In article <C5otox.BJI@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: > >In article <VEAL.740.735074621@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes: > >|>In article <C5n4wH.Izv@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: >|>> >|>       Or are they simply propogranda?  We can't know what Phill *really* >|>means because he's obviously using arguments designed to convince. > >I make no secret of what I am up to, I have stated explicitly in posts >that I am a political propagandist on numerous occasions. Anyone posting >to this group who is not probably has the wrong group. > >For example I have on numerous occasions stated quite clearly that I >beleive that certain factions of the gun lobby are the worst possible >advocates of their cause and I am prepared to do anything in my power >to provide them with a platform because they can convince people far >better than I could hope that many people with a fixation on lethal >weapons are dangerous and derranged.          If you happen to know a political position which does not have people advocating it who do more harm than good, please point it out.         >Some people have even accused me of inventing such advocates purely  >for the purpose of having them trash a set of political views. In  >fact this would be a futile tactic because I could never hope to >invent a character as dangerous as sybok.athena.edu, a man who I >quite seriously believe to be mentaly ill and a potential psychopath. >Unfortunately the local sherifs office have informed me that they >are unable to act untill he attacks someone.         One of the advantages and draw-backs of requiring proof on the part of the government before they may take action against citizens.  (and part of the reason some of us believe weapons should be available.)  >So if you were to ask me what is the point that I am trying to make >from this current argument on the absolute sanctity of the US  >constitution what would I answer?         We are not arguing the absolute sanctity of the U.S. Constitution.  In fact, the fillibuster we're talking about isn't *in* the Constitution.  I objected to your suggestion that the Senate wasn't intended to exercise the power it was clearly given.  >Firstly I see that the current US political scene like the UK political >scene has become tied to special interests. Rather than chase the >convenient caricatures put about by the media and polititians themselves >for this - Gay rights cmapaigners, environmentalists, zionists (i.e. >Jews), "foreign lobbyists" - whatever voting power they have etc. I >sugest that you look at who is really benefiting. The inevitable conclusion >is that it is the major corporations owned by the ultra-wealthy that >have benefited. Regan and Bush created what can only be described as a >welfare state for the rich.          I'll point out again that Reagan only had a Republican Majority in the Senate during his first term, and his coalition in the House came apart at about the same time.  Bush never had any real support in Congress.         The real point is that everybody, *everywhere* got their pork, from the big corporations to the guy I saw last night leaving a convenience store with an armful of junk-food he'd bought with food stamps.  (He spent more in food stamps on junk than I *make* in a week and I'm not on government assitance.)  >Money was diverted from programs addressing >social needs and poured into the weapons industry in the form of cost >plus profits contracts.          Lessee, let's pull out the old Almanac.         In 1980, total U.S. government budget outlays were 590.9 billion dollars.  In 1992 (est) they were 1.4754 trillion dollars, an increase of approx. 884 billion dollars.         In 1980, National Defense cost 133.9 billion dollars.  In 192 it was 307 billion dollars, and increase of 174 billion dollars. That leaves an increase of 710 billion dollars unaccounted for.  (This represented an increase of 230%)         In 1980, Income Security (which includes retirement programs, Housing Assitance, and unemployment benefits, and I believe welfare) cost 86.5 billion dollars.  In 1992 it was 198 billion dollars, or more than national defense started.  (This represented an increase of 230%)         In 1980, the Federal Government spent 32 billion dollars on Medicare.  In 1992 they spent 118 billion dollars.  (an increase of 368%)         In 1980, the Feds spent 9 billion dollars on housing credits and subsidies of that like.  In 1992 it was 87 billion.         In 1980, Health care services and research was 23 billion dollars.  In 1992, it was 94 billion dollars.         Agriculture, up 9 billion to 17 billion.         Science, up 11 billion to 16 billion.         Resource conservation up 7 billion to 20 billion.         Education up 14 billion to 45 billion.         Veteran benefits up 12 billion to 33 billion.         Trasnportation up 13 billion to 34 billion.              About the only things I see which was seriously decreased was under  the Energy category, primarily under "Supply," and "Community Development," in the area of "disaster relief," and between the two of them represent a loss of less than 11 billion dollars.         Where *was* this huge diversion?  >In order to rectify this situation there must >be constitutional revision.         Not that's a stretch.  If the current government was pushed by the President to create this mess, wouldn't one expect it to begin to equalize once the pressure is gone?  >Secondly the form of this revision must take account of the changed  >circumsatnces of the role of the Federal government.          Only assuming that the new role is a positive role we want to continue. I see very little positive about it.  >The constitution >cannot be used to frustrate the democratic process.          The Constitution was *designed* to frustrate the democratic process, so that the voters could be absolutely sure they were getting what they wanted by the time it happened.  Nor do I see putting the brakes on the "democratic process" an inherently bad thing.  Califronia's riding the edge and every time they pull their ballot initiative nonsense it gets worse.  >If the peoplr want >to have welfare spending by the federal government they will have >it.         Sometimes, or perhaps most of the time, the people should be told, "no," and pointed to their local government.         >Attempting to prevent this through constitutional trickery only >leads to the constitution being brought into disrepute.          Phill, would you do me the very great favor of repeating that in talk.politics.guns?  >Methods will >always be found to bypass such provisions and once the government gets >used to bypassing those provisions they will bypass the others up to  >the first ammendment.          Cute.  We can eliminate violations of the law by eliminating the law.  >This is a major reason why the right to own  >guns should be excluded, the implication that this right is equal to >the right to free speech is dangerous.          Free speech alone is dangerous, Phill.  >People know that mass ownership >of lethal weapons causes thousands of murders a year, the dangerous >conclusion they may reach is that the first ammendment may also be >the same dangerous mistake.          OK, Phill.  All you gotta show me is a clear pattern of *reduction* in homicide rates across several countries and that'll be it.  (Not current, mind, you, reduction.)  >Note however that this is not the slippery >slope argument. It is because the right freedom of speech has been >chained to the privilege to own weaponry that the danger arises. The >advocates of this pivilege must not be allowed to chain freedom of >speech to their cause such that if they fall freedom of speech falls >as well. Such actions are not the actions of people genuinely interested >in freedom.           Who's chaining anything to freedom of speech?  By *calling* it a freedom?    >Thirdly and most importantly I want to discover a mechanism wherby I can >engender intellectual debate as opposed to totemic debate. I consider >the grave threat to civilisation to be the loss of the ability to >reason about the political debate at anything other than the superficial >level. The objection I raise to your basing your case entirely on the >assertion of the supremacy of the US constitution is that the currency >of your argument is limited to the currency of the totem upon which it >is based. The danger of totems is that they can be reinterpreted in >different ways by different people.          Phill, you're a master of subtly changing the subject.  I haven't *based* my argument against raw democracy on the Constitution.  I've tried to explain why it isn't a good idea.  The only time I've referred to the Constitution is to point out it doesn't contain the restrictions on the veto and the Senate you appear to believe were "meant," but just didn't make it in there.              The Constitution doesn't *contain* the 41% fillibuster rule. I only believe that the rule is a good idea.  You cn't dismiss that as venerating the Constitution because it isn't *in* the Constitution.