President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 19, 2007 01:27 AM UTC
131 Comments
hell, for all three of my boys I did not even know they were born until I got home from work and my mother-in-law was there to tell me so…………
Then back to work the next day.
Come to think of it, isn’t that what mother-in-laws are for? To stay with the little woman and help out so the father can go to work and make some money to pay for the little darlings?
And your wife gets sick and winds up in the hospital….who takes care of the kids? You? FMLA? or your mother-in-law…FMLA? That is called the Family Medical Leave Act….designed to keep women from having to go on welfare when there is a medical crisis…means that someone for a limited amount of time can keep their job, not lose their medical care and still take care of a family member in crisis.
Now, are you the one who moved to arkansas to take care of his father? I think we may have had this conversation before. I don’t begrudge people a helping hand when there is a family medical crisis. Someone in my family gave up a full time job to nurse a kid back to health….before FMLA……still paying the price for not being able to keep the job..lost career opportunities, etc….perhaps that is where both my compassion and my anger comes from….
with any legislation that is designed to make it illegal for employers to fire or let go an employee for “taking time off to have a kid”.
I do however have a problem with ANY legislation that tries to force an employer to “pay people to take time off to have a kid”.
That just is flat out wrong. Not at taxpayer expense.
If the employee wants to pay into a private fund to be used in case they need time off, fine. But don’t try to make me pay for it through taxes.
I did not ask for any help when my 3 kids were born……
Where is the FLMA costing tax payers? Where are people being paid to take time off except by using their own sick leave or vacation time?
The FLMA only says that companies of 50 or more employees must grant time off for employees to help care for family members – strictly defined – or have their own medical procedures. They cannot be dismissed or replaced. Pretty fair, eh?
I didn’t “ask for help” when my three kids were born, either, Gecko, but I don’t make an issue of it.
He never said that FLMA is costing taxpayers. he said that he would not support legislation that would allow taxpayer supported time off.
And FLMA is not fair because it dictates to an employer what they can and cannot do with an employee. That is not the free-market, it is government control.
The Free Markest doesn’t exist Foggy, but WE THE PEOPLE do, and we govering to protect one another from being used as slave-labor, second class citizens, with limited freedoms or liberties, so WTF are you talking about?
pass legislation to increase the minimum wage to $100.00 per hour so there would be no second class citizens, you would be okay with that?
What I am talking about is teh constitution. i am talking about the intent of the founders to have a limited form of government. I am talking about a republician form of government where the government is based on the law.
And you are right, there is no free market, the liberals have seen to that.
We’re talking about the same thing, but for some reason you give extreme “ideas” as examples rather than any of real substance to add to the debate. Your hyperbole shows the lack of understand.
Do you understand that we are a republic, not a democracy where the, WE THE PEOPLE, can decide to do anything they want and nothing is ilegal?
We are on a slippery slope and our rights are being taken away from us.
and you’re correct, our first, fourth and fifth amendments have been taken right away from us by the republican party.
And, we living in a democratic-republic. WE THE PEOPLE are the government, regardless of what some on the right may lead you to believe.
you would be okay with that? After all, democracy is rule of the majority.
The FMLA does not require that the employer pay for time off. You get to use paid time off (PTO, e.g. vacation or sometimes sick time or short term disability) that you earned from work IF your employer has a PTO plan. No one is being forced to pay anything, and there’s no pool of tax money collected for the purpose. This has been the law since 1994.
He never said that FMLA requires that the employer pay for time off.
I think the point that Gecko is getting at is that he can see legislation being introduced that would force taxpayers to pay for time off.
And for FMLA to work it does cost employers money. HR has to deal with extra paperwork, postions are left unfilled or are filled with temporary workers who do not perform at the same level as the full time employee. In fact a Employment Policy Foundation study shows that the FMLA cost employers $21 billion in 2004.
http://findarticles….
Forced to spend some money on employee retention because, gee whiz, they might otherwise let someone go for “being fruitful.” No wonder CEO bonuses are only in the millions and not tens of millions.
That businesses are not in business to give people jobs. They are in business to make money for the owners.
Just like you go to work to make a profit for yourself by offering your services to your employer.
It scares me that you think that government should be able to tell businesses what they should spend their money on.
You say poor businesses, I say poor freedom.
First they took away my right to can anyone who might need time off to tend to their family. Then they sent all the CEOs to the gulag. I wish I hadn’t supported FMLA or decent wages for workers! The Constitution is in tatters!
I’d care more about what scares you if I thought you had your priorities straight, but since you give nary a peep about individual rights and the assault they’ve taken since 9/11, I think your fears are misplaced.
But the constitution is in tatters and our country is moving toward socialism ruled by the liberal left.
Fortunately I do have my priorities straight and I care deeply for individual rights. What have I ever said that would lead you to believe otherwise?
The constitution was doing quite well before the neocons and the far right shredded it under this extremist right-wing, Republican controlled congress. The country is moving towards fascism. If you cared so much for individual rights, would you argue that no individual should have to pay what amounts to $7936 annualy per household for the military budget being demanded of every household in the country? I recognize, of course, that some of these taxes come from business, and is simply being used to ask a question.
Did the constitution enshrine the rights of the military industrial complex to create and fund an empire in over 140 +/- countries? Of course not. Why don’t you ever accept this as an issue to be debated?
Because you never brought it up before, that’s why.
The truth is, the United States is moving toward socialism. More government control over the citizen’s lives, fewer property rights, socialized medicine, video monitoring on every corner, more regulation over business and less tolerance toward opposing points of view. And the liberal left is leading us there.
