Comments on: A Little Xenophobic Nastiness from Sen. Conrad Burns http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/ All that flavorful brownness in one savory packet Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:11:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Sahej http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-84208 Sahej Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:30:20 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-84208 <p>Biden or Hilary's comments were not as demeaning as Allen's or Burns', were they?</p> Biden or Hilary’s comments were not as demeaning as Allen’s or Burns’, were they?

]]> By: No von Mises http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-84205 No von Mises Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:17:02 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-84205 <p>AMfD:</p> <blockquote>I am wondering about whats common between the above three people? I would imagine that Schultz could be characterized as a realist in foreign policy while Elliot Abrams is a neo-con and a criminal. Mankiw is an economist. I am not sure what wing would that be? </blockquote> <p>I guess my claim here was to show the viable and intelligible nexus that desi Republicans (probably) admire which forms a frame of orientation <i>sans</i> the Bible-thumping, immigration-bashing camp: the statesman (Shultz), neoclassical economist and libertarian but not completely off the deep end like Milton Friedman (Mankiw), and the hawkishness of Abrams and his judicial philosophy.</p> <p>Point being, I rarely see desi Republicans identify with the Bible Belt wingnuts and more with the leftover Reaganites.</p> AMfD:

I am wondering about whats common between the above three people? I would imagine that Schultz could be characterized as a realist in foreign policy while Elliot Abrams is a neo-con and a criminal. Mankiw is an economist. I am not sure what wing would that be?

I guess my claim here was to show the viable and intelligible nexus that desi Republicans (probably) admire which forms a frame of orientation sans the Bible-thumping, immigration-bashing camp: the statesman (Shultz), neoclassical economist and libertarian but not completely off the deep end like Milton Friedman (Mankiw), and the hawkishness of Abrams and his judicial philosophy.

Point being, I rarely see desi Republicans identify with the Bible Belt wingnuts and more with the leftover Reaganites.

]]> By: Al Mujahid for debauchery http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-84130 Al Mujahid for debauchery Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:28:34 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-84130 <p><i>I doubt Constitution writers intended the First Amendment to be the legal defense of the thriving multi-billion dollar US porn industry either... ;)</i></p> <p>Some historians have made the case that the first amendment was more of a slogan than anything else.</p> I doubt Constitution writers intended the First Amendment to be the legal defense of the thriving multi-billion dollar US porn industry either… ;)

Some historians have made the case that the first amendment was more of a slogan than anything else.

]]> By: Vikram http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-84039 Vikram Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:51:55 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-84039 <blockquote> This wouldn't be the first time a law is used to defend a liberty it originally wasn't written to protect </blockquote> <p>I doubt Constitution writers intended the First Amendment to be the legal defense of the thriving multi-billion dollar US porn industry either... ;)</p> This wouldn’t be the first time a law is used to defend a liberty it originally wasn’t written to protect

I doubt Constitution writers intended the First Amendment to be the legal defense of the thriving multi-billion dollar US porn industry either… ;)

]]> By: Al Mujahid for debauchery http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-84033 Al Mujahid for debauchery Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:39:46 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-84033 <p><i>This wouldn't be the first time a law is used to defend a liberty it originally wasn't written to protect.</i></p> <p>Well said! I couldnt agree more.</p> This wouldn’t be the first time a law is used to defend a liberty it originally wasn’t written to protect.

Well said! I couldnt agree more.

]]> By: Osman http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-84028 Osman Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:38:07 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-84028 <p>DesiDancer,</p> <p>I'm glad to hear that your students like the shirts. Brings a smile to my face.</p> <p>Speaking of smiling, when I posted <a>the Teletubby Bhangra dance video</a> on my blog I specifically thought of you as the audience.</p> DesiDancer,

I’m glad to hear that your students like the shirts. Brings a smile to my face.

Speaking of smiling, when I posted the Teletubby Bhangra dance video on my blog I specifically thought of you as the audience.

