoes basking in the Florida sun while children starve and live in cardboard shacks with dirt floors. America is becoming the next third world country. We are being sold by the RNC and wealthy Elitest Democrats.

• bloc said on Jul 20, 2006....

  hunter, I have some huge problems with some of your choice of words, but I agree with you in general. Here is a list of problems, but please keep in mind that I agree with you in general. "I really believe that EVERY child born in this nation should be entitled to all the education without charge his/her intellect can absorb." I don't agree with the all part. Education is very very expensive once your talking about post grad level study. Only a few people in the world can teach that stuff and paying them costs a lot. I think it would be very excessive and very costly for people to get 4 phd degrees simply because it's free. However, I do think that everything thru a b.s. or b.a. should be close to free. I went to community college in CA and at the time it only cost me $11/unit. It wasn't free but ti was so cheap that anyone that worked a part time job could afford it. That's acceptable to me. Unfortunately it has more than doubled since arnold become gov :( The next big problem I have is with you use of "best possible", "best availabe", etc. I have a rare eye disease. The "best possible" health care for that disease is a single doctor. There are other doctors that are good, but the "best possible" is this one particular doctor. It is simply impossible for everyone to see this one doctor and get the "best possible" care. What your asking for is impossible. The "best possible" housing is similar. I have no clue what you mean by that. Should every american have a right to a mansion on a hill overlooking the beach? That would be some peoples idea of the best possible. Now my final point. "Any person who profits from making education the privilege of the wealthy is a criminal and should be imprisoned." I have no idea what you mean by this exactly. I work in the tech industry in a very high skill field. I have experiences and skills that very few people have. I'm sure that many people in my field would want me (or someone in my positin) to teach them what I know. I could teach them or I could be using my skills consulting for a company that would net me 100k over 6 months. Therefore, in order for me to teach them they'd have to pay me atleast that much. Does that make me a criminal that should be imprisoned?

• hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jul 20, 2006....

  bloc, friend I think you made my point for me. Why does post graduate education cost so much?? When I got my undergraduate degree you could still work part time and afford to pay for school. Not anymore. In the last year State schools in Kentucky doubled their tuition and decreased the number of graduate programs available. They had just increased the number of virtual web classes as a cost cutting measure then promptly doubled the tuition. Someone is lying to us. Education has become just another method to raise cash. Why is there only "one" physician in the world who has the knowledge to treat your desease?? This person should be teaching hundreds of medical students not pocketing extra cash because somehow he has captured a niche. A Single Family Dwellings should be the right of every family. If you had seen the cardboard buildings with the dirt floors and a Direct TX dish nailed to a tree you might understand how important this is. This is happening in America not Bangladesh. Medical Schools, Law Schools, etc.. all limit entrance into their programs for the express purpose of sustaining a negative Supply vs Demand for their profession. If education were free and the world had a glut of qualified electrical engineers, what would be the downside for society?? The individual engineers would not make as much money (too bad) , but their skills would be more commonplace and more utilized throughout the population giving rise to thousands of innovations where there before were only a few.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 21, 2006....

  hunter, you're a bit too extreme for me, buddy. ed

• RobsStuff said on Jul 21, 2006....

  Free Education. Many years ago the British had free education. Then in the dark years of Thatcher grants were reduced for the arts students. Next they brought in student loans. Whilst education was free and based on merit many people from the working class could get an education. It did not result in everyone staying at University for decades getting 4 Phd's. Since the introduction of student loans to pay for a University education there has been a decrease in admissions from poorer families. It has also resulted in many Universities cutting there hummanities and art faculties. Education should be a right, irespective of financial means. Free Health Care. I was raised with a National Health system that garenteed free health care. When I moved to Africa I was horrified at the difference between those who could afford health care and those who could not. We have a system where those with Health insurance have access to state of the art hospitals and those without go to clinics where there are no sheets on the beds and they are lucky to even see a doctor. Health care is a right. Silver you hit the nail on the head and these sort of observations don't make you a communist they make you an idealist.

• bloc said on Jul 21, 2006....

  "Why is there only "one" physician in the world who has the knowledge to treat your desease?? This person should be teaching hundreds of medical students not pocketing extra cash because somehow he has captured a niche." don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you understand how life works. First, some people are simply better than others regardless of training. Second, this physician wouldn't be as good as she is if she didn't do the work and instead spent her time teaching. Third, why should we have a right to tell this person that she has to teach instead of doing what she wants to do? "If education were free and the world had a glut of qualified electrical engineers, what would be the downside for society??" The problem is that nothing is free. Education can't truly be free. If we don't directly pay for it then we indirectly pay for it. The facilities required, the books, the teachers, etc all cost a lot of money. The problem with your view is that your assuming that something can be free and it can't. Your other problem is that you want to force people to do things that maybe they don't want to do. And who will make these decisiosn. In your world would someone come into my office tomorrow and tell me that it's come to their attention that I am very good and what i do. Therefore, I can't do it anymore because I'm not required by the state to teach it to others? What if I say no, will I go to prison? I think your heart is in the right place, but that's the only thing that is right about it.

