What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Common ground (1 Viewer)

NCCommish

NCCommish

Footballguy
So I've been doing a lot of talking lately about how we have to push past the wedges that the political elite use to curb our power. How we have to work together when we agree on a subject.

So I've got an example. I think it would be fair to say i haven't been Clarence Thomas' biggest fan. In fact I am not totally convinced he belongs on the court. i think he is a prop most of the time. I also think he plays very close to the line on taking monies from groups, he may even cross it and I think it should be investigated. With all that said he and I may have something we agree on.

Civil Asset Forfeiture. Basically turns police depts into profit centers and sows corruption. The cases of abuse have been rampant and well documented. I don't believe this practice is constitutional and it seems I may have an unlikely ally -

The Supreme Court offered no explanation today for its refusal to hear the case of Lisa Olivia Leonard v. Texas. But one member of the Court did speak up. In a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in the case, Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear that he believes the current state of civil asset forfeiture law is fundamentally unconstitutional.

"This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses," Thomas declared.

 
Furthermore, he wrote, the Supreme Court's previous rulings on the matter are starkly at odds with the Constitution, which "presumably would require the Court to align its distinct doctrine governing civil forfeiture with its doctrines governing other forms of punitive state action and property deprivation." Those other doctrines, Thomas noted, impose significant checks on the government, such as heightened standards of proof, various procedural protections, and the right to a trial by jury. Civil asset forfeiture proceedings, by contrast, offer no such constitutional safeguards for the rights of person or property.
Click to expand...
Here is the full pdf the good stuff starts page 16. He pretty much destroys Civil Forfeiture. It gives me hope that when the right case comes along we can end this practice. If he were a politician I'd be down with helping him win this one.

So even Clarence Thomas and I can find some common ground. If we went from there I wonder if we'd find anything else. And that's what we have to ask. If we can find some common ground on just a subject. Just one. Could we maybe get two? three? Could we stop arguing long enough to get something done we both agree needs to happen? I think we could but we have to be better than the people trying to divide us.

 
NCCommish said:
So I've been doing a lot of talking lately about how we have to push past the wedges that the political elite use to curb our power. How we have to work together when we agree on a subject.

So I've got an example. I think it would be fair to say i haven't been Clarence Thomas' biggest fan. In fact I am not totally convinced he belongs on the court. i think he is a prop most of the time. I also think he plays very close to the line on taking monies from groups, he may even cross it and I think it should be investigated. With all that said he and I may have something we agree on.

Civil Asset Forfeiture. Basically turns police depts into profit centers and sows corruption. The cases of abuse have been rampant and well documented. I don't believe this practice is constitutional and it seems I may have an unlikely ally -

Here is the full pdf the good stuff starts page 16. He pretty much destroys Civil Forfeiture. It gives me hope that when the right case comes along we can end this practice. If he were a politician I'd be down with helping him win this one.

So even Clarence Thomas and I can find some common ground. If we went from there I wonder if we'd find anything else. And that's what we have to ask. If we can find some common ground on just a subject. Just one. Could we maybe get two? three? Could we stop arguing long enough to get something done we both agree needs to happen? I think we could but we have to be better than the people trying to divide us.
Click to expand...
Don't get greedy there, chief.

 
I don't care if it's Satan himself that takes up the cause, if it means ending this abhorrent government abuse of power.

 
I think to find common ground we have to back away from long-held policy positions and go back to more ideological discussions.  We're fairly well entrenched on certain topics that are often in the media, but the philosophy and reasoning behind our worldviews are often left alone for long periods of time.

Republicans are for smaller government.  Democrats are for a stronger safety net for society and protection for people.

I think there's a lot to respect in both of those approaches, but I feel like the underlying assumptions don't get challenged often enough on both sides.  Conversations tend to move quickly to hot button issues where folks have well-worn arguments or long held beliefs.

I find myself on a lot of core issues agreeing with much of what Republicans say about smaller government, more control at the state level being better, certain things governments should limit themselves on being involved in and I think Democrats in a desire to make things better often overreach what's good for the country.  

On the other hand, I think that Democrats often have a better handle on the different types of folks we have in our country and have a better view of, and heart for, those who aren't in the majority.  I think that in large part, the democrats do a much better job of enforcing our social contract, while republicans do a better job enforcing an originalist interpretation of our country.  The tension between the two sides is productive when we're staying true to well thought out principles and visions for the country, but when we are also open to compromise.  

Compromise has gone out of the window lately, and I think that's a huge symptom that we're not listening to each other.

 
adonis said:
I think to find common ground we have to back away from long-held policy positions and go back to more ideological discussions.  We're fairly well entrenched on certain topics that are often in the media, but the philosophy and reasoning behind our worldviews are often left alone for long periods of time.

Republicans are for smaller government.  Democrats are for a stronger safety net for society and protection for people.

I think there's a lot to respect in both of those approaches, but I feel like the underlying assumptions don't get challenged often enough on both sides.  Conversations tend to move quickly to hot button issues where folks have well-worn arguments or long held beliefs.

