how the american left is incompatible with constitutional liberty

[Adivi]

Uhh, interventionism and State building is a LIBERAL foreign policy, and goes against what the Founders stood for. Or do you adopt the Liberal non-historical approach to Constituational interpretation as well?

So we should always go by what the founding fathers thought, despite the fact that they lived in a radically different world from ours? If so, then I guess we should reverse every single law, bill, and act that wasn't explicitly approved by one of the founding fathers.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

1) do you think gay people should have the same rights as straight people?

2) Do you think that recreational drugs should be made legal?

3) Are you for or against the death penalty?

4) Do you believe a women has the right to terminate a pregnancy?

5) Are you in favor of warentless wire taps being allowed by the federal government?

I'm just curious about what you mean by liberty.

1. It's a state issue. Let the voters of individual states decide instead of federal bureaucrats. That being said, my religious convictions wouldn't allow me to support gay marriage. That being said, if the voters in my state thought otherwise, I'd have no choice but to go along with it.

2. Again. It's a state issue. Let the voters decide instead of federal bureaucrats. That being said, I don't have a problem with marijuana although I'd personally never smoke the crap. I am against against narcotics and opiates, but if voters wanted to legalize them, let it be done.

3. Another state issue. I am personally for the death penalty. Let the voters of individual states decide.

4. State issue again. Personally the only way I'd support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy was if she was raped. I personally don't believe a right to terminate human life exists when you have concentual sex with another (the risk of pregnancy is part of the deed). I realize this would bring up issues (lots of women would claim rape to abort babies, but these are my personal beliefs). Let the voters decide.

5. Foreigners calling into and out of the united states aren't protected by our constitutional liberties. It's a sketchy issue for me personally to let the government moniter calls, but I believe there are some sacrifices we must make as Americans in times of war. There should be a great deal of oversight to prevent wrong doing on the part of the government.

 

[Adivi]

LonesomeTexan, what do you think should be a federal issue?

5. Foreigners calling into and out of the united states aren't protected by our constitutional liberties.

Yes, but the Americans that they're talking to are protected by them..

It's a sketchy issue for me personally to let the government moniter calls, but I believe there are some sacrifices we must make as Americans in times of war. There should be a great deal of oversight to prevent wrong doing on the part of the government.

Like... perhaps some sort of warrant system.

 

[notto]

1. It's a state issue. Let the voters of individual states decide instead of federal bureaucrats. That being said, my religious convictions wouldn't allow me to support gay marriage. That being said, if the voters in my state thought otherwise, I'd have no choice but to go along with it.

It is not the liberals who are trying to make this a federal constitution issue.

2. Again. It's a state issue. Let the voters decide instead of federal bureaucrats. That being said, I don't have a problem with marijuana although I'd personally never smoke the crap. I am against against narcotics and opiates, but if voters wanted to legalize them, let it be done.

Again, it is not liberals who are busting state approved medical marijuana facilities. It is a right wing backed federal administration.

4. State issue again. Personally the only way I'd support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy was if she was raped. I personally don't believe a right to terminate human life exists when you have concentual sex with another (the risk of pregnancy is part of the deed). I realize this would bring up issues (lots of women would claim rape to abort babies, but these are my personal beliefs). Let the voters decide.

So you don't think the federal constitution has bearing on these rights. Noted.

Of course the conservative viewpoint is the complete opposite.

It would seem that the American right is incompatible with constitutional liberty based on your own assessment.

5. Foreigners calling into and out of the united states aren't protected by our constitutional liberties. It's a sketchy issue for me personally to let the government moniter calls, but I believe there are some sacrifices we must make as Americans in times of war. There should be a great deal of oversight to prevent wrong doing on the part of the government.

So the right point of view is that people should be willing to trade liberty for the security of the government ?

Didn't you just say that made them crybabies in another thread?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=44387235&postcount=28

 

[tulc]

Personally the only way I'd support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy was if she was raped.

Sooo...the baby deserves to die for the crimes of the father?
tulc(doesn't think that's sounds fair)

 

[tulc]

1. It's a state issue. Let the voters of individual states decide instead of federal bureaucrats. That being said, my religious convictions wouldn't allow me to support gay marriage. That being said, if the voters in my state thought otherwise, I'd have no choice but to go along with it.