• bloc said on Jul 21, 2006....

  @robstuff "Education should be a right, irespective of financial means. Free Health Care." I agree with you, but I think you missed my point. Hunter was saying things like "best possible" education and "best possible" healthcare. That is simply impossible.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 21, 2006....

  bloc: apart from my comments re: israel that you find, shall we say peculiar, any other thoughts? ed

• bloc said on Jul 21, 2006....

  This would be my dem platform for the upcoming election. 1. diplomacy before war 2. civil liberties (the president is not a king or dictator) 3. return of american values (we do not torture) 4. universal healthcare 5. education 6. simplified tax system

• silverwhisper said on Jul 21, 2006....

  i'm with you on everything but i'm not sure about universal healthcare. what does that mean to you? ed

• hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jul 22, 2006....

  silver.... Sorry If I offended, but I find our system of governance to be corrupt to the bone. Like the Roman Empire it sustains itself by distributing a little bit of gain to the very people who could possibly rise up to destroy it. This strategy worked for the Romans and our Capitalistic Republic (not a democracy at all) hides the fact that it is in reality an oligarchy. We are ruled by a select few who bleed the nation of its cash. The Wall Street ubermen and corporate pirates of America are the principle beneficiaries of the children who are hungry that don’t count on our statistics. They pocket short term gains at the expense of the American worker who has been degraded and set aside as unimportant. They count productivity by the number of jobs that can be lost. They give themselves bonus after bonus and proclaim that the economy is good. Its not just the RNC that has done this to us. It is also the wealthy elitist Democrats.

• hunter_boyce_chandler said on Jul 22, 2006....

  back to your original post.... The "Democrats" are in reality the party of Andrew Jackson (great Indian murderer). Originally there were no political parties and the founders thought parties would be a bad idea too much like the UK. But people seemed to gravitate around two separate ideologies that became known as the Federalists and the Republicans. Washington was neither one. He thought the job of President was to stay out of politics and be a figure head (should have stayed that way). The Federalists ran the country and used their considerable power to intimidate and in some cases jail the Republicans for their political affiliation. They flooded the original Supreme Court and federal judiciary. Eventually they made enough enemies to be thrown out of the Whitehouse and Congress leaving the US with one party (Republicans). Over time and as the old Federalist judiciary was replaced by attrition the Republican Party divided itself into the democratic republicans and the old federalist leaning republicans. They called themselves as a group Republicans until Andrew Jackson when they changed their name to the Democrats. So in fact the Democratic Party really is the oldest political party in the US, it was there at the beginning. What we call Republicans now was a union of a bunch of weird parties into an opposition party after Andrew Jackson. My point is I have seen the enemy and it be us..... Democrats are responsible for the rise of the current batch of Republicans. By their constant self serving and lack of leadership we are letting this nation rot so a few of us can get rich.

• Gibson said on Jul 22, 2006....

  Anarchy is the only way! Do as you please as long as it does not hurt no one. That was the original version of anarchism as presented by 18. century writers, however the last bit did not make it to the newspapers the captains of industry published. Both republics and democratics are lame and tame.

• Gibson said on Jul 22, 2006....

  Being pedantic (what a great word!) I shold have wrote: ... as long as it does not hurt anyone.

• techwins said on Jul 22, 2006....

  It is to my understanding that the Second Amendment was established in primary consideration to "self-defense" from the government, not ordinary citizens per se. Essentially the right to bear arms allows citizens the ability to take up arms against the government if severe injustices are being made. Maybe? Also, banning assault weapons, which is an absolute must, is far different than banning guns altogether. In 2004, the ten year ban on assault weapons, including AK-47s and Uzi Rifles, expired, and the Republican controlled Congress has yet (as far as I know) to schedule a time to vote for its renewal. Along the same lines, Bush has yet to push for its renewal, either. Reports, of which I can no longer source, indicate the death rate for police officers dropped due to the ban on assault weapons. Not to push for a renewal on the ban of assault weapons is horrific. Who needs an AK-47 besides potential terrorists? So, with the assault weapon ban in my mind, I truly hope Democrats push harder on the fight for the ban of guns or at least assault weapons.

• techwins said on Jul 22, 2006....

  Oh, btw, here is an old article relevant to my last post... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3644044.stm I would like to find an updated report on the situation if anyone has a link by chance.

• Gibson said on Jul 22, 2006....

  I think the best improvement to democrazy was if voting for none wold have any political power. That is to say, that the statement of voting for neither or none of the parties held some significanze in itself (perhaps enforzing a repeat of the vote), that might prevent parties such as the republicans and democrats from becoming too monotonous.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 22, 2006....

  hunter: no need to apologize: no offense taken. the problems you see require different solutions than the problems i see. :> gibson: i don't believe in anarchy as being an improved state over anything. i'm not sure i understand your point in your last comment, though. ? techwins: your understanding re: the purpose of the second amendment is correct, but as i mentioned earlier in this discussion, arming citizens against governmental power is essentially useless. if the government decides to oppress the people, it cannot be stopped by any power available to the citizens. ed

• Zayda said on Jul 27, 2006....