As for your budgetary example relating to the military, very few people pay $7,936 (I have no idea where you get your number from) into the military budget, with the top 10% paying much more and you are right, businesses pay too. And the reality is that the constitution actually provides for defending our nation, unlike social programming which eats up more than the military budget on an annual basis (Defense is at $699 billion in 2007 and social programming is at $1.624 trillion.
As for the military-industrial complex, the great Republican president Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex, but unfortunately people like LBJ turned a deaf ear. I think we need to look at all government contracts to see where we can reduce spending.
as what you don’t. You’re intent on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, based on the input of one of it’s shapers, but then you make posts like this as though people have a right to conduct business as they see fit. (Point out where that right is enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights!) All fine and well. But very real rights like habeas corpus are being unconstitutionally suspended. The courts have found that wiretapping requires court approval but the government is doing it without it and basically tells us they’re above the law. That is much more alarming than whether a business is having to comply with regulation by any reasonable view. Unless I read an agreeing comment from you then I stand by my post.
Let me just pull out my U.S. Constitution and the Declaration if Independence.
You can look at the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these Truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”
So you can see that both liberty and pursuit of happiness would means that people would have the right to conduct business as they see fit.
In the U.S. Constitution, the preamble again notes liberty (the ability to act according to one’s own will).
I agree that in the current War on Terror certain rights have been limited and I do not agree with those rights being usurped. The quote attributed to Franklin, but we really do not know who said it, sums it up nicely, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” FDR usurped the rights of hundreds of thousands of American citizens during WWII by placing Japanese citizens in internment camps.
And I find the fact that government is taking away people’s liberty (from property rights to trans fats) under the guise of regulations being “reasonable” just as alarming.
Not that I don’t cherish those words, but they’re a compass setting and not an enshrined right. After all, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are kind of like pornography, impossible to define but you know it when you see it.
But it’s good you brought that up, because now I can ask whether you believe that the right of a business person to conduct his/her business is unlimited. Because there are certainly scenarios where such conduct will impede other’s pursuit of happiness (e.g., uncompetitive business practices like price fixing and insider trading; exploitation of workers via unlivable wages; and tell me you know of instances where this has happened).
Where did you ever get this idea? Using that logic, we would only have right that were “enshrined” and who gets to decide what those rights are?
If you read the founding fathers works you will realize that you are wrong.
I believe that it is the right of a business person to conduct his/her business in any manner they see fit as long as it does not infringe on another person’s rights.
Sure those thing you mention have happened. And the government steps in (via the commerce clause) and prosecutes offenders. Please tell me you know of instances where this has happened (Martha Stewart).
By the way, no one has a right to a “living wage”, whatever the heck that means.
were detailed quotes from the Declaration (which, yes, is not an enshrinement of our rights – you’re thinking of the Bill of Rights, from which you do not quote) and the preamble of the Constitution which, while part of the Constitution, is still just the preamble. Again, look to the Bill of Rights for what constitutes an enshrined right in the United States.
So, can Congress make laws to enforce that address the infringement of which you speak?
they’re a compass setting and not an enshrined right?
Where did you ever get this idea? Using that logic, we would only have right that were “enshrined” and who gets to decide what those rights are?
Only myself.
I think Aristotle comparing the Declaration of Independance a compass setting somewhat apt. It is not law and certainly does not guarantee any rights. It is a letter to a despotic ruler that we shall no longer be a part of his nation, but it does not guarantee any rights.
Our rights are “enshrined” in the constitution. Maybe you need to read over it again, specifically the tenth amendment.
I do not believe that our rights are enshrined in the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution was created to protect rights that are naturally ours when we are born.
As I said in another post, the importance of the Declaration of Independance (and other founding documents and writings) is that it shows the mindset of the people who founded our government and we need to understand where they are coming from when they wrote the Constitution.
Just the ones we fight for.
“they are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights”?
It’s good propaganda when you’re fighting for your rights to call them “God-given” (which of course is not what Jefferson wrote but means the same thing). God may guide our actions but he didn’t give us our rights. We earned them through blood.
You know it’s the truth.
Locke, Hobbs, Rousseau all had an incredible influence on the Founding Fathers and their ideas on government. They all believed in natural rights and that they were not bestowed by government.
I just was so suprised by what you said that it left me speechless.
I don’t buy the concept of “natural rights” or “natural law” because to me that would mean something that takes care of itself and needs no human enforcement (think: the law of gravity – try breaking that sometime!) The philosophers you mention, and the founding fathers, were engaged in a propaganda battle, if you will, with the idea that monarchs were selected by God and that everyone owed their allegiance to them because it was God’s will. No, said Locke, Jefferson et al, God’s will is for men to be free to govern themselves.
Whether you believe that or not, the fact is that we had to go to war and fight for those rights. “Natural rights” were created by men and men alone. At best you can argue that God inspired them but that’s a matter of faith.
I also think comparing gravity to rights is apples to oranges.
I don’t think that Hobbes, Locke, Blackstone, and Rousseau were engaged in a propaganda battle. In fact Hobbes, who believed in natural rights, supported a strong monarchy and thought that citizens should not be allowed to rebel against the government.
As for the Founding Fathers, they tried time and time again to reconcile with England and only declared independence when they knew that reconciliation was impossible.
Or real to imaginary?
I may be wrong about the philosophers but the FF’s were engaged in a propaganda battle once they decided to split with England. That’s not to say that they didn’t believe in their words (propaganda need not be cynical half-truths or outright lies to be such) but that’s really neither here nor there.
I think the concept of natural rights is silly because if they’re real, they would take care of themselves without human interference being possible. That’s where my gravity reference comes in. No, it has nothing to do with rights but it’s an example of what is natural. If rights were natural then everybody would enjoy them and we’d need no Bill of Rights or a government to enforce them. Since they’re a human creation, however, we do.
