Posted on 10/19/2007 10:17:48 AM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
To oversimplify: Democrats are for Big Government; Republicans are against it.
To oversimplify somewhat less, Democrats aren't always for Big Government, and Republicans aren't always against it. Democrats treasure civil liberties, whereas Republicans are more tolerant of government censorship to protect children from pornography, or of wiretapping to catch a criminal, or of torture in the war against terrorism. War in general and Iraq in particular--certainly Big Government exercises--are projects Republicans tend to be more enthusiastic about. Likewise the criminal process: Republicans tend to want to make more things illegal and to send more people to jail for longer. Republicans also consider themselves more concerned about the moral tone of the country, and they are more disposed toward using the government in trying to improve it. In particular, Republicans think religion needs more help from society, through the government, while Democrats are touchier about the separation of church and state.
Many people feel that neither party offers a coherent set of principles that they can agree with. For them, the choice is whether you believe in Big Government or you don't. And if you don't, you call yourself a libertarian. Libertarians are against government in all its manifestations. Domestically, they are against social-welfare programs. They favor self-reliance (as they see it) over Big Government spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Total nonsense. Not a intellectually serious, rational statement in the whole piece.
Hate Speech crimes, speech codes, mandatory diversity, Campaign finance Laws, the Fairness Doctrine mandatory sexual harassment training, the attempts to smear Rush and O’Reilly etc etc etc etc etc all show the claim of a supposed commitment on part of the modern American Left to “Civil Liberties” is a sick and sad lie.
Ummm... the only civil liberties that the Democrats support are those that involve furthering their agenda. Get the Dems in TOTAL power - and I guarantee that all meaningful civil liberties will be gone. I believe the Republican tolerance for some "infringement" on liberties (particularly privacy) are to protect the rest of our liberties.
(PS... think of libertarianism as the sound of your conscience nagging at you, no matter your political persuasion. Unfortunately, consciences don't campaign too well).
And Libertine is the CORRECT name for you people. Libertarianism requires self control and self discipline. A willingness to voluntarily accept the responsibilities of a civil society.
That not what you self styled Libertarians want. You want the right to do what ever you want when ever you want with NO obligation to anything beyond your selfish emotional interests. That is Libertine ism, not Libertarianism.
Liberty has costs. Adults understand this.
Appropriate that you’d respond to a post by Eric Blair with Newspeak.
T'aint in the Constitution. Look further back.
Don't you love it when someone lectures you on what you REALLY want (and illiterately, too)?
We would be dead drunk after the 1st post.
How about the Libertines try actually living up to the standards they demand everyone abide by?
You Paulbots have YET to answer this simple question.
With NO slogans, NO name calling and no cut and paste of vague meaningless talking points, please explain to use what and how Paul would do anything?
Specific detailed plans, in Paul's own words on what and how he would do. NOT just the usual cut and paste of a Paul’s meaningless slogans like “Paul will end the war” “Paul is a Constitutionalists” “Paul would abolish the IRS.”
We want to hear some solutions from you people FINALLY not just the mindless sloganeering and hyper hysteric whining that everyone is being “mean to you”.
New day, same mindless whining in place of reasoned argument from the Libertines. Try actually living up to the standards you demand everyone else abide by and we will take you seriously.
Libertarians are overrated. They have a disproportionate influence on the internet, but aren’t much of a factor in real life. This is generally a good thing.
For “shooting up”, I recommend an EAA Witness 10mm. For those who automatically conflate libertarian principles with some idiotic desire to dabble in recreational pharmacology, I recommend they try a semi-automatic version of “Russian Roulette”. They go first of course...
Physician, heal thyself...
Guys, I think we should throw a flag on BlackElk for running up the score!
This has become so but needn't be. My brand of libertarianism would maximize freedom, with or without government. Government writ small, that is.
But of course you cannot so you resort to the intellectually vacuous attempt at diverting the discussion off topic.
New day, same mindless whining and demagoguery from the Libertines.