2. Again. It's a state issue. Let the voters decide instead of federal bureaucrats. That being said, I don't have a problem with marijuana although I'd personally never smoke the crap. I am against against narcotics and opiates, but if voters wanted to legalize them, let it be done.

3. Another state issue. I am personally for the death penalty. Let the voters of individual states decide.

4. State issue again. Personally the only way I'd support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy was if she was raped. I personally don't believe a right to terminate human life exists when you have concentual sex with another (the risk of pregnancy is part of the deed). I realize this would bring up issues (lots of women would claim rape to abort babies, but these are my personal beliefs). Let the voters decide.

5. Foreigners calling into and out of the united states aren't protected by our constitutional liberties. It's a sketchy issue for me personally to let the government moniter calls, but I believe there are some sacrifices we must make as Americans in times of war. There should be a great deal of oversight to prevent wrong doing on the part of the government. (emph. added)

Anyone else find it ironic how many rights are to be determined by voters? It seems what you really want isn't freedom, it's to be reassured others agree with your views.
tulc(I could be wrong, I just tend to get nervous when other people get to decide how I live my life)

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Anyone else find it ironic how many rights are to be determined by voters? It seems what you really want isn't freedom, it's to be reassured others agree with your views.
tulc(I could be wrong, I just tend to get nervous when other people get to decide how I live my life)

it's called democracy. I don't need the liberal elites telling me what my rights are. I can read the constitution just fine thank you. powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states.

 

[notto]

it's called democracy. I don't need the liberal elites telling me what my rights are. I can read the constitution just fine thank you. powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states.

Unless the laws they pass are unconstitutional and violate personal freedoms guaranteed to citizens of the US.

Voters don't decide constitutionality. That is for federal courts to decide.

 

[praying]

I stand corrected.

However I dont think that the idea of Christmas is the same as it was when it was established as a federal holiday

On that we agree.

 

[praying]

1. It's a state issue. Let the voters of individual states decide instead of federal bureaucrats. That being said, my religious convictions wouldn't allow me to support gay marriage. That being said, if the voters in my state thought otherwise, I'd have no choice but to go along with it.

2. Again. It's a state issue. Let the voters decide instead of federal bureaucrats. That being said, I don't have a problem with marijuana although I'd personally never smoke the crap. I am against against narcotics and opiates, but if voters wanted to legalize them, let it be done.

3. Another state issue. I am personally for the death penalty. Let the voters of individual states decide.

4. State issue again. Personally the only way I'd support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy was if she was raped. I personally don't believe a right to terminate human life exists when you have concentual sex with another (the risk of pregnancy is part of the deed). I realize this would bring up issues (lots of women would claim rape to abort babies, but these are my personal beliefs). Let the voters decide.

5. Foreigners calling into and out of the united states aren't protected by our constitutional liberties. It's a sketchy issue for me personally to let the government moniter calls, but I believe there are some sacrifices we must make as Americans in times of war. There should be a great deal of oversight to prevent wrong doing on the part of the government.

I am curious regarding your answer to question 6 about flag burning. Did you just miss it or is there a reason you didn't answer?

 

[LonesomeTexan]

It is not the liberals who are trying to make this a federal constitution issue.
Again, it is not liberals who are busting state approved medical marijuana facilities. It is a right wing backed federal administration.
So you don't think the federal constitution has bearing on these rights. Noted.

Of course the conservative viewpoint is the complete opposite.

It would seem that the American right is incompatible with constitutional liberty based on your own assessment.



So the right point of view is that people should be willing to trade liberty for the security of the government ?

Didn't you just say that made them crybabies in another thread?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=44387235&postcount=28

no. true federalists believe in the will of the people. the republican party doesn't represent liberty (though it does a better job than the godless democrats).

If you don't like the federal government getting involved in state matter like marijuana, do something about it.

It took federal involvement to end the horrific practice of slavery. Our country could very well need it to put an end to abortion. As president, I'd sign an amendment outlawing abortion, but all I really want is a repeal of Roe V. Wade. It was perhaps the most pervasively evil an unconstitutional supreme court decision in history.

