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.
Ah Elston, our transplanted progressive liberal. Thanks for replying.
I think you misunderstand me. Elston is a good example. He's a liberal, he moved to Maine, he's affecting policy. It happens all the time in Northern New England. The liberal elites move in, and think they are going to tell the "hicks" how to live. .
Mr Viello......from Conneticut you seem to feel you need to protect Maine from me. My family has lived in Maine from way back when it was still part of Massachussets......Stevens Avenue in Portland is named after a branch of my family.....my family has been involved in progressive and liberal politics in Maine since before the revolution.....My grandmother entertained Eleanor Roosevelt in her Portland home (Portland Democratic Committee)......she supported Gov. Muskie....My father graduated from high school in Portland....my uncle graduated from Bates....my grandparents, mother and father uncle and other family are intered in Evergreen Cemetery in Portland.... I returned to Maine when it became possible for me to do so....two of my sons live in Maine.I dont feel I am an outsider or interloper.....I am continuing to uphold my family's tradition of progressive involvement in the affairs of Maine.....and find I am part of an active progressive tradition that has historic roots in Maine. I am interested in securing a way of life and freedoms and values that I gained from Maine.....not in telling any "hicks" [your word] how to live.
Location: Los Angeles, but looking for my niche in ME, or OR
326 posts, read 435,191 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by elston
Mr Viello......from Conneticut you seem to feel you need to protect Maine from me. My family has lived in Maine from way back when it was still part of Massachussets......Stevens Avenue in Portland is named after a branch of my family.....my family has been involved in progressive and liberal politics in Maine since before the revolution.....My grandmother entertained Eleanor Roosevelt in her Portland home (Portland Democratic Committee)......she supported Gov. Muskie....My father graduated from high school in Portland....my uncle graduated from Bates....my grandparents, mother and father uncle and other family are intered in Evergreen Cemetery in Portland.... I returned to Maine when it became possible for me to do so....two of my sons live in Maine.I dont feel I am an outsider or interloper.....I am continuing to uphold my family's tradition of progressive involvement in the affairs of Maine.....and find I am part of an active progressive tradition that has historic roots in Maine. I am interested in securing a way of life and freedoms and values that I gained from Maine.....not in telling any "hicks" [your word] how to live.
Way to go Elston!
Some people just love to conveniently forget we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. In other words... We are all Americans!
Your talking two huge and different issues.... the constitutional RIGHT to vote being removed vs. a simple requirement to receive welfare..
One is a right the other is a privilege!! And as such should not even be in the same discussion… It should never have been brought up!
"Right to vote" vs. "requirement to receive welfare" is not the issue I'm attempting to address.
The issue I'm addressing is that of the government infringing on the rights of a citizen, without 'due process' or 'probable cause', merely because he/she is seeking to take advantage of a service offered by the government.
An applicant for 'welfare' does not stand accused of a crime, no search warrant has been issued and 'probable cause' does not exist simply because that person has made the application. The act of requiring a drug test presupposes guilt and requires the individual to prove innocence- which is the exact opposite of how the Constitution and legal system was designed and is *exactly* what they were designed to protect against.
If that line of thought is extended across the board, requiring an individual to waive his rights and prove innocence before receiving service from the government (for whatever reason) provides precedence for the withdrawal of any and all rights. Imagine calling the cops (a government service) for some reason, but before they take a report they first search your house and subject you to a drug test to make you prove that you have not committed any crimes.
I detest the idea that there may be some who abuse the welfare system so that they can party and do drugs at my expense, while I work my tail off to support it, but perverting the system and requiring one to waive his rights and prove innocence, not standing accused of a crime and without probable cause is even more abhorrent to me.
We have the means to investigate and determine if probable cause exists, and to take action *if* it exists. Turning the Constitution and the legal system upside-down is not the answer to the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
Oh okay, so you can take away voting rights for anyone ever convicted of a crime though. Right? Hmmm...sounds a bit like you are targeting a "group".
You are putting words in my mouth that I did not speak.
Actually, I believe that if a person is convicted of a crime and serves his time, all rights should be restored- including the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms.
I was not previously aware that there was any prevention of voting after a conviction but after a bit of research I see that it has been so, in some states. I see a number of cases that have been fought in the courts, and won, which restores the right. Currently, only two states (KY and VA) impose a permanent denial of the right to vote after a felony conviction.
Maine and Vermont are apparently the only two states that do not prohibit even currently incarcerated felons from voting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
Listen, if you give up your rights to the state - which you are doing when you commit a crime or go on state aid...guess what. You gave up your rights. As in, you no longer have them until you are out of jail or off assistance. Period. Of course we are not talking about the elderly and handicapped etc.
Wow! You seem to be equating the commission of crimes with needing aid from the 'state'. The two are nowhere near the same thing, and applying for assistance absolutely should NOT require the waiving of one's Constitutional rights. That would be seriously wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
As for innocent until proven guilty...what do you think a drug test does? It's a process to prove innocence or guilt. No different than a DNA test in a criminal trial.
The difference is that a criminal trial requires probable cause, and a search warrant issued after presentation of such probable cause (unless the individual can be convinced to waive his rights). It is very much different from assuming guilt and requiring a person to prove innocence without even having first been accused of a crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
Hell, I guess we shouldn't have bail bonds in that case either since everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
No, you are mistaking the Court's requirement of the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, with actual guilt or innocence. A person may, in fact, be 'guilty' of a crime but for the purposes of the Court (and to [try] to protect the truly innocent) to [attempt to] ensure fair trials, the Court is required to 'assume' innocence until the State *proves* guilt.
