U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-22-2013, 04:15 PM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,943 posts, read 7,304,660 times
Reputation: 1698

Advertisements

This man actually said this. And you wonder why we want him gone?

 
Old 07-22-2013, 04:28 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,186,249 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
Perhaps not, but someday you'll be on the outside of the prevailing mindset. I'd be willing to bet it'll be a problem that will need to be solved then. But as long as you're not affected, no problem, right?

A recall election is also democracy in action.
Changing the system when it abandons you is democracy in action.
Ensuring the rights of the minority (or in this case, the voices of sparsely populated rural areas) is democracy in action.
The majority of Colorado OPPOSING the gun legislation but the state assembly pushing it through anyway...not democracy in action, hence the recall elections.

First I'm a single issue voter, then I can't comprehend logic, and now I'm not from Colorado. You really should stick to topics about which you are not entirely clueless.


I've spent most of my life "outside the prevailing mindset". And I certianly have been affected.
For you to suggest that each county get equal representation in the legislature whether the county has 800 people or 600,000 people leads me to believe you do not understand democracy.

And yes, using the recall election is democracy in action. Since you are convinced the majority of Colorado is opposed to the gun legislation perhaps a statewide referendum would be better.
But I suspect you would be very disappointed.

I have not seen on this thread nor anywhere else anything other than their votes on gun control that justify a recall election. Do you have other issues with them? You list your location as Virginia so I made the reasonable assumption you do not live in Colorado and therefore Colorado can not take away your guns. I don't know what the gun laws are in Virginia.
 
Old 07-22-2013, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,627 posts, read 11,023,385 times
Reputation: 13847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
I've spent most of my life "outside the prevailing mindset". And I certianly have been affected.
For you to suggest that each county get equal representation in the legislature whether the county has 800 people or 600,000 people leads me to believe you do not understand democracy.
The U.S. Senate works the same way just on a larger scale. It can and should be replicated on a smaller scale in order to ensure everyone's voice is heard, even those in the sparsely populated areas. And for what it's worth, my understanding of democracy as it relates to American government at the local, state and federal levels is irrelevant because the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. A pure democracy can be easily described as "might makes right" in the sense that a city like Denver can pummel into submission the rest of the state. A republic respects and protects the rights of the minority, though. In this case, the minority is rural Colorado, who feels abandoned by their elected officials in Denver. They have every right to try to change the system and adapt it to prevent further abuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
And yes, using the recall election is democracy in action. Since you are convinced the majority of Colorado is opposed to the gun legislation perhaps a statewide referendum would be better.
But I suspect you would be very disappointed.
You've missed the point of the recalls. The idea here is to hold accountable those representatives whose electorate feels they've ignored. A referendum is not the same thing as accountability. Morse and Girone are two of four, the other two recall efforts fell short. Fair enough. If the effort doesn't warrant the recall, that's the process and I while I prefer otherwise, I respect the outcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
I have not seen on this thread nor anywhere else anything other than their votes on gun control that justify a recall election. Do you have other issues with them?
I hate to break it to you, but support of a recall over a single issue does not a "one-issue voter" make. Recalls are often the result of a singular issue, as we saw in Wisconsin back in 2010. While I support the recalls over this issue, to assume I am a one issue voter is ignorance on your part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
You list your location as Virginia so I made the reasonable assumption you do not live in Colorado and therefore Colorado can not take away your guns. I don't know what the gun laws are in Virginia.
Based on this statement you don't strike me as a very deep thinker. It's easy to look at a profile and come to the "reasonable assumption that I "am not from Colorado" (your original words). But someone who can think critically may take the next step and ask themselves, "So why does this guy keep popping up on the Colorado page discussing Colorado issues?" Until you develop your critical thinking to this point, here's a step you can take in the interim: Stop making assumptions about people you've never met!
 
Old 07-22-2013, 06:35 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,186,249 times
Reputation: 3351
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
The U.S. Senate works the same way just on a larger scale. It can and should be replicated on a smaller scale in order to ensure everyone's voice is heard, even those in the sparsely populated areas. In this case, the minority is rural Colorado, who feels abandoned by their elected officials in Denver. They have every right to try to change the system and adapt it to prevent further abuses.
I agree, they have every right to try to change the system. But if you think there is even a remote chance that each county, regardless of size, will get equal representation I want what you are smoking.

