tMzvJbFCGpOXDlMV
Jsr2JA Thank you ever so for you article.Really thank you! Much obliged.
Submitted by Brendan on Sat, 2007-12-15 11:10
Tags:
- Animals
- Art & Culture
- Books & Film
- Crime
- Democratic Party
- Elections
- Famous People
- Humor
- Ideology
- International Politics
- Law
- Meta
- Military
- Miscellaneous
- Old Diary
- Personal
- Philosophy
- Religion
- Republican Party
- Social Issues
- Sports
- State Politics
- Terrorism
- US Congress
- US Courts
- US President
- US Supreme Court
- War
- Special Access
Comments :
If I am expected to debate
It has to be the Pro on Drug Legalization. I would be too light on anything else. I am not exactly volunteering, though, so anyone else please feel free to grab this topic.
I could also moderate if needed, I suppose. I might be better at that role anyway.
Of course I will provide humorous and inconsequential commentary in chat, if I'm available.
I should mention that this format of two folks doing rapid fire debates with the peanut gallery chiming in occasionally is very similar to the Second Life SC format. . . . if you have a machine that can handle SL that is.
I'll lightly pencil you in =)
The Thunderdome stuff is intended to be mostly fun, debaters can prepare as much or as little as they'd like. The Debate Night stuff will be more in-depth.
I will also put you down for moderating if needed, that would be great. Thanks!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Obligatory youtube
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Wednesday night polling on the issue
Maybe there should be a poll before the debate as well? That way we can tell if anybody actually changed their mind (or at least lowered their certainty in their previous opinion) due to the good points raised.
Just a thought.
Makes sense, good idea (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I could argue pro on NASA
but it wouldn't have any sort of philosophical backing, just "OMG MARS IS TEH AWESOME!!!"
I'm a sci-fi nerd, so of course I'm for going there.
With respect to #2, I could actually argue the con there because of my belief in revoking corporate personhood. I guess I'd argue that corporations shouldn't be expected to be voluntarily socially responsible, but that government should force them to be at a very basic level.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sweet, pick a day
And feel free to reword the assertions, this was just spur of the moment phrasing.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What time do you want to do these?
Thursday nights are generally not good for me, unfortunately. :/
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
For you, pico, we reschedule!
I just figured we should set up a regular time, but obviously if something else works better for people then it would make more sense to do it then.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Wednesdays are great for me,
but I don't want to cause anyone else an inconvenience, either.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
But Greed is Good!
You need to be greedy and demand the day that suits you best.
Remember, altruism = incompetence and status seeking!
Gotta take care of #1!
/snark
Wednesday nights are SL nights
at least for now. . .
Why don't we alternate
Or else consider Tuesdays in future?
But let's see if we can get something together for Thursday, if only to test how it would work.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
State's rights
What the heck does this really mean? Where does one draw the lines between Federal and State Power (and likewise between State and Municpal power) when it comes to impacting individual rights?
Currently State's Rights seems to mean that your position is more popular in your state than in the country as a whole, but where SHOULD it be, both from a constitutional perspective and a what-is-optimal perspective?
It confuses me also
It does make it tricky if you want to transport a gun from one locality to the next, because the local, state, and federal laws don't seem to be co-ordinated.
I know pork is money for contracts dished out in Washington. It avoids local (state) competition, by making it impossible to have a local bid. (I think)
I'm only half stupid
Easy
Everything you ask can be found in the Constitution. The most important amendment with respect to states' rights is #10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, if the feds don't have the power to do X, the states have the power to do X. Does this always work out for the most equitable arrangement of individual rights? No. The important part is that it is part of the Constitution and needs to be followed most strictly.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Not so easy as that
Despite being 'easy' there is a massive amount of disagreement over this.
Part of it is the pretty massive amount of extra power denied to the states and granted to the Federal government by the 14th amendment.
Combining the two, one could argue that the right/power in question is in fact granted to the people and not to the states and then using the authority provided by the 14th, enforce said rights
)
(see the following for similar reasoning
The 14th isn't that complicated
It created federal citizenship. Little do most people know, but we all have dual citizenship. We are both citizens of the state in which we reside and of the United States. The 14th states that the States cannot abridge any rights recognized by the feds via state laws without due process.
If you're asking where the line is drawn between what rights we have and what ones we don't, don't look at me for an answer. The Constitution is so vaguely written in some parts, and the expanded role of judicial interpretation moves the line back and forth over time. A strict reading of the powers of congress helps to eliminate some of the hardship, but cuts off accepted powers of the feds in other places.
I'm of the belief we need a completely new Constitution written with much less ambiguity.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Not easy at all
If it were so easy to interpret the US Constitution we wouldn't have the Supreme Court hashing out the meaning and interpretation of the words.
The powers not delegated to the United States..... is that the people,as a whole, are the people the govt, or are our institutions the govt.
nor prohibited by the States....... does that mean that one state can have legalized marijuana and another state no....
are reserved to the States respectively .... or to the people ....huh?
One of the most curious interpretations is the drinking age Federally mandated to be 21, or else your Federal Monies for transportation are withheld!
States voting to decriminalize marijuana are they trumped by the Federal Listing that says marijuana is a Class One drug, of THE most dangerous type.
The Federal govt can always get around state laws by claiming that anything that crosses state lines is under Federal regulation, including young women wanting a Dr.'s services.
I would say that the interpretation of #10 is in not easy, but in fact is easy to abuse.
I'm only half stupid
Since I'm generally combative...
...I can probably be a default backup if we need someone to argue any of these. My default positions would be:
** 1. The US should legalize all drugs-
lean towards Pro but wouldn;t include all drugs.
** 2. Corporations should be socially responsible
Pro
** 3. Unitary Presidential power is out of control
Pro
** 4. The death penalty should be abolished
Pro
** 5. NASA should send humans to Mars
Con, for reasons that it seems impossible rather than undesirable
** 6. SC Justices should have term limits
Con, although with possible support for a process of impeachment for SCOTUS judges
** 7. There is a recession coming
Who cares? No, seriously- that'd be my position :)
But I can probably make a good faith effort at arguing either side of just about any of them.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Maybe we could have Tlaloc versus Stinerman this Thursday
(say 10:30 Eastern again?) arguing "NASA should send humans to Mars" with Tlaloc arguing con and Stinerman arguing pro and me moderating. Since this is sort of a test run we save the weighty political issuers for later, but at the same time I have to admit this is a really interesting topic to me personally. I promise none of the questions I ask will require any technical knowledge -- all you need to bring is an opinion, extra facts are strictly optional (or will be provided by the moderator for context). I'd aim for short and sweet, say 30 minutes and then archive the debate and open the diary to general discussion to let people talk more if they want.
Thanks guys... and everyone should feel free to claim a date and topic =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fine with me
STINERMAN, I CHOOSE YOU!
So one format question- you said a diary just for us to use. Does that mean you will post a question in that thread and then Stinerman and I will post replies?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yep
I haven't decided whether I'll try to make it so only we have permissions or just brutally delete posts by anyone else. But you two will have a clear stage during the debate, anyway.
I'm thinking I will direct the questions, so for example a question towards him he answers and you get a short response, a question to both you both answer. If y'all want a different format I don't care that much, I just want to keep it quick and fun, people can fill in the details later as their interest and time permits.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Brutal deletion
of any unwise enough to violate the rules. This is Thunderdome, after all