TomAiello

I've heard this argument many times. I think it's totally wrong. Arguing that the law must celebrate diversity (which is often appropriate in other settings) misses the fundamental point that in order to allow those other settings, the law must remain color blind. When you start tilting the scales of the law, you quickly engender resentment. The law must remain an impartial arbiter, not taking into account race, creed, religion, wealth or jump numbers. I think that the best statement of this idea I've ever heard was from Atticus Finch, actually. I can't find the exact quote right now, but it was something to the effect that the reason why the courts must treat all equally is precisely because they are unequal in other areas. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's quite a claim for someone who was literally the most liberal person in the Senate. By what measure do you come up with that? Voting records, based on the votes he made in the Senate, while he was there, as rated by The American Conservative Union (a conservative PAC). In general, of the (several) groups doing ratings like that, Obama wasn't quite the most liberal senator during that time. He generally ranked somewhere around the 10th most liberal. There's an article here that discusses those rankings, and says that Obama was actually the 10th most liberal Senator in the 2006 and the 16th most liberal in 2005. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

When I was in college, our campus chapter of La Raza made up shirts with a picture of the current governor of the state (a guy named Pete Wilson) viewed through a rifle scope reticle, with his head in the crosshairs and the caption "Enemy of the Race" (it was actually in Spanish, not English). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wow. Really? That's statewide? In college, I'd leave my car parked in front of my house for much longer than 72 hours (because I'd ride my bicycle to and from campus, and only really drove my car on weekends). If they'd had that rule then, I'd have gotten a lot of tickets. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Well, with the exception of wanting the government all over our bodies and beliefs... I actually think that's mostly an issue when they feel like they are "in charge." When (as now) they feel like they're out of power, the Religious Right tends to revert to "just leave me alone to do my religious things," which is actually a fundamentally libertarian position. On a personal level, I (I'm a libertarian) have been able to find a lot more political common ground with uber-christians than I have with people who want America to go "kick some ass!" There's just such a fundamental disconnect between libertarians and the "aggressive foreign policy" types. The one wants to shrink government power, while the other depends on it to pursue their goals. In my mind, the "push other nations around" types really belong in the Democratic party (which is, at it's core, unified by it's belief in expanding government power to pursue various goals). I was pretty flummoxed when Dick Cheney tried to say that someone else had ideologically left the GOP, because one of the basic tenets of the GOP (and one which has gotten pretty much only lip service in the last 20 years) is the reduction in government power, and Dick Cheney is a staunch advocate of an increase in government power. Another way to view this is to look at the Ron Paul phenomenon. Paul is a very christian person, but he's attracted the libertarian segment of the GOP (and even some non-GOP libertarians), as well as a good chunk of support from the religious right. The New American Century folks, though, can't stand him, because of his opposition to foreign entanglements. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Unfortunately it's not that simple. In general, your "reasonable" conservatives are people who are in favor of bigger government which does more to push other countries around, spends a ton of money on the military, and generally feel that the US is in charge of policing the world. The truth is that the libertarian wing of the GOP is generally more comfortable with the religious right than it is with the foreign policy hawks, because the religious right is a lot more willing to see reductions in government size (for the vigorous foreign policy folks, a reduction in government power strikes directly at their primary interest). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If they are anything like their parents, they'll be hundreds of thousands of dollars (ok millions of 2030 dollars) in debt. But I am deeply curious what you were basing that statement on. Care to share the reasoning that got you there? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Barack Obushma continues to drive George Obushma's foreign policy objectives forward, harder than George ever did? Why am I totally unsurprised? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think you mean the people pulling the strings. Who would that be? The Bavarian Illuminati, of course. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Christians claim that Jesus is, in fact, the Jewish Messiah. Since Jesus didn't actually accomplish the things that the Jewish Messiah is supposed to accomplish, the Christians have to have a way of getting around this. They claim that Jesus will accomplish these things in a 'Second Coming' so that the original Jewish prophecies--as well as a lot of newer prophecies that the Christians throw in for good measure--can come true. Basically the evidence points to Jesus not being who he is claimed to be, so the Christians are waiting for the Second Coming when it is said that Jesus will produce the evidence in rather dramatic fashion. Because some of the prophecies--especially the rebuilding of the Temple--are specific to the land of Israel, Christians do in fact have a desire to see a stable government in that area of the world so that their prophecies can come true. That all sounds like a debate about obscure theological points that belongs in a seminary (or Speakers' Corner). I doubt very much it's having a real influence on US foreign policy. It sounds like you are saying that, in your opinion, these theological points are a main driver of US foreign policy regarding Israel. Is that a reasonable statement of your position, or am I misunderstanding? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You're saying that whoever put up a website called "Christian Skydivers Association" is somehow the final spokesmen for all Christian belief? Or is it just that he's the recognized spokesman for the majority of people who consider themselves "christian"? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Really? I know plenty of folks who think of themselves as Christian. None of them have ever appeared excited about any notion of that sort. BTW, what does that have to do with my question about a supposedly biblical motivation for US policy on Israel? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That person ought to be removed. Honestly, I can't imagine it would take more than one phone call (or one conversation with another doctor on site) to put that right. What kind of visitation are we talking about here? In a hospital room or in the recovery room? I had surgery several years ago and they didn't let anyone "visit" me in the recovery room. My parents (and I doubt you're going to find anyone with a claim to be "closer" family than that) had to wait for them to bring me out of the recovery room before they could see me. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I must not be following you. It sounds like you are saying that US foreign policy with regard to Israel is determined by some obscure passage in a (largely apocryphal) religious text, one that I'm guessing most Christians aren't even aware of it. Can you clarify what you really meant? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If that were true, only jews would have the right to vote in Israel, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