I respect the commander in chief's greatest objective of preserving American life in a time of war. The patriot act passed by the vote of congress. our elected officials realized that some sacrifices are needed when the nation is at war.

 

[praying]

semantics. the American left (liberal/conservative/whatever u want to call them) is a direct threat to the liberty brave patriots fought so hard for.

Just because you keep repeating it isn't going ot make it true.

The "conservative" Bush administration has done more to threaten your personal liberties in 8 years than any action of any liberal over the past 50 years.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

I am curious regarding your answer to question 6 about flag burning. Did you just miss it or is there a reason you didn't answer?

he must have put in a quick edit after I quoted his post.

Flag burning ought to be protected under free speech, as unamerican as it is. I can't believe the ungrateful people living here would stoop to that level. Only a pathetic individual would choose to stay in a country that they hate enough to burn the flag of.

 

[praying]

he must have put in a quick edit after I quoted his post.

Flag burning ought to be protected under free speech, as unamerican as it is. I can't believe the ungrateful people living here would stoop to that level. Only a pathetic individual would choose to stay in a country that they hate enough to burn the flag of.

I have never burned a flag and can't think of any issue that would make me want to, but that is probably only because I just don't understand the attachment that people have to the flag.

I never fly one, in fact I don't own one and have never owned one.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Just because you keep repeating it isn't going ot make it true.

The "conservative" Bush administration has done more to threaten your personal liberties in 8 years than any action of any liberal over the past 50 years.

name one person who's rights have been specifically violated. name one government abuse of the patriot act. now name the millions of unborn who are denied the right to life.

this right here folks is what is wrong with liberalism. they'll kick up a fuss about the commander in chief trying to do his job, but they turn a blind eye to the atrocity of abortion on demand at any and all stages of pregnancy.

 

[mpok1519]

name one person who's rights have been specifically violated. name one government abuse of the patriot act. now name the millions of unborn who are denied the right to life.

lots of people have had their cell phones tapped and medical records checked under the patriot act. I know a few people specifically. they use excuses like 'he was a suspected drug dealer' when there was nothing of the such. also, the patriot act is supposed to protect from terrorists, not drug dealers.

run! 1984 wasn't in the eighties.

also, at my campus, its the young republicans that own the propoganda monopoly.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

lots of people have had their cell phones tapped and medical records checked under the patriot act. I know a few people specifically. they use excuses like 'he was a suspected drug dealer' when there was nothing of the such. also, the patriot act is supposed to protect from terrorists, not drug dealers.

run little boy; 1984 wasn't in the eighties.

also, at my campus, its the young republicans that own the propoganda monopoly.

If true, I'd take the feds to court. Cops have to show they had probable cause to pull a person over. The feds should be no different and if they can't provide probable cause in regards to terrorist links, they ought to be held accountable.

For some reason though, I think you're just blowing smoke up my rear. I've never met a single person who has been violated by the patriot act.

 

[Steezie]

If true, I'd take the feds to court. Cops have to show they had probable cause to pull a person over. The feds should be no different and if they can't provide probable cause in regards to terrorist links, they ought to be held accountable.

For some reason though, I think you're just blowing smoke up my rear. I've never met a single person who has been violated by the patriot act.

The Feds have already been taken to court by, guess who, the ACLU. And for that very reason.

**GASP** The ACLU actually DOES fight for your rights!

 

[praying]

name one person who's rights have been specifically violated. name one government abuse of the patriot act. now name the millions of unborn who are denied the right to life.

I will do that as soon as you provide the evidence that has been asked for in this thread.

this right here folks is what is wrong with liberalism. they'll kick up a fuss about the commander in chief trying to do his job, but they turn a blind eye to the atrocity of abortion on demand at any and all stages of pregnancy.

It is, that's funny because I don't support the legal right to abortion. Funny that when we generalize and assume.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

The Feds have already been taken to court by, guess who, the ACLU. And for that very reason.

**GASP** The ACLU actually DOES fight for your rights!

even the ACLU gets things right on occasion.