Quote:
You've missed the point of the recalls. The idea here is to hold accountable those representatives whose electorate feels they've ignored. A referendum is not the same thing as accountability. Morse and Girone are two of four, the other two recall efforts fell short. Fair enough. If the effort doesn't warrant the recall, that's the process and I while I prefer otherwise, I respect the outcome.
No, I didn't miss the point of the recall. If you disagree with your representatives position on an issue, you work against him/her in the next election. If you wish to intimidate ALL representatives, you start a recall over a single issue. I think we both understand the point of the recall.


Quote:
Based on this statement you don't strike me as a very deep thinker. It's easy to look at a profile and come to the "reasonable assumption that I "am not from Colorado" (your original words). But someone who can think critically may take the next step and ask themselves, "So why does this guy keep popping up on the Colorado page discussing Colorado issues?"
To be honest with you until this thread, I've never seen you on any forum and I rarely pay any attention to a posters location, other than a quick glance to see where they represent themselves to be located. You represent yourself to be located in Virginia. Apparently this is false or inaccurate information.
So I took your advice "to take the next step" and see for myself where you are from and if you were truely a "one issue voter". Having very limited time (or interest) I just quickly looked at your last 120 posts. Seems you mostly post on the dating/relationship forum and your Colorado posts are either Broncos or guns/recall. I saw no other social or political issues other than guns/recall in my quick attempt at critical thinking.


So I'm going to guess we would both agree that, "This is the year for the Broncos".

Quote:
Until you develop your critical thinking to this point, here's a step you can take in the interim: Stop making assumptions about people you've never met!

Great advice! We should both try it.
 
Old 07-22-2013, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,627 posts, read 11,023,385 times
Reputation: 13847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
So I'm going to guess we would both agree that, "This is the year for the Broncos".
Perhaps I have misjudged you. Anyone with such impeccable tastes in football can't be too bad, right? We're not so different!

And since it was the subject of our discussion, I am a Colorado resident, but currently in the military and stationed in Virginia. Sometimes it's too easy for people to be adversarial on an anonymous forum. I imagine the election discussion will continue through the actual recall dates. This is something people on both sides feel passionate about and that's fine. If we can approach from a standpoint of mutual respect, the conversation will be a lot better. With that in mind, I'll make it a higher priority in future posts. We won't always agree, but if the argument turns nasty again, we can always change topics to Broncos football and focus on what's really important.
 
Old 07-22-2013, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
22,079 posts, read 10,275,420 times
Reputation: 20109
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
Perhaps not, but someday you'll be on the outside of the prevailing mindset. I'd be willing to bet it'll be a problem that will need to be solved then. But as long as you're not affected, no problem, right?



A recall election is also democracy in action.
Changing the system when it abandons you is democracy in action.
Ensuring the rights of the minority (or in this case, the voices of sparsely populated rural areas) is democracy in action.
The majority of Colorado OPPOSING the gun legislation but the state assembly pushing it through anyway...not democracy in action, hence the recall elections.




First I'm a single issue voter, then I can't comprehend logic, and now I'm not from Colorado. You really should stick to topics about which you are not entirely clueless.
1. You kinda make me laugh. If I go through the list of issues that have been important to me over the years, or think of who's been elected president or senator or representative over the years, I've been disappointed perhaps half the time (give or take a little). Tough luck for me. When you consider the way this country is split politically right now on so many issues and candidates, almost half the people are going to be disappointed at any given time. Tough. Sometimes it's "your" turn to be on the winning side, and sometimes it's "my" turn to be on the winning side. I happen to be a Democrat. But all of my life -- until recently -- I've always preferred that my party not hold the presidency and both houses of the Congress. There needs to be a balance...usually...otherwise political parties go way too far.

2. Yes, a recall election is democracy is action. But, democracy is not always good. There's no state with more democracy-minded initiatives than California. And we all know how that has turned out. Democratically elected state legislatures and governors in every southern state once supported slavery. So, while I feel the democratic process overall is best, it's not perfect. After all, if you take the gun issue on a nationwide basis...you lose.

3. I assume you're Republican leaning. And now you're talking about protecting the rights of minorities????? Oh, it's the minority of being a rural dweller...and that's a minority you like. I get it.

4. So, since you point out that "The majority of Colorado OPPOSING the gun legislation but the state assembly pushing it through anyway...not democracy in action, hence the recall elections"...can I take that to mean that if we had a plebiscite on the issue and the majority voted to restrict guns, you'd accept that as democracy in action?
 