But that doesn’t mean they don’t believe what they are saying, which I am glad you agree to. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Morris, Rutledge, et al all studied these philosophers and commented on them in their writings well before the revolution.
We are just goning to agree on hte natural rights issue. I would urge you to read Two Treatises on Government by Locke and Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. They promote the cause of natural rights much better than I can.
Also, you might want to change your name, after all Aristotle believed in natural rights.
has little to do with the philosopher. But I keep it because people keep thinking that and it amuses me. (Also I kinda got stuck with it when Pols went to a login system – I would have come up with something else if they’d given warning about that…)
as long as it comes with a shipping magnate’s fortune. I could use a billion or two…
Im a more of a legal rights proponent.
Because if only government can give rights, it also has the power to take all rights away.
Aristotle said “but they’re a compass setting and not an enshrined right.” Maybe you need to tell him to read it again, specifically the tenth amendment.
Also, if the Declaration of Independence is only a “letter to a despotic ruler” why do we still read it? And I never said the Declaration of Independence did guarentee any rights.
He said the declaration of independance and the preamble to the constitution are compass settings and not enshrined rights. And, no, I dont need to tell him to read anything. You asked “…we would only have right that were “enshrined” and who gets to decide what those rights are?” And I replied the tenth amendment.
Why wouldnt we read the document that, in our country’s eyes, founded our nation. But lets not forget that there was a 13 year seperation between the declaration of independance and the constitution. A more important document would be the articles of confederation, but who reads that document anymore?
“And I never said the Declaration of Independence did guarentee any rights.”
You are right, you never said that the declaration of indep…wait a sec…You said:
“So you can see that both liberty and pursuit of happiness would means that people would have the right to conduct business as they see fit.”
And again, I never said that the Declaration of Independence did guarentee any rights. I believe in natural rights, that can be protected by govenrment but not granted by government. Since liberty and pursuit of happiness are natural rights, they don’t need to be in a document to be guraenteed.
Aristotle asked where the right to conduct business was enshrined and you replied the constitution and the bill of rights. Are you now going to deny that you wrote what I quoted, or are you going to continue down the road of that is not what you meant, even though you demand responses are limited to what you wrote? Really, your hairsplitting is getting silly.
Also, I never said that the articles of confederation were more important than the constitution. I said that the articles of confederation had a greater impact on the constitution than the declaration, but it is often overlooked.
I said they were enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, but I never said that they were guaranteed by the Declaration. There is a big difference, don’t you understand.
The founders, who believed in natural rights, found it important to name several of those rights in the Declaration. In fact they knew that these rights existed to the point of saying that they are “self evident”, so my guess is that they founders thought that these natural rights were very important. They are granted by God.
“Also, I never said that the articles of confederation were more important than the constitution. I said that the articles of confederation had a greater impact on the constitution than the declaration, but it is often overlooked.”
You said: “But lets not forget that there was a 13 year seperation between the declaration of independance and the constitution. A more important document would be the articles of confederation, but who reads that document anymore?”
Now who is splitting hairs?
Clearly, I said, both times, that the articles of confederation had a greater impact on the constitution than the declaration.
Using your logic we have no need for a constitution. Every amendment in the bill of rights does not need to be in a document, because, according to you, it is a natural right. We could even take it one step further and say that we have no need for a supreme court to adjudicate in areas of rights disputes becaue they should be self evident and all parties should agree.
Just like our founders did. They knew that rights are not granted from government but the government can be a tool to protect our rights.
John Adams said it well:
“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”
That is why the founders created a very limited federal government, to protect our natural rights. Unfortunately, politicians have perverted our government for power and personal gain.
Yes, in a perfect world, we would not need government, but this is a far from perfect world.
Again, you are moving the goalposts. Aristotle never said that the constitution was a compass setting. Taking your words at face value, which you demand, aristotle would be referring to the declaration of independance and the preamble to the constitution. The preamble is not the entire document.
Why do you get to respond to inferences, but when I or Aristotle or Ockham’s Razor or anyone for that matter does it it is a logical faux pas?
I don’t agree, but I understand. The Preamble is not hte entire document, but it is part of the document, the “mission statement” if you will.
No legal faux pas, just a debate. Is that okay?
You cant call to the carpet other people trying to read into your posts and then do same and act offended when someone calls you out on it.
people on the left are coming from.
This exchange is even more illustrative of where you’re coming from. While you engage in pedantic arguments over the definitions of “democracy” and “republic” (indicating a strict application of logic) you take the opposite tack when interpreting the words of the Declaration of Independence, saying that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are enshrined. So I will answer with another question – how is it that you got the idea that the Declaration enshrined anything?
Again, I say they’re a compass heading to guide us when determining rights. You can not legally define “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” because that means different things to different people. Some people are made happy by dogfighting, but most of us agree that it’s cruel and should be outlawed. So are we intruding on the dogfighter’s right to the pursuit of happiness?
That right is not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It’s a notion for why living under the King had become intolerable – he was taxing us at our whims and forcing us to trade only with Britain and not directly with France. (This is where your belief in the rights of business has some basis – it was as important a reason for our rebellion as the ones that got emphasized in school.) But the Bill of Rights was what Jefferson and the others came up with when deciding what should actually be guaranteed.
As far as who gets to decide what, well historically it’s been the three branches of government who ultimately answer to the people.
is that you think that engaging in an argument over definitions of democracy and republic is pedantic. There are not minute differences between the definitions as they are two completely different forms of government. I find it ironic that many liberals here feel that there is no difference between democracy and republic, but there is a world of difference between the Democrat Party and the Democratic Party.
