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?
Hardly. That same sentence applies to any member of any political party. There are pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats.
Depends on the personal and religious belief of the individual, doesn't it?
Isnt the right to life a primary right? How do you reconcile this statement with your one in post #94 where you said:
"Libertarians support all laws which criminalize the violation of individual rights."
Good point.
For a politician, Paul is quite adept at placing reason above emotion and focus groups.
I believe I said AC*L*U. Nice try though.
The question of whether the unborn have them very much is, for all people, regardless of party or ideology. It is based on religious or personal belief.
You should apologize because you took a cheap shot...as is your style...and that is all I'm going to say on the subject.
Thats not true for legal purposes, but regardless, you didn't answer my question.
Absurd. A country that doesn't believe in the death penalty metting out the death penalty to another nation because of its death penalty?
Please....try a better analogy. That one is absurd.
And I said A*C*U.
I guess you don't like when evidence is presented that doesn't agree with your slant.
Have you ever READ Roe v Wade? The state has a compelling interest in the life of the child in the 3 trimester. It means they CAN ban it. Where do you guys come up with this stuff. You throw your shit to the wall and hope something will stick? Can you people support ANY of your silly ideas with facts or logic?
The Rose Bowl fix was nothing for this group of powerful leaders! LOL....
Not according to your earlier statement.
"Libertarians support all laws which criminalize the violation of individual rights."
But then I thought you would at least be logical in your debate.
Yes.
How do you reconcile this statement with your one in post #94 where you said: "Libertarians support all laws which criminalize the violation of individual rights."
Easy - Congress is given purview over three crimes and only three crimes - treason, piracy and counterfeiting.
Laws against all other crimes are the proper role of states and localities, provided they do not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Let me give you a little lesson in ethics, since you obviously need it.
If you put quotation marks around what you're saying someone said, it had better be a direct quote. As in, the exact words. No, it is NOT acceptible to switch words around. I said "it really isn't", not "it isn't really". What I actually said is significantly more emphatic, and I mean it to be emphatic. The word sedition does not appear in the United States Constitution. I know this because I already have looked it up. Yes, some of us do things like that.
You can find a copy of the Constitution here. Hit Ctrl-F, type in sedition (if you can manage to spell it right) and hit find. If you WebTV people can do something that basic, it'll say "Finished searching the document," or something like that. That means the word isn't there.
Do you know what the definition of subjective is? You just used it whether you know it or not.
A rhetorical question would be "Why does Great Britain oppose the extradition of Osama if he could get the death penalty, when they fully support the killing of Afghani children by American bombs?" ;)
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.