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?
Unfortunately for you, you have made yet another in a long line of great leaps of logic without any supporting evidence. Good grief. All that cleverness is so shallow.
Non-citizens are routinely asked to leave when their visas expire. No criminal acts. Their time here just runs out.
And the government may certainly hold non-citizens for violations of those visas.
Show me where in the constitution it gioves the government the power to violate anyone's rights.
You believe that non-citizens enjoy the same rights as American citizens. They don't, in which case, when they are asked to leave, no rights are violated.
I hate to bust in here, but I think you should cite the entire sentence to make your point even more firmly:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You're a gutless coward, Demidog.
You believe that Osama bin Laden enjoys the protection of the American Constitution while he kills American citizens.
You can watch your boy, Osama, ADMIT to killing Americans on Wednesday.
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.
The *STATE*, yes. He wasn't talking about a state ban. He was talking about a FEDERAL ban.
His point, which is a valid one, is that abortion, like murder and theft and drivers licenses and a lot of other activities, are STATE matters, up to each STATE to decide for itself. FEDERAL involvement, whether to deny state decisions on the matter (e.g. Roe v Wade) or to override them (e.g. a federal ban on partial birth abortions) is unconstitutional, because the feds are imposing their own will on STATE matters.
Try reading the Constitution some time, it ain't that long or hard to grasp.
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?
I've got a better idea, why don't you try to debate like an adult? And give me one good reason why you feel personally exempt from from the FreeRepublic posting rules (does "NO profanity, NO personal attacks" ring a bell?)
--------------------------------------
I know I'm cranky when it comes to tolerating cowards.
You will have to learn to live with it, being FR's formost.
You might try actually reading Roe v Wade sometime before you spout off about it. It in NO WAY "allows for the federal government to regulate in this area". In fact, it *explicitly* describes this as a state matter:
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.Throughout Roe v Wade, it is made entirely clear that when the Court speaks of "the State", it means that quite literally. It's not a weasel-term for "federal government".
And if the court allows it and you dont vote for it, you're an abortionist as far as I am concerned.
Except that the court *doesn't* allow it (at the federal level), so your attempted point is nonsense.
No silly libertarian theory should trump the right of a human being to live their full life.
Why don't you try arguing a point for a change instead of flinging labels and insults as a poor substitute?
I flagged them in the next message.
---- A rare display of courtesy. -- Your flag highlighted sinkys lack of honor. Thanks in that respect.
The rest of your conduct on this thread however, rivals the spur's.
"I happen to be well known here as a constitutional conservative."
the fact is that you are pretty far from the text of the US Constitution. I view you in the same light as people who want to take my guns, the people who want to tax me into the poor house and use my money to further their unConstitutional agenda, etc etc.
you, sir, are no friend of the Constitution, and I would say that I'm honored to be in the company of those on your "enemies list".
please don't forget to throw the tissue away after your done masterbating all over yourself.
Duh. Your rights end where others' begin. that is why use of force in defense is a right, but initiation of force is not a right.
Absolutely. Until we get it overturned.
Okay. So you would use a usurped power, even if you knew it wrong, to accomplish your goals.
The ends justifies the means.
Hello, Democrat.
What a sad person you are.
A belief, which by definition, is subjective (i.e. not based on some idependently verifiably evidence.)
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.