Even though you did not answer my question, I will be happy to answer yours. As I have said before, to understand the Constitution you need to read other documents of the founding area and other founding era writings to understand where the founders were coming from so we can put everything in the right context. The Declaration of Independence is incredibly crucial in this understanding. If you look at my post, I never said the Declaration “enshrined” anything.
Using your “compass” logic to determine rights means that my rights can change at any time and that is scary. If the majority or the government gets to decide what my rights are then at anytime they can take my rights away. Property rights gone. Free speech rights gone. Freedom of religion gone. And as for the dogfighter, you may not like what he does, but there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would stop him. It is a state’s rights matter and they would need to deal with it.
“As far as who gets to decide what, well historically it’s been the three branches of government who ultimately answer to the people.” I disagree, government cannot give rights, it can only limit them and take them away.
It is pedantic to continue to the democracy =/= republic when we all know democraty =/= republic, but we also all know that democracy is an accepted shorthand for republic. From the president on down we hear the term “democracy” in place of republic, and we all know the true intent. Again, you are disallowing synonymic value by others, but freely use it yourself, as I have illustrated.
On the contrary, democrat party is a focused group term that is designed to invoke a negative response. It implies (I know, I know) a singular entity, which the democratic party is most definitely not. Neither the term democracy nor republic invoke negative responses in any focus group that I am aware of, but feel free to post a link showing that I am wrong in this respect.
Why do you keep invoking the declaration as if it was the only piece to inspire the constitution? It is hardly crucial without things like the works of enlightenment thinkers, or things like the articles of confederation. The declaration was a list of grievances that were sent to the king, declaring our independance. You may believe it to be the cornerstone which led to the constitution, but that is either intellectually dishonest, or just plain naive.
Again, you are implying something that is not in Aristotle’s words. He never said anything you purport is a deliniation of his words. On top of that you are representing a logical fallacy (with your obsessive use of the word logi, I am sure you know which one).
Here is where we disagree again. Natural vs. legal rights.
“we also all know that democracy is an accepted shorthand for republic.”
Let me once again give you the definitions:
Republic: a government in which a restricted group of citizens form a political unit, usually under the auspice of a charter, which directs them to elect representatives who will govern the state.
Democracy: government by the majority.
Can you see the difference? there is no synonymic value in these definitions.
I have never calimed Declaration of Independence as if it was the only piece to inspire the Constitution. If I have, please link to where I have said that and I will be happy to correct it. I have always said that the Declaration of Independence (because we were specifically talking about that document) along with our founding era documents and writings. I would also suggest that you should look at the works of Blackstone, Hobbs, Locke and so on. If you can provide the lint to where I said the Declaration was the only piece to inspire the Constitution, I would appriciate it.
I fear a governemtn that grants rights through leagl means because they can just as easliy take those rights away.
Democracy has become, in discussions like this, equivalent in meaning to republic. It is like the term “begging the question,” which is used often to mean ask a question when it doesnt. It is funny, though, that you are taking such umbridge with me, and others, using this common shorthand when people like Dabee, Danny the Red, and others have pointed out that we have neither, but really an amalgamation.
According to the founders, you are wrong.
According to the definitions of republic and democracy you are wrong.
Also, you din’t provide the link to where you claim I said the Declaration of Independence was the only piece to inspire the Constitution. Can you please do that?
Language is always evolving, and the definitions (for discussions like this, as Toodles points out) have shifted. We can go back and forth all year long and it will not change the reality of our form of government one bit. You might weep for the mass misunderstanding you perceive the rest of us to have but at the end of the day nothing is changed. So give it a rest.
What concerns me that we lose the original intent that the people who wrote our founding documents had.
And that does not bode well for our Republic.
Because, as Toodles has exhaustively pointed out, I was responding to your characterization of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a right. It’s not a right, not like freedom of speech is a right.
I do think they are rights. I believe that Jefferson thought that they were rights. I think they are natural rights that are not granted by the government.
The government can only protect rights (or strip them away), it cannot grant rights.
In this post I challenged you to demonstrate where people had the right to conduct business as they saw fit (“Point out where that right is enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights!”).
In your response you quoted “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration of Independence and made reference to the preamble (but not body, nor from the first 10 amendments) of the Constitution. Illogically (because you did not show how this could be so) you concluded:
So I replied:
In short, they’re the reason for the Bill of Rights, but not rights in and of themselves.
Somehow this point is either lost on you or you became confused because you started to argue as though I was talking about the Bill of Rights rather than your specific quotation from the Declaration of Independence and your reference to only the Preamble of the Constitution.
they’re a compass setting and not an enshrined right?
Where did you ever get this idea?
You repeat that sentence here.
Mr. Toodles jumps in here:
To which you replied:
That first paragraph makes no sense in the context of the discussion. Whether you believe the Constitution enshrines our rights or merely protects what should be a birthright for all, the fact is that we are a nation of laws and it is the Constitution that one invokes when discussing what are rights are. The second paragraph reveals that you rely on the Declaration (and other founding documents and writings, although you seem to only cite those of Madison and not, say, Hamilton) to interpret the Constitution. Which is all well and good but beside the original point which was, do businesses have the right to conduct their business as they see fit?
Now, here’s where you start misquoting me:
No, I said that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not enshrined in the Constitution. I don’t know why you said this – maliciousness? Or were you just confused?
Toodles corrects you in this post. No need to quote him as he just further summarizes what I say in this entire post. So far you have not responded to that.
Finally, in your latest post you snootily (and inaccurately) say:
“Even though you did not answer my question, I will be happy to answer yours.” I take issue with that because I did answer your question. This reveals what kind of character you posess and I will keep this in mind when “debating” you in the future. Anyway, you go on to say:
Well, that was my original challenge: where is it guaranteed that a businessman can conduct his business as he sees fit? Answer: nowhere.
I do get where you’re coming from. The colonists’ unhappiness under the crown included that they were forced to trade with England only, not directly with other European nations that wanted American goods (mostly raw materials and agricultural products back then). I’m sure you’ll find many references in the letters of the day to the desire to conduct their business with whomever they want. But they didn’t bother to include that in the Bill of Rights. And that’s what really matters.
But it won’t matter a whit to Foggy. He can’t stay on a track, misquotes, and probably has never admitted an error of opinion or fact.
Nice try.
I’ll give him a few days to respond, specifically after he comes back from his weekend break. (Have you noticed that he never posts on the weekend? Maybe he’s a minister.) And if he doesn’t I’ll claim victory and do a lap around my computer…
I will respond shortly.
who likes to make statements of “fact” but never provides the facts to back them up. And if you have read my many post I have on several occasions admitted mistakes – but why would you let that fact get in the way of your opinion?
I hope Florida is nice.
I will admit, I may have gotten of track a bit, but hopefully I can get it set straight. Again, with as many liberals who are posting, it is hard for me to keep everything straight – not an excuse, just an explanation.
First, the Preamble is part of the constitution, the “mission statement”. If they didn’t think it was very important, they would have likely left it out. The founders wrote the Constitution so citizens would be able to achieve for those things mentioned in the Preamble.
“I do not believe that our rights are enshrined in the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution was created to protect rights that are naturally ours when we are born.” I believe this makes perfect sense in the context given Mr. Toodles remark that our rights are “enshrined in the constitution.”
The reason I cite Madison so much in relation to the Constitution is because he wrote the document and has imitate knowledge of the words that were used. If I wanted to know what the author of a book meant by a certain sentence, I would ask the author or research the author to understand. Does that make sense?
As for misquoting you, there is no malicious intent, I did get confused. I am sorry that you automatically thought it was malicious. I have also been misquoted by many people here, but I have never thought it was malicious, just someone who didn’t understand. I could say that you assuming that I was trying to be malicious reveals a lot about your character, but I tend to think the best of people and I am sure that you were not jumping to a conclusion, it was just a misunderstanding. And I am not trying to be snooty by saying that.
I also responded to Mr. Toodles, “If he only meant the Declaration and the Preamble, then I understand where he is coming from. I don’t agree, but I understand. The Preamble is not the entire document, but it is part of the document, the “mission statement” if you will.”
As for your original challenge, I will restate it this way. The vast majority of the founders believed in natural rights. They read Hobbes, Locke, Blackstone, Rousseau, Hume and many more. If you read the founding documents, Like the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, and so on you will see that Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al, believed that rights were not granted by the government, but by God (or nature) and the government was put into place to secure those rights. So to answer you question, businessman can conduct his business as he sees fit because of his natural rights to do so and only when he infringes on the rights of others should he be stopped. The reason that they chose to include the rights that they did in the Constitution is because those were many of the specific rights that England had usurped. And while they did not include every single right in the Constitution, because the list would be impossible to complete, I think by reading the founding documents (including the Declaration of Independence) and other writings of the founding fathers, it is clear that they believed in natural rights and they did not need to list every right in the Constitution for it to be valid.
…silly boy.
I will point out that our posts do not talk about the “law”.
Did I miss the day in law school where they taught that declaration of independence was law? Maybe they taught it after I left. I find it ironic that you, a person who demands we take all of your posts at face value without inferring even the most synonymic relation, take such a liberal view with the words from the founders.
The preamble to the constitution: “…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” That is the what the preamble says. You are implying quite a bit of latitude to conflate “the Blessings of Liberty” with your definition of liberty.
Can you read my post and tell me where I said it was the law?
I do think to understand the Constitution one must read the founding documents (including the Declaration of Independence) and the writings of the founders who were involved in the Continental Congress so we can better understand where they are coming from.
Gecko,
You may not have “asked” for help, but you sure accepted a helluva lot of help.
You sent your kids to public schools and even to a public supported university.
(Talk about your welfare queens…)
kids to a public school.
Because you libs fight tooth and nail to protect the teachers monopoly and their precious glory union, what choice did I have? Private school? I was a young blue collar worker, no money, but it would sure have been better than our government run public schools.
Or I could have kept my kids at home to be home schooled, but I would still have to send in my money in the form of taxes to support your kids huh?
Is that fair? No. If I home schooled I should have been exempt from paying any school district tax period.
And about the public university……my son goes there. I did not ask him to go, I did not encourage him to go, and he pays his own way.
So before you run your mouth, think about what you are saying……
SLAM. That was funny.
My wife IS a lucky woman. Ask her and she would tell ya.
I don’t cheat on her, I spend almost all of my free time with her, I buy her most anything she could want, and I respect her.
She even has her own black Harley. We ride together all the time……
I know why you said that. You think all men should be immasculated. They should take two or three weeks off of work when their wife’s have a kid. Fine for some guys. But I have always figured it to be better for the MAN to be out making a living to support the wife and kid instead of standing around making goo goo faces while the bills pile up.
Some women won’t be happy until their husband is actually their girlfriend.
Calm down.
When my husband and I started our family, we planned ahead and my husband took a week off from work after each baby was born. He enjoyed the time off from work, I enjoyed having him home, and our mothers were able to visit and enjoy getting to know their new grandbabies. Planning ahead meant the bills didn’t pile up.
And then, he went back to work and I was home for 15 years. Stay-at-home-mom is what they call that job, Gecko. Raising the kids and taking care of the house while my husband worked. And when the kids started school, I started volunteering and went to college.
So, a guy who works hard to support his family — support his family for 15 years on one income because we decided that would be best for our family — is immasculate? Wrong. He’s a stand-up guy. We respect each other (and he’s never belittled me by referring to me as “wishy-washy” or “little woman”) and our children are compassionate, hard-working, intelligent people who are assets to the community.
I am a lucky, lucky woman.
Huh? Huh?!
I don’t have a hawg! Denied! Maybe this guy I’m married to isn’t such a great catch. Is there a government agency to handle these wrongs? There should be one.
Oh wait. I don’t actually want a hawg.
In that case, ever mind …
with your comment as an attack. Very subtle but definately an attack on me as a person.
So I attacked back.
So as it is I was wrong about you but you were very wrong about me.
So I apologize to you.
By the way, it was my wife’s idea to not make me stay home to help her or to even be in the delivery room. She knew we needed the money far more than she needed me there. I would have plenty of time to witness the miracle of kids…as it were……..wink wink nod nod say no more.
Indeed, my initial comment was a quasi-personal attack, but it was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Apparently, the tongue-in-cheek part was not as clear as the personal attack part. I apologize to you for that. In the future, I’ll try to make my occassional, albeit lame, comments more obviously either tongue-in-cheek or personal attack. Then there will be no question as to my intention.
I have to say, though, many of your comments that I read seem so very angry and, well, attacking, they tend to beg for angry comments in return. So, I have to ask, do you enjoy coming to ColoradoPols and responding even though the odds are quite good that you won’t change anyone’s political views or does it make you red-faced, clenched-fist angry that people actually hold these moderate to liberal views?
By the way, I didn’t “make” my husband stay home after each baby was born. He wanted to be home … and he wanted to be away from work, too (time off is rare for him so any opportunity to be away from work is an opportunity he’ll not miss). I might have needed some help after the first one was born (if nothing more than to have someone else stand and shrug shoulders with me ’cause we didn’t know what we were doing), but after that it was business-as-usual in our house, except that the grown-ups eventually were out-numbered.
I’ll go back to lurk mode now …
To answer your query, I do not come here just to fight or argue. Although I do like a good boxing match.
I come here because I find it facsinating that there are so many people out there that are so completely opposite from me and the way I was raised. It really is mind boggling.
I know I won’t change anyone’s opions anymore than anyone else can change mine.
I think I mostly click on to try and help the ones out here that are of the same basic mindset as me. Foghorn, Haners, Another Skeptic, The good Doctor, etc. The odds are so against them because this is such a far left liberal site that they can never win. They are always outnumbered.
And when I read some of the libs posts, it is like they think anyone that doesn’t think Hillary is a god, or Bush is a devil, must be neanderthal.
I am not as good at stating my views as Foghorn and the rest are, so I lash out the best I can……in a blue collar way.
My opinions do evolve. I know that a lot of conservatives don’t believe in evolution so that ok.
I think Haners is quite reasonable and I keep an open mind when I read his posts even though I disagree with him on most issues.
Another skeptic I have no problem with.
Even Foghorn is OK when he ratchets down the sarcasm and petty gotcha crap.
Ok, the Doctor is a delusional lunatic.
But you are hard for me to understand. I grew up in a trailer park, road cycles, worked every job known to man, my dad is a truckdriver (retired), I went to my grandmother’s neighborhood bar in a blue collar town every day after school because my mom was still at work, I own guns, and I’m a fair boxer myself.
I should be able to understand you, but I don’t understand why you blame liberals for all the evil in america. I understand you think they are self righteous, but they don’t have a monopoly on that. I get that you have a big libertarian streak (so do I) and you don’t need another daddy, but the conservatives are just as bad at trying to tell people how to live. What gives?
I may be a lawye
answer that one.
I guess I’m just stuborn and set in my ways.
Mostly what gets my goat going from this site is the almost complete one sidedness (is that a word?) of most of the comments. It can really get the dander up.
Kinda like if say, Go Blue was on a really right wing conservative blog. And outnumbered 20 to 1. He would blow a gasket but probably still come back for more because he enjoys the fight.
I started following this blog during the months prior to the vote for Ref C&D and, with the exception of one stint away because of ridiculous gay advertising, I always come back.
Can’t explain why, but I do know this.
If people act civil on this site, I act civil. If they go looking to smear the other side and cause a rucuss, I have to join in.
You too I’d bet.
Good having a civil talk with ya.
It stimulates my hope gene:-)
On my daughter’s birth, I was able to witness it, and before we were back to the room, I was being paged by the start-up that I worked for; Apparently our only Windows XP box was cracked, and I had to install a new Linux on it (thank god). But I missed a lot of seeing my daughter for the next 48 hours (post mortem on Windows to figure out what went wrong; it was another bug that the crackers knew about and we did not). Point is, that you do what needs to be done.
As to the family leave, I think it is a good idea. I think that it really is a good thing for Dad’s to be there. But it is also not always possible. With my son’s birth, I realized that I missed more than I cared to. What I find interesting is that Gov. Workers already have more of that right than I had. I do not see the need for Union’s since they have FAR better benefits than I do and currently CO. is one of the top paid state WRT to state employees.
But nobody else will.
No question. The big media boards in this state normally take the, Chamber of Commerce line that employees are best served by NEVER acting to empower themselves. Only business should do that! That helps everybody, ie, trickle down rights, trickle down benefits and be thankful you have a job! Pure elitist garbage, the concept that only business can bargain. For workers to even suggest bargaining for themselves is a threat to business everywhere. I hope enough people are starting to wake up.
