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?
I am anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. There are people on both sides of the issue in all parties. Including the GOP. Any of those you'd care to label along with Paul?
Don't be intentionally stupid.
Rights are not subjective.
However, the determination of whether the unborn have them very much is.
There is no contradiction.
You belong on my list just for being a Nebraska fan. :)
I'm supposing you haven't read the Constitution.
Otherwise you'd know that Article I, Section 8 makes both unconstitutional.
You cannot build good laws on bad ones.
Apparently not in the case of Great Britain.
Federal laws against murder other than in the federal district would also be unConstitutional.
Actually, that's redundant. Laws against abortion are laws against murder, and thus are a state matter.
Of course people have a right to defend themselves from our government.
But, once they are defeated, as bin Laden will be, we have the right to define how they will be dealt with, given that they opposed us (or, in binLaden's case, killed American citizens).
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.
Where did I say that Americans are morally and genetically superior?
The fact is, however, that we may deal with non-citizen enemies of our country however we choose, subject to the Geneva Convention which we signed.
I had no idea you were such a globalist. You must love the International Court at the Hague.
I don't think Ron Paul is a big fan of the Hague.
So the federal government is suppose to play no role in securing your personal safety?
So the federal government is suppose to play no role in securing your personal/individual safety?
Last time.
Individual rights are objective.
The determination of whether the unborn have them, i.e. are persons, is arrived at by each individual's personal belief, be they conservative, liberal, Christian, atheist, libertarian, Jew, or whatever.
Meaning that they're extreme hyporcrites. Now why would I want to use Great Britain as an example of the proper protection of human rights?
Are you born with rights or did Bush give them to you and can he take them away whenever he sees fit?
Can you not see how silly and childish this is? What's next, "my dad can beat up your dad"?
Only in the three above ennumerated crimes, and in the case of a declared state of war. (also Article I, Section 8)
I encourage you to read the Constitution. It is a better guide than your emotions.
I would include any that didnt vote to ban this proceedure. But the others in congress don't seem to have the following here that Paul does, so we focus on him.
You seemed to understand what I said. I am writing in English. What's the deal?
When you claimed that they have more rights than others who do not happen to be citizens.
Rights are not subjective.
However, the determination of whether the unborn have them very much is.
There is no contradiction.
Yes, we heard a lot of your type during the Florida recount.
"Its not the votes(rights) that count, its the people counting the votes (determining the rights)that count"
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.