Posted on 07/06/2005 8:00:51 AM PDT by rhema
I define an authoritarian as someone who asks: "Have the people been granted this right?" I define a libertarian as someone who asks: "Has the government been granted this power?"
You know who you are.
Alan was taken aback.
He kept repeating Joe McCarthy?, Joe McCarthy? ...as Sean continued the conversation.
This needs to be said clearly and more often.
There is no response to so noble a truth!
Republicans "meaning US" not the RNC, recognizing that fact could cause change. Not in the democrat party but IN THE RNC.. Really its the republican party that needs to be dissed BY REPUBLICANS not the democrat party.. Some wouldn't agree with me, but they would be WRONG..
ONLY.... a threat of a stampede of the republican sheeple can effect a change in the RNC.. if they think we're drugged and happy no change will happen.. And who knows maybe WE ARE DRUGGED AND HAPPY... Count Von Bushula and the Bushbats(RNC) seem to be quite happy on the blood of the Sheeple as we speak.. In case you missed it, I'm not a happy camper.. sitting by my campfire with a crusafix and garlic necklace. Don't know if it will work, but hey, its something.. I hates them bats..
Well, I agree with little jeremiah, then. ICK! (and WTF)
Right on target!
That's neatly said, IMO. The Constitution does not list the rights of the people, it enumerates the limited powers of the govenment. The people retain all natural rights, with which they were born, "endowed by their Creator."
This in no way means that true advocates of liberty are contemptuous of ethics and morality - the people must, on a local level, for the survival of society, write laws and codes of conduct, usually based on Judaeo Christian values. Generally such laws and codes must be concerned primarily with prohibiting citizens from interfering with the life, liberty and property of other citizens and to a far lesser extent with traditional customs which have come to be accepted as necessary for society's preservation. Other than actions specifically prohibited by such codes, it is and was understood that the people retain all other rights.
It is specifically the authoritarian viewpoint (in the case of socialism, derived from rationalism), which imagines that the peoples' rights are granted by a higher authority, and that it is up to that authority to create a limited list of specific rights for the people, along with a list of reasons they may supply for the justification of the exercise of those rights.
So Bork thinks the Constitution enumerates our rights? Dim reading, indeed.
Yes, and I must say that is disheartening to hear that disgrace Kennedy taking it upon himself to define what a 'mainstream conservative' is, while the GOP is silent and lets him get away with it.
O'Connor is not a conservative on social issues, and let's face it, those are the most hot-button and contentious issues the court deals with. She is a liberal, and to not respond forcefully to an orchestrated Dem/Left attempt to define what is and is not a reasonable conservative is to cede public opinion in the matter.
Where was Santorum, or Allen, or Coburn, or Frist? They should have been lampooning that buffoon from Mass, pointing out that ANYONE looks conservative compared to that clown.
I see the Constitution as declaring our God-given rights and in that way limiting Government's power. ABORTION, for instance is not a God-given RIGHT.
<< This is a great article by a very intelligent, moral man. I hope that someone sends this article to Bush.
On the other hand, I was thinking that maybe the reason for the request to tone down the pressure on Bush is not because he doesn't want to hear it. Maybe it's that he doesn't want the left to hear it, because our very vocal demands are giving the Democrats cover for their filibuster. >>
Mr Bush is at present as far off target on the appointment of an associate justice to replace O'Conner as he is on the protections of America's borders, language, culture and sovereignty. And is likely at the moment to nominate his pro-abortion "good friend" from the Texas Supreme Court as anyone.
And for no better reason than to demonstrate his own mis-guidedly-resolute "loyalty" and "friendship" in the face of and despite all of the healthy FRoth-and-foam-flecked conservative opposition to that hispanic gentleman's nomination and elevation.
Better pray that Mr Bush is pulled into line or we shall almost certainly be hoist with an O'Conner clone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.