CNN Admits Ron Paul is 2nd In Delegates.

[jasey]

I agree that there are varying degrees of positivity in the Republican Party and it is interesting to follow the primaries to see how they fare for the Republican nomination but more than anything I would be much happier to see Obama do a second term. I don't blame the whole of America, though, for their past problems with Republicans. Even my own country elected a very displeasing leader - Sarkozy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree that there are varying degrees of positivity in the Republican Party and it is interesting to follow the primaries to see how they fare for the Republican nomination but more than anything I would be much happier to see Obama do a second term. I don't blame the whole of America, though, for their past problems with Republicans. Even my own country elected a very displeasing leader - Sarkozy.

If Romney, Santorum or Gingrich replaced Obama, what would change?

The same as, whats changed since Obama replaced Bush?

[FiftyCal]

They're all puppets on strings, and corrupted congress doesn't really make things any better. What has Obama done to make this country better? Signing NDAA was pure corruption, he didn't have to sign it but he probably had no clue what it was and just signed it figuring it would do the country better. Bush wasn't any better than Obama was. Do you guys remember hurricane Katrina? Shouldn't blame it all on bush, but more the government, but the media made it look like it was a regular evacuation right? What the government really did was go to house to house breaking and entering and taking away everyones firearms and disarming them which violates the 2nd amendment of the constitution. The bad part was nobody ever got their guns back after the "Evacuation" that was done.

[nvrspk4]

They're all puppets on strings, and corrupted congress doesn't really make things any better. What has Obama done to make this country better? Signing NDAA was pure corruption, he didn't have to sign it but he probably had no clue what it was and just signed it figuring it would do the country better. Bush wasn't any better than Obama was. Do you guys remember hurricane Katrina? Shouldn't blame it all on bush, but more the government, but the media made it look like it was a regular evacuation right? What the government really did was go to house to house breaking and entering and taking away everyones firearms and disarming them which violates the 2nd amendment of the constitution. The bad part was nobody ever got their guns back after the "Evacuation" that was done.

http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Also that policy made complete sense, the city was being abandoned, you don't leave firearms just sitting around for robbers/looters to have at will. And yes, quite a few guns were returned, in 2006, as documented by the bastion of liberalism at Fox News.

Facts can be a real pain sometimes.

[FiftyCal]

http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Also that policy made complete sense, the city was being abandoned, you don't leave firearms just sitting around for robbers/looters to have at will. And yes, quite a few guns were returned, in 2006, as documented by the bastion of liberalism at Fox News.

Facts can be a real pain sometimes.

So it makes sense to take away peoples protection so looters don't get a hold of it while violating your constitutional rights? Well if a looter came to your house while you have no protection, what do you do? Criminals take even more advantage of situations like this where people have no protections for their family at all, And by the article looks like didn't return guns until quite a few groups got mad and sued the city. I'm sure they would of held on to the guns had it not been for groups like National Rifle Association that are pro 2nd Amendment

[GirlNextDoor15]

Why Romney? Why Sarkozy? Why Putin?

[FiftyCal]

I really do not Romney sitting in the chair as the president of the united states, ever.

[nvrspk4]

So it makes sense to take away peoples protection so looters don't get a hold of it while violating your constitutional rights? Well if a looter came to your house while you have no protection, what do you do? Criminals take even more advantage of situations like this where people have no protections for their family at all, And by the article looks like didn't return guns until quite a few groups got mad and sued the city. I'm sure they would of held on to the guns had it not been for groups like National Rifle Association that are pro 2nd Amendment

There was a state of absolutely lawlessness in the aftermath of Katrina and the government's first responsibility is to establish order. Therefore it made sense in that state of emergency to confiscate all guns. They did not have the right to keep the weapons after the emergency as the court decided. The police accompanied the confiscation of guns with increased enforcement - there were reduced reports of lootings, you're not hearing about people who had their guns confiscated and were killed are you? The way they took care of the lawlessness was by confiscating nearly every gun they could, and it made sense because of the state of emergency. Yes, it was wrong that they didn't move aggressively to return them after the emergency, but it was recognized by a court that that should happen, and the police did comply with the rule of law.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Facts can be a real pain sometimes.