I find myself on a lot of core issues agreeing with much of what Republicans say about smaller government, more control at the state level being better, certain things governments should limit themselves on being involved in and I think Democrats in a desire to make things better often overreach what's good for the country.  

On the other hand, I think that Democrats often have a better handle on the different types of folks we have in our country and have a better view of, and heart for, those who aren't in the majority.  I think that in large part, the democrats do a much better job of enforcing our social contract, while republicans do a better job enforcing an originalist interpretation of our country.  The tension between the two sides is productive when we're staying true to well thought out principles and visions for the country, but when we are also open to compromise.  

Compromise has gone out of the window lately, and I think that's a huge symptom that we're not listening to each other.
Click to expand...
Well the thing is we don't have to compromise to get things done. We know that something like nearly 90% of Americans want expanded background checks. Let's do that no compromise really needed. And that's just one example.

 
NCCommish said:
Well the thing is we don't have to compromise to get things done. We know that something like nearly 90% of Americans want expanded background checks. Let's do that no compromise really needed. And that's just one example.
Click to expand...
90% of lobbyists don't care what Americans want.  Tis a warped power structure to be sure.

 
NCCommish said:
So I've been doing a lot of talking lately about how we have to push past the wedges that the political elite use to curb our power. How we have to work together when we agree on a subject.

So I've got an example. I think it would be fair to say i haven't been Clarence Thomas' biggest fan. In fact I am not totally convinced he belongs on the court. i think he is a prop most of the time. I also think he plays very close to the line on taking monies from groups, he may even cross it and I think it should be investigated. With all that said he and I may have something we agree on.

Civil Asset Forfeiture. Basically turns police depts into profit centers and sows corruption. The cases of abuse have been rampant and well documented. I don't believe this practice is constitutional and it seems I may have an unlikely ally -

Here is the full pdf the good stuff starts page 16. He pretty much destroys Civil Forfeiture. It gives me hope that when the right case comes along we can end this practice. If he were a politician I'd be down with helping him win this one.

So even Clarence Thomas and I can find some common ground. If we went from there I wonder if we'd find anything else. And that's what we have to ask. If we can find some common ground on just a subject. Just one. Could we maybe get two? three? Could we stop arguing long enough to get something done we both agree needs to happen? I think we could but we have to be better than the people trying to divide us.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, my man. I totally agree with the end of asset forfeiture. You're righteous these days. I think you and I, who come from such different positions on things, can find plenty of common ground, and I'm willing to reach out. We have before regarding criminal justice and the means enforcing it.  

 
We all know the FFA leans left. I frequent another board that leans right. It is down right frightening just how far apart the two sides have drifted. 

I agree with everything @adonis said. However, We have a loooooooong way to go before any real compromises happen. 

 
Ned said:
We all know the FFA leans left. I frequent another board that leans right. It is down right frightening just how far apart the two sides have drifted. 

I agree with everything @adonis said. However, We have a loooooooong way to go before any real compromises happen. 
Click to expand...
That's because we let people artificially divide us. I mean there are things we will always disagree on but the reality is there is a lot we can agree on. And we do. But we let people manipulate us into hating each other to the point we can't even do the things we all agree on. And they do that because otherwise we might just start running this country and we aren't as likely to cut our throats for their masters as they are to do it for us.

 
rockaction said:
I'm with you, my man. I totally agree with the end of asset forfeiture. You're righteous these days. I think you and I, who come from such different positions on things, can find plenty of common ground, and I'm willing to reach out. We have before regarding criminal justice and the means enforcing it.  
Click to expand...
You know if I agree with your stance I'm right there with you.

 
I just want to say I agree on the civil forfeiture rule - get rid of it.

I'd like to offer red light and traffic cameras next. Yes maybe a local issue (all across the country...) but pernicious imo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I just want to say I agree on the civil forfeiture rule - get rid of it.

I'd like to offer red light and traffic cameras next. Yes maybe a local issue (all across the country...) but pernicious imo.
Click to expand...
They spent a ton putting those things up here and then it turned out they couldn't really prosecute the tickets. Everybody just started ignoring them. All gone.

 
There should be broad agreement on the need to pass sentencing reform. We are over jailing way too many people and there should be a requirement to prove criminal intent (mens rea) for offenses.

 
This seems more like a broken clock being right twice a day than anything, but i respect the #### outta that you're looking, NCC.

Being so far left i'm right, i've found more common ground with conservatives (the real ones, those who dont shill for wins) than i have with the noisemakers of any major party. if there is an answer to come, it will be found among those willing to discuss the concept of progress without bias.

 
I'd like to focus on process.

Practical:

  • Tax returns for all state and federal candidates should be produced to qualify for any campaign.
  • Almost anything that an employer would seek in documentation should be obtainable. Birth certificates, medical exams, drug tests, I don't care.
  • Get rid of filing fees. There is no reason people should have to pay to run for office than they do to vote.
Pipe dream:

  • Overturn the 1929 Reapportionment Act which limited the number of Representatives in the US HOR. I want to be able to reach my Congressman and walk into his office like a state rep, just like Thomas Jefferson intended.
Practical:

- I really don't care about CU for a few reasons, and in fact I may think the prior FEC law  is wrong on free speech grounds. But this McDonnell decision seems like the outrage that people should be focused on. Politicians should not be receiving private money from private donors outside the legal system. Period. This is the essence of Pay for Play. Quid pro quo and direct bribery is old hat, this is where corruption is at.