Old 07-22-2013, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,627 posts, read 11,023,385 times
Reputation: 13847
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
1. You kinda make me laugh. If I go through the list of issues that have been important to me over the years, or think of who's been elected president or senator or representative over the years, I've been disappointed perhaps half the time (give or take a little). Tough luck for me. When you consider the way this country is split politically right now on so many issues and candidates, almost half the people are going to be disappointed at any given time. Tough. Sometimes it's "your" turn to be on the winning side, and sometimes it's "my" turn to be on the winning side. I happen to be a Democrat. But all of my life -- until recently -- I've always preferred that my party not hold the presidency and both houses of the Congress. There needs to be a balance...usually...otherwise political parties go way too far.
You'll get no disagreement from me here. But you said, "until recently." I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on this. If it is off topic, perhaps on a different thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
2. Yes, a recall election is democracy is action. But, democracy is not always good. There's no state with more democracy-minded initiatives than California. And we all know how that has turned out. Democratically elected state legislatures and governors in every southern state once supported slavery. So, while I feel the democratic process overall is best, it's not perfect. After all, if you take the gun issue on a nationwide basis...you lose.
Democracy may not always be good. But reminding elected officials they are accountable to the public is always good, and that goes for members of both major parties. This is really as simple as that: accountability. I fail to see why it is unreasonable to expect such a thing from an elected official. If the voters in his district are unhappy with something he's done, it is their right to remove him (or at least attempt to do so). This is a concept I support regardless of who is being recalled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
3. I assume you're Republican leaning. And now you're talking about protecting the rights of minorities????? Oh, it's the minority of being a rural dweller...and that's a minority you like. I get it.
I value our republic, as it is designed to protect the rights of minorities. Minorities in this usage does not refer to ethnic minorities but those on the losing end of an election, referendum, etc...or those who live in sparsely populated areas. If you've read the Federalist Papers then you've no doubt encountered this idea. Being a democrat or republican has nothing to do with it. If you believe in the concept of the republican form of government (not to be confused with today's republican party) you believe the rights of the minority is something worth protecting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
4. So, since you point out that "The majority of Colorado OPPOSING the gun legislation but the state assembly pushing it through anyway...not democracy in action, hence the recall elections"...can I take that to mean that if we had a plebiscite on the issue and the majority voted to restrict guns, you'd accept that as democracy in action?
Funny thing about democracy, and that is it still is beholden to the Constitution. If the people voted guns into illegality, it would not be a legitimate vote because the 2nd Amendment still says, "Shall not be infringed." It does not say "Shall not be infringed, except by overwhelming democratic vote." So the question is a non-sequitur.
 
Old 07-23-2013, 12:02 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
22,079 posts, read 10,275,420 times
Reputation: 20109
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
You'll get no disagreement from me here. But you said, "until recently." I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on this. If it is off topic, perhaps on a different thread.

I'd be happy to, but as you point out, it's not a topic that fits into a regional forum.

Democracy may not always be good. But reminding elected officials they are accountable to the public is always good, and that goes for members of both major parties. This is really as simple as that: accountability. I fail to see why it is unreasonable to expect such a thing from an elected official. If the voters in his district are unhappy with something he's done, it is their right to remove him (or at least attempt to do so). This is a concept I support regardless of who is being recalled.

I do agree with you about accountability. However, I don't feel that in a representative democracy that any vote that people don't like should be able to lead to a recall election. I think you just wait, let the official fulfill their term, and then go to the polls. There could be exceptions, but not just because we don't like their vote; exceptions, in my view, would be issues related to graft and collusion, illegal activities, etc.



I value our republic, as it is designed to protect the rights of minorities. Minorities in this usage does not refer to ethnic minorities but those on the losing end of an election, referendum, etc...or those who live in sparsely populated areas. If you've read the Federalist Papers then you've no doubt encountered this idea. Being a democrat or republican has nothing to do with it. If you believe in the concept of the republican form of government (not to be confused with today's republican party) you believe the rights of the minority is something worth protecting.

Personally, I hold the Federalist Papers in far lower esteem than you seem to, because I have noted that you have mentioned them more than once. After all, the Federalist Papers did not support the Bill Of Rights, a cornerstone of our Constitution and way of life...and in fact the basis on which you are arguing against gun control.



Funny thing about democracy, and that is it still is beholden to the Constitution. If the people voted guns into illegality, it would not be a legitimate vote because the 2nd Amendment still says, "Shall not be infringed." It does not say "Shall not be infringed, except by overwhelming democratic vote." So the question is a non-sequitur.

