Interesting Eisenhower quote

All right, all right. I was going by Grant's general rep, of which I had only a vague notion. I admit it; you got me! But I can think of a whole slew of republicans--and Democrats--who had integrity, at least of a sort.

 

Sorry, I still haven't figured out how to use them smiley faces ... much less found a tongue-in-cheek smiley!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

Little Fauss:

There is not need to apoligize, you have a right to say what you want. Although I advocate peace to my students, I also advocate being thick skinned. Also, I believe that if a man has an opinion, he has a right to state it, even if the odds are one to a thousand, this is true courage.
One thing I cannot stand, are those who do not take a position one way or the other. These individuals who go through life taking the easy way out, some even say "I don't even vote". This attitude is something I truly revile and despise.

Take care Little Fauss:

Best wishes, Abner

 

Personally, I think that the real Clinton scandal was that he obviously wasn't man enough to hide under the Oral Office Desk while letting Miss Monica sit in the Executive Chair.

 

little fauss,

It's interesting. Justice Thomas' dissent follows the "original meaning" Scalia-type analysis that you so adore. O'Connor and Darth Vader do so as well but they don't rely on Original Intent to anything like the same extent.

SCALIA, however, rejects this original intent analysis and votes with the majority!

Sca

 

He he he!

Ted:

You bust me up!


Abner

 

Osborne:

I don't know much about the case (in fact, I don't know anything whatsoever). Was it a challenge to a state initiative legalizing the use of marijuana like the Calif initiative or was it an equal rights challenge brought by those who wanted to use it? If the former, then that would explain the dissent of Rehnquist and Thomas, and I'd agree with it; a state has the right to allow initiatives and referenda, and the people have the right to use the rules to change things as they wish. I have no idea what Scalia was thinking, but who am I?

I don't think that marijuana use is a good idea, and I don't think that some dude smoking it in an uncontrolled manner can be called "medical", and I doubt that the same chemicals couldn't be administered in some manner that didn't destroy brain cells and make people high, but that's not the point.

Sometimes following the original understanding will produce very "liberal" political outcomes, sometimes very "conservative", but that should be no business of the judge; they are not legislators, and their only bias should regard constitutionality. Not "Do I like the result?" but "Is it constitutional?"

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Britain

You're a fair man, but I still think I acted like an ass.

Best to you.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in Brita

Little Fauss:

Please do no question yourselft for being a good citizen and "questioning" popular beliefs.

we are all merely human. Perhaps my convictions are based on injutices I witnessed against my father, based on his race. Perhaps my opinions are based on actions I have encountered based on my race. But then again, perhaps I should not form opinions on such actions. Not everyone of a particular party thinks the same. Let me assure you, It does no good to feel sorry for oneself, all I can do is try to make a small difference.

Please let me assure you and state "you did not act like an Ass"

Take care little fauss,

Abner

 

little fauss,

You really should read it. Thomas J., makes perhaps the best use of Original Intent I've ever seen. The reason I find it attractive, though, is that his analysis would work just as well using the modern meanings of the text of the commerce clause.

His dissent is not too too long, at least by S.Ct. standards. It's on their web site.

 

Re: He he he!

Gosh! Did you spit more of that good Sam Adams beer all over the dog again ... or maybe on the computer this time?

 

Re: Re: He he he!

Not this time! he he he! I was real careful.


Take care buddy,

Abner

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privatization of SS in B

Thanks for the kind words, I just though I made a little heavy use of ad hominem in our discussion, and I have tried to make it part of my creed never to resort to such in a debate.

Anyway, thanks, again!

Mike (Little Fauss)

 

1. Nobody denies this? It used to be said that Social Security would go broke by 2020. Now they say it's not going to happen until 2038. With that, the only thing that was changed was a few accounting assumptions.

2. The solution of cutting benefits will become politically viable when the baby busters retire. The politics of the situation is all about whether there are enough old people to object to any benefit cuts.

3. And you think that the Republicans would be in favor of ANY tax increase (on their watch, anyway)?

4. Means testing is a very bad idea. Once you get to the point where you have to be poor to collect Social Security old age pension, it will be seen as "welfare handouts for the old" and the Republicans will kill it in no time.

5. For a portion of one's Social Security? How about for all of it?