Pipe dream:

  • Total transparency in government. I'd like to see all budget spreadsheets posted, I want a priority and money spent on Foia requests, texts and private emails included if it relates to public business - what is public should be public.
I realize these aren't hot items on people's minds. But I would think or hope everyone would agree with these changes - I do think that if we learn to create a good democratic process, then we can trust the process and have more confidence in our representatives, and then we can agree to disagree on things much easier.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can get with most of that. But the second point yeah not feeling it. Why should an employer have access to anything they want? Do I get all their information?

 
NCCommish said:
They spent a ton putting those things up here and then it turned out they couldn't really prosecute the tickets. Everybody just started ignoring them. All gone.
Click to expand...
What I heard today was that the NC Supreme Court rules that 90% of the proceeds had to go to the schools rather than 30% and the city couldn't run the program on 10% so they killed it.

 
Thomas wrote a great opinion a few years ago granting the right to punitive damages for failure to pay maintenance and cure in some Maritime personal injury cases.  Huge opinion. Could have knocked me over with a feather. 

 
MaxThreshold said:
I'm afraid of weed.  I'm afraid it will instill a culture of lazy, no good, Dorito eating slackers that we would never be able to recover from.
Click to expand...
Nothing that can't be fixed with a single payer health care system, a basic income guarantee and being able to use your prescription card for pizza.

 
MaxThreshold said:
Only if we can get the rich (anyone making over $20K a year) to pay for it all.
Click to expand...
We can afford to spend over 600 billion on the military and that's just the unclassified budget add in the DoDs black budget and we are closer to 700 billion. If we maintain that, and there is no reason to believe we won't, that is 7 trillion in the next ten years but it will be more and we both know it. We got trillions more for Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions more for bombing the #### out of whoever. Trillions to bailout banks. So if we got the money for all that we got money for anything we want. The whole get someone to pay for it argument is way played my friend.

And of course there is no real link between pot and laying around doing nothing. In fact many many very successful people smoke. You were going to lay around anyway the pot just makes it more fun to do so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'd like to focus on process.

Practical:

  • Tax returns for all state and federal candidates should be produced to qualify for any campaign.
  • Almost anything that an employer would seek in documentation should be obtainable. Birth certificates, medical exams, drug tests, I don't care.
  • Get rid of filing fees. There is no reason people should have to pay to run for office than they do to vote.
Pipe dream:

  • Overturn the 1929 Reapportionment Act which limited the number of Representatives in the US HOR. I want to be able to reach my Congressman and walk into his office like a state rep, just like Thomas Jefferson intended.
Practical:

- I really don't care about CU for a few reasons, and in fact I may think the prior FEC law  is wrong on free speech grounds. But this McDonnell decision seems like the outrage that people should be focused on. Politicians should not be receiving private money from private donors outside the legal system. Period. This is the essence of Pay for Play. Quid pro quo and direct bribery is old hat, this is where corruption is at.

Pipe dream:

  • Total transparency in government. I'd like to see all budget spreadsheets posted, I want a priority and money spent on Foia requests, texts and private emails included if it relates to public business - what is public should be public.
I realize these aren't hot items on people's minds. But I would think or hope everyone would agree with these changes - I do think that if we learn to create a good democratic process, then we can trust the process and have more confidence in our representatives, and then we can agree to disagree on things much easier.
Click to expand...
Great call on filing fees.  If voter ids are discriminatory then how in hell's half acre are filing fees not discriminatory?

Another thing that ticks me off is the whole write-in qualification process.  At least here in Nebraska, you cannot be elected via write-in unless you have filed paperwork (and a filing fee) to qualify for candidacy.  The benefit is that if you file to qualify for write-in then your name is not on the ballot but if you get more votes then other qualified write-ins (and, if any, names appearing on the ballot) then you can win a seat.  This happened last election where no one filed for spot, so two candidates filed to qualify as write-ins for that spot.  One got 34 votes, the other 9 so the person with 39 votes won the seat.  The funny part of that is that for the 4 year seat, there were 3 openings and 4 candidates.  Candidate 3 got 3,900 votes edging out Candidate 4 with 3,880 votes.  Had candidate 4 merely run for the 2 year seat they would have been elected over the write-in candidate who only garnered 39 votes.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chet
Legal Question--Can't find the Lawyer Thread
Replies
11
Views
561
STEADYMOBBIN 22
STEADYMOBBIN 22
G
Home outdoor basketball court advice
Replies
7
Views
410
shuke
shuke
Terminalxylem
**Official Longevity Thread**
3 4 5
Replies
207
Views
5K
notoriousbill
notoriousbill

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top