(emphasis mine). Now I am a libertarian so I am not the friend of either major party on the economic side. But it is clear to me that those in charge of the Republican party are committed to doing away with our fundamental civil liberties, and that Democrats, at least, aren’t committed to that end.
It seems to me that we, as a country, are all too willing to give up civil liberties in the interests of a putative safety from “terrorists”. There is a famous quote about that, something about how a country that gives up freedom for security deserves neither, and I agree with that.
So, anyone care to step in and defend this latest inroad into civil liberties? Anyone?
Roddy
Actually this is one of the key reasons I will not be voting for McCain. I don’t believe he shares the same appreciation of the Constiution that I do and would expect further civil liberty incursions.
In fact he is the proud champion of what I consider to be a terrible abridgement of speech in the guise of campaign finance reform. This is a prime example of a problem, which I admit is a problem, of the intersection of money and politics, that is solved by diminishing our civil rights. There is an idea, that in the case of campaign finance, is shared by members of the right and the left that if the problem is big enough an extra-consitutional solution is OK. I can’t think of any purer version of speech than spending my money to support someone who speaks for me. It seems no different than spending my capital to distribute leaflets or pay a bunch of raggedy college students to picket on my behalf.
I don’t trust Democrats to spend my money sensibly, but the Republicans have lost that constituency through their own spending foolishness. I do trust Democrats to more forcefully separate church and state, be less likely to deny me due process, less likely to abridge my freedom of speech and less lkely to search and seize without cause. Until that changes I guess I am a libertarian Democrat.
That’s the thing. Even if there were no other issues whatsoever, I don’t trust McCain to clean up the mess that Bush, Cheney and Rove made in Justice and the intelligence agencies with the Constitution. Obama is a constitutional scholar. I know he doesn’t like to make waves, but I have to assume he cares about this kind of stuff enough to try to clean this cess pool up, and I personally intend to be on his ass about it from the beginning. The current administration doesn’t care about what I say; they’ve already said their fuck yous to the public, and the public has said “thank you, sir, may I have another?” I hope and pray to Og that this coming administration will be different.
Here are some standard responses that you might get at other boards (not so much here, as these responses are essentially nothing more that logical fallacies)
Attack the source of the article. Go on about how the SF Gate is a miserable, Liberal rag that we should not trust even if it said the sun will rise tomorrow
Simply talk about the dangers of terrorism, without going into what the Justice Dept. plans are.
Try to parse the words in your post so carefully that they lose any rational meaning
Go off on a tangent about the constitution, making a page and a half long post.
“If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to be concerned about”
I, sir, am a northerner. And before you suggest any northern variants, I have an education (and my pride). Youse, you guys, you’uns, etc, Will Not Do. After all, you don’t say “Fuck y’all” or “fuck you’uns.” You say “Fuck you” to each individual.
ETA: I have to go have dinner with my mother, so I will be unable to debate this crucial point for the nonce.
I’ll consider voting Democrat when they actually start reversing the destruction of our Constitutional rights. Until then they are as guilty as the Republicans for everything that is wrong with this country, imho.
Yeah, because I’d rather vote for someone trying to screw me than someone that’s holding me down. (eta- this is sarcasm, btw. I’ve noticed that sometimes the sarcasm meter breaks when I show up)
Seems to me that very rarely will a change in administration result in a repeal of the oppressive policies of the previous. They’ll condemn the actions of the other until they get the power for themselves, then they’ll hold it with all their might.
Two sides of the same coin. Voters put up with (and actively encourage) the charade in DC, thinking that one or the other of the two parties actually means what they say and supports what the voter thinks. Both of them will sacrifice every one of us to get a just little bit more.
The republicans are our betters. They should have ultimate control because they have been chosen by god to lead. They should run the economy, they should have complete authority to check our phones, emails and whatever they decide . Bush went to Iraq because god told him to. Paulson has been selected to be an economic despot. He will have authority to spend about a trillion tax payers dollars. You have the rights that the bosses think you should have. Who are you to question them ?
This in general is why I ended up siding with the Democrats. The hand waving and lies of textualism and originalist interpretation is more suggestive of judicial activism than Constitutional jurisprudence. The courts protect our liberties domestically as much as the military protects them internationally – a successful Republican war on the courts would be like putting Der Trihs in charge of the Pentagon (sorry DT if I’m maligning you): a pitiful weakening of American’s security.
That Obama actually taught Constitutional law implies that despite choosing someone who is likely to lean towards a particular agenda, we are likely to end up with Constitutional giants on the court, not just agenda pushers.
This is the first time I’ve actually been optimistic about an incoming president – that he will (er, assuming Obama wins) be more likely to dismantle or reverse much of the overreaching policies of the past eight years. His hands will be tied in some ways, and I don’t expect massive or overt housecleaning, but I do anticipate (fingers crossed…fingers crossed) a vastly different approach to power.
Unlike what I’d expect in a President Palin administration [shudder]
A sizable fear, though, something that must haunt him in making decisions, is what if? What if something slips by, something that could have been stopped by a warrantless search or other encroachment. Forgetting for the moment the actual harm, could it rile the electorate up to not only vote in a despotic-leaning candidate, but start a second round of evisceration? It’s a political nightmare.
And, I know you’re right. I mean, I knew it before. But it gave me a little frisson of naughty pleasure to use the F-word in that fashion in a serious thread. Forgive me.
Yes. And, please, dear American friends: as I have pled before, please, please, please, please elect Mr. Obama. This world is a frightening place and gets more frightening with each new day, lately. Whatever can be done to cheer us all up, please do it.
Yeah, because I’d rather vote for someone trying to screw me than someone that’s holding me down. (eta- this is sarcasm, btw. I’ve noticed that sometimes the sarcasm meter breaks when I show up)