  Can I just say, Silver, that I nearly fell off my chair laughing over my morning coffee when I saw that one of the ads for this blog was "Meet Republican Singles". Okay, that has gotten my morning off to a good start with a good chuckle as my morning started way too early.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 27, 2006....

  zayda: wow: that's way too early, i agree. but was there a virtual snarf? now [i]that[/i] is the question--whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings & arrows of outrageous quips... gah...clearly too early even over here... ed

• bloc said on Jul 27, 2006....

  i don't pretend to be smart enough to know to structure a universal healthcare system, but the goal is that a any kid that gets sick or hurt in america can get medical care. Adults too :)

• silverwhisper said on Jul 27, 2006....

  OK, i sorta figured that was your meaning, but i didn't want to assume. i gotta be honest, to me that one is so contentious as to being not worth trying to accomplish. ed

• bloc said on Jul 27, 2006....

  I don't think contention is a valid metric to base effort on. The dems need some bold ideas and this is one of them. Saying things everyone pretty much agrees on is the current status quo for the dems. I'd be very happy if they pushed some contentious ideas. I'm sure there are a lot of people that grew up without healthcare like I did. I remember the burden on my parents and I'm sure most people can understand it even if they didn't experience it. I also think peoples eyes will open when they see facts like the fact that we spend far more for healthcare in america and get worse overall care than countries like canada.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 27, 2006....

  that's a fair point, re: having some principles and consequences be damned. however, as the son of a doctor, i cannot in good conscience advocate socialized medicine, and i don't see any way to structure this w/out it being that, either [i]de jure[/i] or [i]de facto[/i]. ed

• Frlncwrtr said on Nov 20, 2006....

  SW:  Interesting comments, to say the least.
  
  For the most part I generally agree with you.
  
  The only thing that sticks out is the part about the democrats protecting the rights of gays, lesbians and the transgendered. This is where I draw the line -- sorry JMHO.
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 20, 2006....

  it's only natural that you disagree w/ me on that, but they can't be democrats and not do those things, freelance.  if the democrats are going to remain true to being socially progressive, that's absolutely crucial WRT having an identity.
  
  ed
  

• Frlncwrtr said on Nov 20, 2006....

  SW:
  Yes, it is only natural, but I am respectfully disagreeing. See the difference?
  
  btw - I do agree, SW that "they can't be democrats and not do those things."  That's part of the reason that I do not vote for democrats.
  
  So, you see, we do agree on some things, although others may not agree that you remain true to your party :)
  
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 20, 2006....

  o, that's fair.  :>
  
  i assume you can't support those things for religious reasons?  :>
  
  ed
  

• Frlncwrtr said on Nov 20, 2006....

  No, not religious reasons, but just personal opinions, that's all.
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 20, 2006....

  hm.  interesting.  well, i don't particularly wanna get into the reasons for that, frankly.
  
  ed
  

• Frlncwrtr said on Nov 20, 2006....

  I see...Some things are better off left alone. 
  
  Cheers:)
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 20, 2006....

  basically.  when people oppose that, i find that at some point, we reach a point where their underlying assumptions or givens cannot be meaningfully challenged and we invariably reach a point of having to agree to disagree.  i figure we should just cut to the chase.  :>
  
  ed
  

• Frlncwrtr said on Nov 20, 2006....

  Well, that's a matter of opinion, however discussions of many things do reach that point in some cases, so I agree to disagree. :)
  

• Zayda said on Nov 20, 2006....

  ed quoth:
  
  
  education
  concept: the greatest investment a nation can make is in its future: the children. ensuring that every child has access to quality education is crucial. for those who intend to continue their education in colleges or universities, the significant cost of tuition is for many an insurmountable obstacle. we propose higher education tuitions be partially tax-deductible.
  impact: improve the quality of tax-deductible tuition will be extremely expensive to fund but continuing the democratization of higher education is worth it and opposing it will be political suicide.
  
  
  Ed--When you say "ensuring that every child has access to quality education" you aren't advocating a move to all open-enrollment universities are you?  I just want clarification on this point.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 20, 2006....

  your response in miss b's comments surprised me b/c we'd always gotten along pretty well up until today.  but given how you understood my comments, that's quite understandable.  :>
  
  ed
  

• Frlncwrtr said on Nov 20, 2006....

  I see what you mean. I was surprised as well :)
  

• silverwhisper said on Apr 02, 2007....

  super z: i see i never replied to this question--sorry about that! no, i do not want to reduce admissions standards. there's a reason why we value a princeton, harvard or yale education more than we do a non-ivy diploma.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Apr 02, 2007....

  "there's a reason why we value a princeton, harvard or yale education more"
  because they cost more ;)
  
  I've come to believe that the main value in an ivy league education is the networking with other elites and not a difference in the education itself.
  

• silverwhisper said on Apr 02, 2007....

  my friend, who attended harvard undergrad and harvard law, more or less said the same. :>
  
  ed

Comment on "what i want the democrats to be"

Currently tagged	politics Democrats Republicans government ads Israel right to bear arms rights ban guns ban assault weapons second amendment (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment