Posted on 12/10/2001 3:03:32 PM PST by Captal de Buch
Are the liberal Democrats becoming the black helicopter loonies of the new millennium?
Remember the black helicopter loonies of the 90’s? Linda Thompson, Mark from Michigan and the other crazies, remember how all their stupid ranting seem to stick to conservatives like Velcro? Those bozos created all sorts of credibility problems for anyone who spoke up about issues in the Clinton administration. Any time a conservative criticized the Clinton administration he or she would be dismissed as just another Clinton hating black helicopter loony. This dismissible conservative credibility in the eyes of the American public seemed to embolden Clinton to do what he damn well pleased without fear of retribution from the public, even to the point of lying to Congress and the American people.
Is the shoe on the other foot now?
Charles Schumer, Maxine Waters and others from the left appear have taken up the mantel of un-credible loonies whose words and actions are destroying any credibility the Democrats have when it comes to criticizing the Republicans and the Bush administration. Their ranting doesn’t seem to change Bush’s popularity ratings, in fact they make it look like the Democratic Party agenda is simply a sour grapes plot to get Bush.
Do the Republicans realize this? If they do realize this can they take advantage of the situation or will the innate Republican fear of doing something stupid turn into another round of not doing anything at all?
Well we agree on that too. Scary. lol
Huh. Wouldn't have figured you as a Democrat.
There is no "natural right" to a trial by a jury of your peers. That is a right guaranteed by the Constitution to American citizens. Even that right is not absolute, as members of the military are subject to an entirely different set of rules, of which they are made aware when they sign up.
Non-citizens are not entitled to the protection of the American Constitution.
Have you ever read the bible? Just curious.
I've read the Bible. In it, Jesus said to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's. He didn't come to found an earthly kingdom.
America is not a theocracy, and I thank God every day for that.
Paul's ACLU rating is more like the democrats anyway. How would you know the difference?
So crossing state lines for purpose of sale is not commerce?
Eiher it is, or it isn't. You can't say that " it isn't REALLY mentioned "; as that is akin to being " a lttle pregnant."
For those who believe that an unborn is indeed a "life," there is no question that it is entitled to the same individual rights as anyone else. Hence groups like Libertarians for Life.
A minority of libertarians do not support this position, seeing that life only begins at some point further along in the development - anywhere from the first formation of neurological system to the first trimester to viability on to actual birth. Their reasons vary with each. They, of course, do not see abortion prior to their "line in the sand" as a violation of the unborn's rights, because, defining it not a life, it therefore has none of the same protections as a post-born (or post-first trimester, or post, viability, etc.)
Constitutionally, abortion is outside the purview of the federal government, so the Libertarian Party rightly opposes federal laws outlawing or permitting abortion.
Eiher it is, or it isn't. You can't say that " it isn't REALLY mentioned "; as that is akin to being " a little pregnant."
He still voted against banning partial birth abortion. Thats about as evil, democratic and statist as you can get in my book. And you?
So rights (or lack thereof) are subjective? In other words, Sinkspur is right if he feels that aliens are not entitled to a jury trial? And so is Demidog because he thinks they are? Its a tie?
Crossing state lines with no purpose of sale is indeed not commerce.
Such a ban would be as unconstitutional as Roe v. Wade.
Most of the world's nations believe that an individual has an inalienable right not to be executed - regardless of the crime.
Do these nations have the right, nay - the responsibility, to secure this right and invade the U.S.? Or do you believe in national sovereignty?
It's part of the right of self defense. The fact that the founders detailed how that right would be protected in no way means that it isn't a natural right.
The right to face your accusers and to have the evidence publically presented is about having the opportunity to defend yourself from the government itself.
What you want to believe is that there are people who do not have a right to defend themselves from our government.
And you want to believe that Americans are morally and genetically superior to everyone else due to the mere fact that somebody wrote something down on a piece of paper.
Don't pretend you respect those words.
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.