Ah JViello...Our steadfast by-right-certified-native-Mainer-by-the-way-of-Connecticut conservative. Thanks for replying.
I think I understood you loud and clear! You left NO room for any doubt my friend.
We shall not be neighbors, fear not!
No sweat off my brow. I actually own property in Maine and have New England roots and family all over New England; California boy. Please stay in your nutjob state that your ideology help create, because the last thing Maine (And many other states) needs right now is more social progressive policies that have already bankrupted our nation.
Are you even aware of the fiscal problems Maine faces right now? Or is it just about Pen Bay and how pretty things are for you?
Rich liberals moving in to Maine from places like Boston, NYC, L.A. etc have really not done much to help the area, and if anything made it less accessible to natives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elston
Mr Viello......from Conneticut you seem to feel you need to protect Maine from me.
Elston, I confused you with someone else. My apologies. We are on different ends of the political spectrum...as much of Maine can be as I'm sure you know. But that does not have to throw civility out the window, again my apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zymer
The issue I'm addressing is that of the government infringing on the rights of a citizen, without 'due process' or 'probable cause', merely because he/she is seeking to take advantage of a service offered by the government.
We are not so different on that front, aside from the government assistance deal. I can't find that in the constitution...and please, don't go to the "general welfare" line as it's pretty clear is says "promote" not "provide".
I'll get to the rest of your post when I have time. Family and life beckons right now.
Elston, I confused you with someone else. My apologies. We are on different ends of the political spectrum...as much of Maine can be as I'm sure you know. But that does not have to throw civility out the window, again my apologies.
I really appreciate this comment..Thank You for that. ..it is true that we are the opposite ends of the political spectrum, we both know that.....but I took your comment as a demeaning and an unwarrented personal attack. It is one thing to disagree with someones point of view and quite another to be insulting and condescending. I am glad you extend your apology and I accept it.
"Right to vote" vs. "requirement to receive welfare" is not the issue I'm attempting to address.
The issue I'm addressing is that of the government infringing on the rights of a citizen, without 'due process' or 'probable cause', merely because he/she is seeking to take advantage of a service offered by the government.
The reason I disagree with you on this is because it is not a "right" to receive welfare. People make the choice to go on welfare, (by that I mean, some people are too proud to do it and suffer along and some people swallow their pride and ask for help...it's a choice...as are a lot of things leading up to the need for welfare, excluding, of course, disabled and elderly...not like we have a choice, much, on those things.)
It is not a "right" to drive a car. It is a privilege. You therefore have to take a test to prove that you know how to drive a car and know the rules of the road and that you will follow those rules of the road. If you screw up really badly, they take that privilege away from you.
Welfare is a privilege..not a right. Therefore, if you want the citizens of the country to provide for you, then yes, you should have to prove that you will use the money for its intended purposes, are looking for work if you are able and are not sitting around, smoking, drinking and getting high all day long.
The reason I disagree with you on this is because it is not a "right" to receive welfare. People make the choice to go on welfare, (by that I mean, some people are too proud to do it and suffer along and some people swallow their pride and ask for help...it's a choice...as are a lot of things leading up to the need for welfare, excluding, of course, disabled and elderly...not like we have a choice, much, on those things.)
It is not a "right" to drive a car. It is a privilege. You therefore have to take a test to prove that you know how to drive a car and know the rules of the road and that you will follow those rules of the road. If you screw up really badly, they take that privilege away from you.
Welfare is a privilege..not a right. Therefore, if you want the citizens of the country to provide for you, then yes, you should have to prove that you will use the money for its intended purposes, are looking for work if you are able and are not sitting around, smoking, drinking and getting high all day long.
I agree that 'welfare' isn't a right', but I don't agree that to get it one should be expected to waive the things that *are* his rights. This would be a bad precedent to set.
The test to get a driver's license is a test for skill and knowledge, not a test to prove innocence of criminal activity. In addition, revocation of driving privileges occurs *after* you screw up and due process occurs. (In some cases, only after you screw up a whole bunch of times- I wonder what the record is for the largest number of DUI convictions before license revocation?)
Location: Los Angeles, but looking for my niche in ME, or OR
326 posts, read 435,191 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello
No sweat off my brow. I actually own property in Maine and have New England roots and family all over New England; California boy. Please stay in your nutjob state that your ideology help create, because the last thing Maine (And many other states) needs right now is more social progressive policies that have already bankrupted our nation.
Are you even aware of the fiscal problems Maine faces right now? Or is it just about Pen Bay and how pretty things are for you?
Rich liberals moving in to Maine from places like Boston, NYC, L.A. etc have really not done much to help the area, and if anything made it less accessible to natives.
...And that after all that talk of "All I'm saying is..."
People like that scare the bejesus out of me!
I wonder if we might return a bit to "The Leaf"'s orginal budget, since he has turned over a new leaf so to speak. IN PA, our esteemed Guv, Tom Terrific, is holding the line on taxes but has done this by effectively raising property taxes at the local level by cutting billions out of the subsidies to schools and colleges, as well as refusing to tax the Shale Oil extractors, or use what looks like a $700,000,000 budget surplus. Has "The Leaf" gone this route in Maine?
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.
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.