The majority of the 'good things' listed on there are either government handouts, increased government or pandering 'equality' legislation which threatens the legal system along with free speech just as it has here in the United Kingdom by treating people in groups as opposed to individuals equal before the law. But what has Obama done? mainly the same as George W. Bush in that both increased government, both dabbled in government handouts (to both big business and as a tool for securing votes and creating a welfare dependent class of people) along with both ignoring the U.S. constitution in general, which brings me onto..

There was a state of absolutely lawlessness in the aftermath of Katrina and the government's first responsibility is to establish order. Therefore it made sense in that state of emergency to confiscate all guns. They did not have the right to keep the weapons after the emergency as the court decided. The police accompanied the confiscation of guns with increased enforcement - there were reduced reports of lootings, you're not hearing about people who had their guns confiscated and were killed are you? The way they took care of the lawlessness was by confiscating nearly every gun they could, and it made sense because of the state of emergency. Yes, it was wrong that they didn't move aggressively to return them after the emergency, but it was recognized by a court that that should happen, and the police did comply with the rule of law.

That is complete nonsense, by that logic we would simply have to confiscate 'all' guns and nobody would ever commit crime and we'd all be free from lawlessness, right? confiscating guns from households merely removes firearms from those with good intentions and leaves those with bad intentions with the guns as they naturally won't hand over their guns. The confiscation of all firearms during Katrina broke the law in two ways as I see it (no, I care not for what courts say as if courts really upheld the constitution and the law then the vast amount of the Congress, Senate and the President would have been impeached long ago with many going to prison) - firstly in that it breaks the Second Amendment and secondly because it ignores innocent until proven guilty in regards to 'unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home' - if I have not been proven guilty of anything in regards to being a part of a militia then the Police have no right to remove my Second Amendment rights.

That is common law and the U.S. constitution, whether you value these things of course is another matter altogther.

[nvrspk4]

The majority of the 'good things' listed on there are either government handouts, increased government or pandering 'equality' legislation which threatens the legal system along with free speech just as it has here in the United Kingdom by treating people in groups as opposed to individuals equal before the law. But what has Obama done? mainly the same as George W. Bush in that both increased government, both dabbled in government handouts (to both big business and as a tool for securing votes and creating a welfare dependent class of people) along with both ignoring the U.S. constitution in general, which brings me onto..

Treating people as groups recognizes the reality of the situation, which is that we as a people do recognize the groups. One may argue that this is reinforced by the policies of the government, while others would retort that the government policies are so because we act in this way. Either way, it is absolutely true that there is a measure of inequality in the system and the government should certainly reinforce it. For example, do you think that eliminating "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was pandering? Reversal of the Global Gag rule? Improving media coverage of government events? Removing the restriction on Federal Funding for stem cell research? Tax cuts for small business? Lifting restrictions on Cuban visitation? Other stuff: Adding tools to allow for tracking of government spending on stimulus projects. The START treaty. All awful, right? Pandering, the lot of them.

That is complete nonsense, by that logic we would simply have to confiscate 'all' guns and nobody would ever commit crime and we'd all be free from lawlessness, right? confiscating guns from households merely removes firearms from those with good intentions and leaves those with bad intentions with the guns as they naturally won't hand over their guns. The confiscation of all firearms during Katrina broke the law in two ways as I see it (no, I care not for what courts say as if courts really upheld the constitution and the law then the vast amount of the Congress, Senate and the President would have been impeached long ago with many going to prison) - firstly in that it breaks the Second Amendment and secondly because it ignores innocent until proven guilty in regards to 'unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home' - if I have not been proven guilty of anything in regards to being a part of a militia then the Police have no right to remove my Second Amendment rights.

That is common law and the U.S. constitution, whether you value these things of course is another matter altogther.

That is also complete nonsense, the distinction between an emergency situation paired with a state of lawlessness and everyday life is clear. There were significant problems with looting and unsecured firearms and thus the guns were confiscated due to a state of emergency. The imposition of martial law is appropriate at times, as Abraham Lincoln showed. It is easy to argue against with slippery-slope logic or even a consistent moral argument. However a consistent moral argument is always flawed in some degree, and a stubborn adherence to principle at the cost of all else has been proven to prescribe poor policy that ignores the realities of our world (which is pretty much the same argument we have on group-based policymaking.)

Your principle argument is solid, however my logic is based more in what is a better way to govern. Should we govern in a way that is entirely consistent with a single brand of ideology, or should we brand in a common sense way, adhering to morals whenever possible but also making concessions that our world is not perfect and at times we should make concessions in order to obtain outcomes that are thought of as good by the majority of people?