So we should all avoid Yosemite, where there are plenty of dangerous bears? Which parks do _not_ have potentially dangerous animals in them? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Only if they're carrying bibles. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes, she was. She was saying that they were better judges in some cases. Assuming she doesn't think they are worse judges in an equal number of cases, then the natural result is that, overall, they are better judges. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hiking in a park is analagous to jumping crap gear in a thunderstorm? What parks are you hiking in? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You should carry a BRICK instead, because that is all you really have. I hope for your safety that you are never involved in a gun fight because it will be over in 5 seconds.Maybe the perp will give you a few seconds to tap, rack and fire. Dude, if I'm ever involved in an actual gun fight (involving two or more parties, armed with firearms, shooting at each other) when I've got my kids with me, then I've made a miscalculation of a massive order. In a situation where another person is shooting at me with a firearm, my top priority is to get the hell out of that situation. I've got no delusions about the survivability of a real firefight, and I'd personally like to live. My personal defense firearm is almost exclusively for defense from unarmed (or not armed with firearms) individuals. If the other guy has a gun, the rules are very different, and basically involve me (and mine) trying to get out of harms way until help arrives. If we're talking about a home defense situation, then (a) if they're not running as soon as I've fired a shot I'm real worried because they're probably a hit squad, and (b) I doubt I'll be using a handgun anyway. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Gay naked bible study groups are the best! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Although the ethic here is generally to put any "religion" posts in Speakers' Corner, you need not post these sort of organizational things here. Do you want me to move this to another forum? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I agree. Yet, thirteen years later, and there it still is. And same-sex couples who are legally married in any of the states that allow it still don't have their marriages recognized by the federal government or by most other states. (At least, not that I'm aware of.) In pure dollar terms, getting a case to the SCOTUS will be cheaper than all the campaigning on this issue. I'm a little surprised no one has done it yet. I also think it's a winner on the current makeup of the court, especially if you can hit them with another FFC case from the other side of the spectrum (concealed weapons permits spring immediately to mind) in the same session. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If the right to be left alone is not part of the 9th Amendment then nothing is, and in that case I cannot fathom why the drafters put that amendment in there. I still boggle over the stretching to include privacy (and many other things) in the first amendment, when it would be so easy to find it a home in the 9th. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I concur. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com