I find it silly that the left claims the labels “workers” and “working families” – as though they’ve been deemed by God to forever represent anyone that works for a living.
My family is as much or more of a “working family” than anyone I know (Young kids, both of us work, me multiple jobs).
Union movements are antithetical to my families wishes and values.
Would you stop claiming to know what I want and stop speaking for me, please?
you don’t want better pay and benefits? Overtime? A safe working environment? The FLMA? Etc. etc.?
Then kindly return all the benefits you get from what unions have done for you and your working family……..
does anything to represent working families I guess it’s up to the left to pick up that slack.
Give back your weekends, overtime pay, pensions (if you have one), and start working 18 hours day without vacation or sick days, and I will refrain from directly calling you apart of the working class, but rather the slave class.
I’m lucky to be able to choose my path, and to choose to work harder, more, and better for more benefit for myself if that’s what I want.
Anything I have has nothing to do with a union shaking anyone down for me. In fact, the easiest and most obscenely overpaid gig I ever did was a union gig, for which I received an exemption and didn’t have to join. It felt like stealing.
That’s not right.
Have you checked out your average pre-union working conditions?
Crappy pay, no occupational safety standards, long hours, forced weekends… And no extra benefits to show for it.
In my field(s), there’s no strong history of unions saving the poor worker from being repressed. In some fields there is, I agree. Just not mine, and things are very different now. The bullying that unions have gotten away with for so long is coming to a screeching halt. Many people are tired of a wing of the Democrat party claiming guidance over anyone who has a job in the country. It’s total BS.
So editorials are now on par with journalistic reporting?
interesting.
http://www.rasmussen…
And polls done in 1971, 1976, 1985, 1996 and 2004 show that journalists overwhelmingly describe themselves as liberal.
http://www.cbsnews.c…
has been absorbing the right wing rhetoric pretty well. They’ve repeated it often enough that enough people believe it. Demonstrable facts be damned.
And I could easly say that the American public has been absorbing the liberal/socalist mantra quite well. After all our country is slowly progressing toward a socalist state with each passing year.
Foggy, God and JC themselves could tell you that you are wrong and you wouldn’t believe it.
Brings to mind a good joke: Two rabbis, Yakov and Moshe spent years discussing the fine points of the Torah and the Midrash. They could never agree on one particular point.
Finally, Moshe says, “Well, let’s ask G-d who is right!” So they prayed and prayed and after a few days a voice booms out of the sky, “Yakov is correct.”
Whereupon Moshe says, “So, its two against one. So what?”
You are a great Moshe.
they tell me everything I need to know in the Bible.
Please forgive me for not believing everything that liberals tell me, I do not put them on the same plane as God or Jesus.
And as Reagan used to say, “trust but verify”.
We trust empiricial evidence and ration.
BTW, you know everyone picks and chooses from the Bible to fit their beliefs. If you’ve ever worn a poly/cotton blend shirt, God doesn’t like you.
I don’t do that and I reccomend that others don’t do it either.
but what else is new. The mere fact that you say you don’t shows how you blow smoke up your own ass.
Have you ever worn blended fabric? A big no-no in Leviticus. The sabbath is from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.
There are many other laws in the OT that most folks, even devout Christians, ignore.
“Then you agree!
We trust empiricial evidence and ration.
BTW, you know everyone picks and chooses from the Bible to fit their beliefs. If you’ve ever worn a poly/cotton blend shirt, God doesn’t like you.”
Since you asked the question, and since you know theology very well, you know that Christians are not bound by the law of the Old Testament as Jesus came to save us from the law. We are not bound by the Sabbath or even fabric requirements of the Old Testament. We are saved by grace through faith.
http://www.desiringg…
….the cop out.
“I came not to change one dot or tiddle.” JC
God is constant BUT there was this one time we changed all the laws?
I know of no religion that has as many contradictions as Christianity. And contradictions in the following; let’s go kill people because they are different or we want their oil. But Jesus loves me even if I disobey him.
As Jefferson said (paraphrasing), Jesus’ teachings are the sweetest and the most profound.
Too bad folks decided to make a religion of him.
You are right about people making a religion out of Christ. It should always be about a personal faith and relationship.
And I don’t see contradictions in Christianity, I just see a world full of imperfect people.
The thing that I hear for homosexuality being an abomination is leviticus. Since christians are no longer bound by levitical law, than homosexuality is ok? Also, why is the bible not composed of strictly the new testament? The advent from jesus freed us from the vengeful god of the old testament, and presented us with the ever-loving god of the new testament.
This is a serious question.
First, regarding your question about why is the bible not composed of strictly the New Testament. First, the Old Testament provides a historical background of God, His purpose, the history of His chosen people and how a savior was coming to save us. Second, there are hundreds of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament and I think that Christians use the fact that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies as evidence that he is the savior. Third, there are many references in the New Testament to the Old Testament, so the only way to know what those references are is to include them. Fourth, there is a wealth of knowledge in the Old Testament that Christians can learn from. Finally, Christians are not bound by the law of the Old Testament; we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus. With that said there is plenty we can learn from the Old Testament to use in our daily lives and in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 we are encouraged use to use the Old Testament saying “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”
As for the question on homosexuality, I think that Leviticus 18:22 is valid.
Just because God saved us from the law, through faith in Jesus, we still need to follow His commands. Paul said that the Mosaic Law had been abrogated but he nevertheless saw significant continuity with the moral code of the Spirit. Now before you ask if we should still stone people who commit sin, the answer is no. Since Jesus has saved us from our sin, it is God’s job to judge us.
In the New Testament you can look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
http://www.biblegate…
and Romans 1:24-27
http://www.biblegate…
Here is a great interview on homosexuality:
http://www.lifesite….