Want to be taken seriously? Try defending this little piece of unconstitutional, rabidly ignorant piece of total demagoguery produced by your god.
For a supposed "Consitutitonalist" Paul seems wholly ignorant of the concept of balance of powers and Co Equal branches of Govt.
RON PAUL INTRODUCES AMERICAN FREEDOM AGENDA ACT (HR 3835 IH)
American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 3835 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3835
To restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Unchecked power by any branch leads to oppressive transgressions on individual freedoms and ill-considered government policies.
(2) The Founding Fathers enshrined checks and balances in the Constitution to protect against government abuses to derail ill-conceived domestic or foreign endeavors.
(3) Checks and balances make the Nation safer by preventing abuses that would be exploited by Al Qaeda to boost terrorist recruitment, would deter foreign governments from cooperating in defeating international terrorism, and would make the American people reluctant to support aggressive counter-terrorism measures.
(4) Checks and balances have withered since 9/11 and an alarming concentration of power has been accumulated in the presidency based on hyper-inflated fears of international terrorism and a desire permanently to alter the equilibrium of power between the three branches of government.
(5) The unprecedented constitutional powers claimed by the President since 9/11 subtracted national security and have been asserted for non-national security purposes.
(6) Experience demonstrates that global terrorism can be thwarted, deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of military commissions or military law.
(7) Congressional oversight of the executive branch is necessary to prevent secret government, which undermines self-government and invites lawlessness and maladministration.
(8) The post-9/11 challenges to checks and balances are unique in the Nation’s history because the war on global terrorism has no discernable end.
(b) Purpose- The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 is intended to restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
SEC. 3. MILITARY COMMISSIONS; ENEMY COMBATANTS; HABEAS CORPUS.
(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.
(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.
(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant.
(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.
SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.
No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.
SEC. 5. INTELLIGENCE GATHERING.
No Federal agency shall gather foreign intelligence in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The President’s constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence is subordinated to this provision.
SEC. 6. PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS.
The House of Representatives and Senate collectively shall enjoy standing to file a declaratory judgment action in an appropriate Federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement that declares the President’s intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because he believes they are unconstitutional.
SEC. 7. KIDNAPPING, DETENTIONS, AND TORTURE ABROAD.
No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President’s belief that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process. A knowing violation of this section shall be punished as a felony punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 2 years.
SEC. 8. JOURNALIST EXCEPTION TO ESPIONAGE ACT.
Nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 shall prohibit a journalist from publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the national security of the United States.
SEC. 9. USE OF SECRET EVIDENCE TO MAKE FOREIGN TERRORIST DESIGNATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other law, secret evidence shall not be used by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing criminal or civil sanctions.
Actually, notice that I was responding to Oberon and not to Eric Blair.
I know how this game is played. I can either 1) post several detailed paragraphs that you will pick apart at a superficial level and subsequently declare victory, or 2) I can decline to do step one, at which time you post something along the lines of "I didn't think so" and declare victory.
I'm not interested in playing your little rhetorical game, so go ahead and call me (and every other conservative who fails to condemn Ron Paul) an idiot and a weed-smoking libertine, declare your victory, and get it over with.
Oh...and don't forget to wipe up with a little Kleenex when you're done.
Actually: Democrats treasure Communism. Liberalism = Communism = Socialism = Marxism = Big Government= Totalitarianism.
Some one should tell Democrat Hillary Clinton, the rest of the Democrats and the rest of America that Socialism has never worked anywhere it has been tried, the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, the killing Fields of Cambodia etc. . socialism /collectivism doesn't work
F. A. Hayek had a remarkable career pointing out the flaws in collectivism. One of his keenest insights was that, paradoxically, any collectivist system necessarily depends on one individual (or small group) to make key social and economic decisions. In contrast, a system based on individualism takes advantage of the aggregate, or 'collective,' information of the whole society; through his actions each participant contributes his own particular, if incomplete, knowledge—information that could never be tapped by the individual at the head of a collectivist state. __________________________________________________
It’s okay, Elk. We’re all one big Freeper family. =]
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.