Comments Posted By Dean Kimball
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 15 Comments
THE CITY OF BIG SHOULDERS AND TINY BRAINS
These are the same goofballs that have banned foie gras and are considering banning high-cholesterol foods.
Chicago is turning into NOT my kind of town.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 27.07.2006 @ 14:06
HOWARD DEAN IS A TWO-FACED LYING WEASEL
Yes, Howard Dean is all that and more. However, name one national-level politician that is not a "two-faced lying weasel".
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 27.07.2006 @ 12:37
LET'S TORCH THE FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT
Rick is completely correct. If some idiot burns the flag, he in no way infringes on anyone's rights. Let him do it and ignore him.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 27.06.2006 @ 15:03
SECOND IN A SERIES OF SHAMELESS BLEGS FOR COLD, HARD CASH (BUMPED)
Keep up the good fight. I disagree with you on a number of issues (I am a hard-core libertarian) but I deeply appreciate your well throught out and justified posts.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 1.06.2006 @ 19:00
DISHEARTENING WORDS FROM BILL KRISTOL
Your usual cogent and persuasive post Rick. Keep up the good work.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 13.04.2006 @ 12:42
WHY COOLER HEADS MUST PREVAIL ON IRAN
Great post Rick - well reasoned and persuasive.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 5.04.2006 @ 10:02
WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY DO WE WANT TO BE?
I recognize that there is some debate about whether or not the 1st amendment applies to state and local governments. Certainly, the texts of that amendement and that of the 14th engender that debate. However, courts have long decided (precedent) that it does apply. Yes, precedents can be overturned but this particular one is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon. More to the point, the ACLU believes the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights to the states. Again, this is under debate but theirs is a reasonable interpretation. Now, just because you appear to interpret the 14th amendment differently, hardly makes the ACLU anti-American. Rather, it means you have a stronger view of states rights. Fine. That is a valid stance with a fine history and good reasoning.
At the simplest level, the debate comes down to the definition of "liberty". Does it pertain only to incarceration and slavery? Or does it extend to freedom of governmental interference in individual affairs that do not infringe upon others? Clearly, the I prefer government, at all levels, to stay out of my business.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 3.11.2005 @ 16:06
LaurenceB - Excellent points about ACLU.
John C Sementa - ACLU regularly defends the rights of people wishing to exercise their religious freedom. The only time they come down against "excercise" is when the "excercise" is being done by the state or a representative of the state while in their official capacity. For example:
Unconstitutional: teachers leading students in prayer; state bodies (legistrative, judicial, etc.) posting the 10 commandments; city councils displaying a nativity scene.
Constitutional: students conducting before/after school prayer groups; civic groups posting the 10 commandments; individuals or businesses displaying a nativity scene.
All of the first group violate the establshment clause. All of the second group are protected by the free exercise clause. This is the position of not only the ACLU but of the courts. This is cut and dried.
If you do wish to live in a theocracy, I suggest you recruit a number of wealthy theists and purchase an island. You will then be free to establish your own Christian theocracy. Good luck.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 3.11.2005 @ 09:45
Hey Rick, thanks for the thoughtful and thorough post. I think this is a very important issue - perhaps the most important "hot" issue regarding the war. We need more people in the press and congress debating these very factors in the public forum.
John - "ACLU is a proven anti-American organization"??? They may go overboard sometimes and I suspect most of the individuals working for the ACLU are rather far to the left, but what is anti-American about working to defend the bill of rights? They spend most of their time and money protecting people from infringement on their rights to speech, religion, a free press and due process. Those are entirely American ideals. What harm has ACLU done? They hold no direct power and, in the current climate, relatively little polical power. What good have they done? How have they ever deprived a person of their constitutional rights? Provided legal representation to people who had their rights violated or unduly curtailed.
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 2.11.2005 @ 15:06
Great post Rick. I for one, while I frequently disagree with some of your more polemic posts, will always find room for your 51-year-old fat ass at the proverbial table.
If one wants support for already held ideas then there are plenty of bloggers and pundits happy to tell one what one wants or needs to hear. However, there are a precious but growing minority of sources (I like the term "open source journalism" as it conotes a lot) that can support differing opinions in ways that can be at least respected.
Thanks for the good work. Keep the true conservative spirit alive. The current batch in power, self proclaimed "neo-cons", are not at all conservative.
Salute
Comment Posted By Dean Kimball On 25.08.2005 @ 23:38