]]> By: superbrown http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-84026 superbrown Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:37:07 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-84026 <p>Al Mujahid, you are right about the original intentions of the 2nd amendment, but the idea that the government would prevent people from owning guns was probably seen as ridiculous in then highly rural America. This wouldn't be the first time a law is used to defend a liberty it originally wasn't written to protect.</p> Al Mujahid, you are right about the original intentions of the 2nd amendment, but the idea that the government would prevent people from owning guns was probably seen as ridiculous in then highly rural America. This wouldn’t be the first time a law is used to defend a liberty it originally wasn’t written to protect.

]]> By: kritic http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-84024 kritic Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:33:47 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-84024 <p>if you see something say something - you is too funny, man. reeelly phunee. p.s. i do not have anything original to say on the 2nd amendment, because i am a federalist.</p> if you see something say something – you is too funny, man. reeelly phunee. p.s. i do not have anything original to say on the 2nd amendment, because i am a federalist.

]]> By: Al Mujahid for debauchery http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-83995 Al Mujahid for debauchery Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:02:37 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-83995 <p><i>Considering that the rest of the U.S. Constitution is geared towards protecting the individual citizen, where do you draw your interpretation that this amendment is not an individual/private citizen's right ? It would seem odd that people interpret the rest of the Constitution in terms of protecting an individuals right to free speech, vote, practice religion etc, but yet somehow the Second Amendment is not interpreted in that fashion. Seems logically inconsistent.</i></p> <p>Vikram: Thats not entirely true. A lot in the constitution is also about protecting the rights of the state vis-a-vis the federal government. I believe the second amendment akin to the tenth amendment was a check on the powers of the federal government. We have regulated militias today and they are called National Guard. Though I would suggest that the right of the states to take on the US with a well regulated militia were kind of taken care of in the Civil War ;) In a nutshell, the second amendment IMO was intended as a tool for federalism and a check on federal power in the hands of the states. I dont believe that it was ever intended as an individual right in the hands of private citizens. Reasonable minds can of course disagree and thats fine :)</p> Considering that the rest of the U.S. Constitution is geared towards protecting the individual citizen, where do you draw your interpretation that this amendment is not an individual/private citizen’s right ? It would seem odd that people interpret the rest of the Constitution in terms of protecting an individuals right to free speech, vote, practice religion etc, but yet somehow the Second Amendment is not interpreted in that fashion. Seems logically inconsistent.

Vikram: Thats not entirely true. A lot in the constitution is also about protecting the rights of the state vis-a-vis the federal government. I believe the second amendment akin to the tenth amendment was a check on the powers of the federal government. We have regulated militias today and they are called National Guard. Though I would suggest that the right of the states to take on the US with a well regulated militia were kind of taken care of in the Civil War ;) In a nutshell, the second amendment IMO was intended as a tool for federalism and a check on federal power in the hands of the states. I dont believe that it was ever intended as an individual right in the hands of private citizens. Reasonable minds can of course disagree and thats fine :)

]]> By: Vikram http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2006/08/31/a_little_xenoph/comment-page-3/#comment-83991 Vikram Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:54:26 +0000 http://sepiamutiny.com?p=3743#comment-83991 <blockquote> Vikram: I dont believe that the 2nd amendment ever intended to give rights to private citizens to own guns. That has nothing to do with the fact that criminals now use guns and so they need to be controlled. I never made that argument </blockquote> <p>Considering that the rest of the U.S. Constitution is geared towards protecting the individual citizen, where do you draw your interpretation that this amendment is not an individual/private citizen's right ? It would seem odd that people interpret the rest of the Constitution in terms of protecting an individuals right to free speech, vote, practice religion etc, but yet somehow the Second Amendment is not interpreted in that fashion. Seems logically inconsistent.</p> Vikram: I dont believe that the 2nd amendment ever intended to give rights to private citizens to own guns. That has nothing to do with the fact that criminals now use guns and so they need to be controlled. I never made that argument

Considering that the rest of the U.S. Constitution is geared towards protecting the individual citizen, where do you draw your interpretation that this amendment is not an individual/private citizen’s right ? It would seem odd that people interpret the rest of the Constitution in terms of protecting an individuals right to free speech, vote, practice religion etc, but yet somehow the Second Amendment is not interpreted in that fashion. Seems logically inconsistent.

]]>