Jesus recognized the authority of the law in his life and taught others to keep the law (Lk. 10: 25-28). Jesus instructed his disciples to obey the law (Matt. 23: 2, 3). Christ defended the law and severely condemned those who perverted the Hebrew scripture (Mk. 7: 7-13; Matt. 23: 16-22).
It was Paul, a Romanized Jew, who threw out Jewish law to gain more followers in the greek world. During Paul’s lifetime it was basically allowed by the more dominant Jerusalem church run by James (Jesus’s brother) which was still kept the law. The jewish revolt resulted in the destruction of the heretical jewish sects like the jewish christians and allowed the surviving greek christians to determine orthodoxy.
Jesus taught that the obeying law for self agrandisment was worthless, but truly obeying the law was serving G-d and recognizing that as men were created in G-d’s image, G-d lived in the least of men. He didn’t intend to overthrow the law, he wanted people to obey its spirit as well.
Toodles was asking about what the church did with the law, Danny responded with what Paul and the “Greek” church did with the law.
Toodles has a perfect example of how all believers pick and choose the rules from the Bible. Fundy/Evang Christians pick their favorites, and when pointed out the obvious fallacies, they throw up the phaser shields of intellectual dishonesty.
The official western church (i.e., Catholic) canon wasn’t settled until, IIRC, 456 AD. In the 400 years between the books of Mark and the Pauline ones, the fractured Christian community argued mightily. One of the early bishops DID take the stance that the Hebrew bible (OT) should be tossed, and one went so far as to say only Matthew should be used.
Revelations almost got tossed because it was too difficult to understand, i.e., weird. The Song of Solomon almost didn’t make it because of its sexual content. Of course, none of the writings of the “other” great Christian thread, the gnostics as we now call them, were allowed. The orthodox thought that they rid the world of the Book of Thomas, but it was rediscovered in 1949, I think.
One cannot honestly study the Bible or the history of the Bible without concluding that it has a long heritage of fluid contents, translations, and interpretations. (The matter of reading in other than Hebrew or Greek is a whole ‘nudder contention.)
Surely, if it is the word of God, God did a lousy job of informing us of her intents.
not willing to show us the facts.
if not as it is.
Who needs facts when you have emotion on your side.
Just like the people in the places they live(because they tend to be educated, urban and coastal)
However, editors–who determine what goes on the opinion pages, what gets put in the news, how much emphasis it gets, and where it is placed– tend to be conservative.
I don’t think there is a liberal bias. The news media for the most part doesn’t see red and blue–its sees green. Since newspapers and tv news became a profit source and not a public service. reporting staffs have been gutted, this makes reporters more dependant on press releases and shills and less able to do independant reporting. That creates a bias toward the most organized: Corporations (with large PR departments), Lobbyists and the better organized and disciplined (until recently) republican party.
But when their publishers oppose unionization, so do they.
I not a fan of unions, but recognize the importance in some industries.
One quote that Sirota pointed out caught my eye, however.
“if state workers win collective-bargaining rights, local government employees won’t be far behind”
There has been NO indication from the Gov, his staff, his directors or his administration that this would come to pass. Specifically, the administration has said they will not focus on local governments for collective bargaining.
It is shameful that this idea is floated and even more shameful that some representing local governments are using this line instead of focusing on real issues.
Smoke and mirrors, fear and loathing…
That’s how authoritarians control.
Any where.
Any time.
Any governmental type.
control is not the goal.
I liked what you said in another post as well regarding the balance of parties to govern well.
When there is no balance, both parties go overboard.
I have a feeling we’ll see it this year in CO…
Could be wrong.
Throughout history, it’s the authoritarians that use fear to control.
“All we have to fear is fear itself.” FDR Not very fear invoking.
or “Collective Bargaining” fees is the day I start circulating a right to work petition on their behalf. This is not about “empowering state employees”, or protecting downtrodden workers, it is about improving the AFL-CIO cash flow. It is very difficult to imagine a majority of state workers voting to certify a union. Only a moron would vote to organize and upset the apple cart that is civil service and PERA and replace it with an institution that is without a doubt one of the most corrupt of the past half century. Shall we count the bodies-Hoffa, Jablonski and on and on? When true democracy fails, just get the legislature and governor to put union membership or some euphemism thereof in the civil service code, and voila-10,000 or so workers cough up a hundred or two a month to pay for “representation” most don’t want or need. Ritter is not a union man-despite his claims to have been a pipefitter 30 years ago-he is a lawyer with soft hands delivering a very large kick back.
Owens had it right when he passed pay for perfomance-He was just too morally bankrupt to fund it. Why worry about being excellent, to get a 2.4% raise, when above average gets 2.1, and satisfactory gets 1.7%. You want to fix civil service both from a taxpayer perspective and employee morale perspective-get rid of the bottom 15% of performers; and pay the top performers a significant differential. There is an unhealthy lack of turnover within state government because no one ever quits or gets fired. Exploited people quit and get fired.
…as anyone who has spent a few days here knows, I’m not convinced that the state workers need a union, at least in the conventional sense. I”m just watching and listening at this time to learn.
No one seems to dispute that their pay is good, even if a few bitch that their health benefits are not gold plated. (It’s 100% more than I have.) On the other hand, the recent Owens led computer fiasco shows that we have a resource that isn’t being used. I guess I would say that pay excepted, I think it makes sense to have a unified voice.
A comment on your comment, one reason turnover is low is because people apply for such jobs expecting to not leave. Do your job, don’t swat the behive, and you retire well. Hopefully, you do your job well. Many positions don’t have much room for creativity or high production. If not most. DMV clerk, snowplow driver, prison guard?