Comments on: About the Iowa caucuses.

By: AnonymousCoward

AnonymousCoward — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:31:36 +0000

I have to find you a good source for that but there is an attempt in common law (UK, US, Canada) to move to a more civilist/Continental European approach when it comes to writing law. In the latter case, a lot less is said to try to keep the law more flexible, instead of trying to spell out every single little detail.

By: hillbilly

hillbilly — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:41:20 +0000

AC you’re just going to have to practice some self restraint… won’t ban ya.

No, it shouldn’t be an argument for writing no laws but it should be an argument for treading carefully when writing them.

By: AnonymousCoward

AnonymousCoward — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:18:43 +0000

Most of the laws we read are Canadian but it’s a very small subset of what we read. We often read US jurisprudence or law philosophers. Anyways, I agree with you that writing laws with clear meanings and little or no unwanted side effects is impossible, but I don’t think it should be an argument for not writing laws.

If we used that logic, we would never do anything because we can never predict these side effects. The same argument could be used in science, or in any field or situation. If I have a baby, the unintended consequence might be a broken window for my neighbor 6 years down the line when s/he starts to play with a ball, but it still wouldn’t be a reason not to have that baby.

We are always at that crossroad, with or without laws passed by Congress. And I don’t think our road is one that leads to Hell… I sure hope not!!!

Anyways, besides Ron Paul, expect all the other candidates to add more laws and regulations to the books!

On that note, ban me from the site for the next few hours, if I don’t do my readings for my classes I will be in trouble next week.

By: hillbilly

hillbilly — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:47:58 +0000

AC, you once stated that you are a law student… in Canada, but still… Have you even read any of the bills that Congress has tried to push through while the media spins the intentions?

While it pains me to resort to a cliche: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Good intentions often have unintended consequences when they are not thought through to their logical conclusions and create worse problems than there were before, which is where we find ourselves now.

By: AnonymousCoward

AnonymousCoward — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:52:33 +0000

Yeah the negative ad show but don’t show fiasco was simply astounding. His excuse: if we didn’t show it people wouldn’t have believed us… Say what? that’s a really lame excuse…

As for beating the other side, HELL YES. If the last 7 years have thought me anything, it is that the Republicans have no intention of working with Democrats. Plus, they have lost their bearings by overspending like there is no tomorrow. So yes, I want to see them lose this round so that they can come back with an alternative that makes sense for America and not simply for big corporations.

If we are to have a two party system, then I expect a lot more than what is currently being delivered by the Republicans (and to a lesser extend the Democrats).

By: hillbilly

hillbilly — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:21:18 +0000

Good thing you don’t get to pick then, AC,

I have to agree with you about Ron Paul getting the shortest end of the stick as far as the media goes. He really does. Not that I think it would boost him any but, geeez, give the guy a break.

More on Huckabee: It’s people like him who give Christians a bad name… honestly… The negative ad that he wasn’t going to show but showed?

Yeah, people want him because he easiest to beat in a general election but let me ask you this: Is that all elections are supposed to be? Beating the other side? To what purpose?

thoreau, you have some facts mixed up. FDT billed a total of 12 hours advising an abortion group. That’s penny anty in the abortion game. As for the lobbying, FDT made slightly over $100k as a lobbyist. Now, lobbying is where the big bucks are and to make a sum that low is nothing to brag about… which is probably why they had to dig so hard to find it. I’d suggest you look closer at FDT’s record away from the MSM and oppositional sites before making a decision against Fred.

Thanks, Conservative Belle. Now that the holidays are over, I’ll get back into the swing of things and spend some time on your site, too.

By: AnonymousCoward

AnonymousCoward — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:57:04 +0000

Honestly if one Republican is getting the short end of the stick it’s Ron Paul (particularly because he is excluded from the Fox debate). I don’t really have anything for or against Fred, but it seems to me that he is unlikely to get the nomination. The one thing I like about Fred is that unlike most Republican candidates he hasn’t painted himself in a corner.

Still, if I get to pick, I vote Huckabee because he will be the easiest to beat in a general election.

By: Conservative Belle

Conservative Belle — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:33:55 +0000

Terrific post.

By: thoreau

thoreau — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:44:27 +0000

I like FDT’s federalist rhetoric and his calm demeanor,my problem with FDT is things such as his lobbying for abortion while a lawyer, his support of McCain-Feingold, the fact that he has consistently supported the welfare/state as a Senator he is your typical go along get along good ‘ol boy among other things. In a previous era he may have been a decent leader, but we are so far off the Constitutional path with the resultant problems of debt and taxes that it will take somebody that is considered radical to just slow down this train. FDT is just a kinder gentler version of business as usual. Is he better than McCain, Rudy, Mitt and Rev. Huck? Probably as they don’t even give lip service to small government ideas. But the only guy that is consistent is RP, in his public and private life. Off to a Friday night of mild debauchery, like your site.

By: hillbilly

hillbilly — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:25:27 +0000

AC, he made third in Iowa with that nonchalant attitude. Don’t underestimate Senator Thompson just because the media says”____________.” The media has outright lied this last week or so to keep Thompson down.

welcome, Thoreau. You and I will probably disagree a lot about Ron Paul and Thompson. I don’t believe Thompson is for one world government and his record is sound and just what I’d expect of a federalist. Tell me, if you are for limited federal government, what kind of legislation, exactly, would you support. The neocons complain because Thompson’s name isn’t on any legislation and that he often voted against the status quo, and on and on…

I had the honor of having Thompson represent my state in the Senate, so I know his record fairly well. I doubt he would be for LOST although I don’t believe it’s come up in discussions with him at this point. McCain, however, in the interest of bipartisanship would sign it in a heartbeat… without ever realizing what he signed over.

Now, as far as Ron Paul, I can see where he’s coming from to a point but he can’t follow through with his ideas and often goes off on tangents that don’t connect with his central ideology. So, while his ideas are decent, he’s not a candidate I could support wholeheartedly.