But you want to take just one phrase and use it. The whole phrase is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." My grandfather was into hunting and had quite a few rifles. I have close friends who are also into guns very heavily. None of them are in "a well regulated militia". In fact, note the word -- "REGULATED". And, I just picked one state randomly to research a bit...chose Pennsylvania since Philadelphia is there...and learned that is 1777 a law was passed -- "Act to Regulate the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania". Note the word again -- REGULATE. And throughout the Revolution, the militias were expected to operate under the loose control of George Washington. So if we're going to pretend that the right to bear arms is protected under the Constitution, let's regulate it, as suggested, let's put all those gun-lovers in an actual regulated militia and send them places to protect "the security of a free State" such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, I realize that you read the amendment differently than do I. And, I might add, you're clearly and intelligent, learned, and well spoken person. It's actually a pleasure to have a discussion with someone of your abilities.

Hmm, that didn't come out texturally as I had hoped...so you'll have to sift through yours and my comments. Sorry bout that.
 
Old 07-23-2013, 04:56 AM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,627 posts, read 11,023,385 times
Reputation: 13847
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Hmm, that didn't come out texturally as I had hoped...so you'll have to sift through yours and my comments. Sorry bout that.
That's okay, I think I can still go point for point.

On recalls and accountability: There is a difference between getting voted out at the next regularly appointed election and getting recalled. I know impeachment is not the same as a recall, but under your line of thought, Nixon should have been allowed to finish his term despite his involvement in a crime. I don't necessarily view getting voted out as a punishment, but I do see a recall as such. It puts an exclamation point on an elected official's disapproval by the people. Remember George from Seinfeld in the one episode where he is trying to do something to get fired by the Yankees? He insisted it had to be something big. He said, "I want people to say, 'Wow! That guy got CANNED!'" That's how I feel about recalls.

On the Federalist Papers: The reason I like the Federalist Papers so much is they explain WHY the Constitution is important. That was the whole purpose to begin with. They speak conceptually about the Constitution and not on the finer points, hence your complaint they do not support the Bill of Rights. Jefferson described them in 1788 as "the best commentary on the principles of government, which was ever written." They help one understand the state of mind behind the Constitution. It's stunning to me that at least portions of the Federalist Papers are not required reading in our schools these days, but that's a subject for another thread.

On the 2nd Amendment: The key difference is you are focussing on the dependent clause and I focus on the independent clause. You focus on the word "regulated" and many others do as well. But that portion of the Amendment is not even necessary from a grammar and sentence structure perspective. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," It is meaningless because it is a dependent clause. People who get confused about the Framers' intent do so only because they are focussed on the dependent clause. Look at the independent clause, though, and their intent becomes clear: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It stands on its own. It does not need the first half, it is a complete and coherent thought on its own.

Also, keep in mind what the word "militia" meant back in those days. Understand the new nation had a profound lack of trust for standing armies (the tools by which governments were overthrown and dictators enforce their unjust laws over the people) and the Continental Army was not to be "stood" for periods of greater than 2 years unless they were engaged in the act of warfare. This made the "citizen-soldier" the guardian of the new nation. In many cases they were not supplied weapons and expected to keep and maintain their own in support of their obligations to the militia.

Now this brings me to the word "regulated." It is significant to the era in which the document is written, especially if you are familiar with the tactics of the era. You have no doubt seen movies from the Civil War or times prior in which the soldiers lined up and took shots at each other over open fields. Those formations were the prevalent tactics from the Civil War going all the way back pretty much to Alexander the Great and the phalanx. Obviously the invention of guns changed the employment of the formation to a degree, but the concept remained unchanged: move a large group of men by a unit. If you ever get a chance to watch a modern military unit perform close order drill, it is a hold out from this era. Units' discipline was tied to how well they could drill. How a unit was expected to perform in battle was tied to how well it could drill.

Moving a big group of individuals as a unit is not as easy as it looks. It takes discipline and practice to REGULATE them into a unit. The 2nd Amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia" speaks more to abled bodied men practicing movement as a unit in drills than to the private ownership of firearms. The second portion of the Amendment speaks to firearms, and you already know how I interpret that.

So I hope this helps explain why I read the amendment the way I do and my general point of view overall. I appreciate the kind words, and reciprocate. I certainly don't expect this will change your mind, but hopefully the discussion can continue to be enlightening for both sides as well as future readers.
 
Old 07-23-2013, 05:25 AM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,943 posts, read 7,304,660 times
Reputation: 1698
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post

3. I assume you're Republican leaning. And now you're talking about protecting the rights of minorities????? Oh, it's the minority of being a rural dweller...and that's a minority you like. I get it.

ahh, the race card. The only thing a democrat has left.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:23 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top