Civil Liberties

[Airman1270 0]

The subject has been coming up in relation to the Bush administration, the Patriot Act, etc. (In fact, whenever a Republican/conservative is in the White House, this dead straw herring is dusted off and waved in our faces, as if we're all very close to being herded into boxcars.)

Yet, when I consider the long list of things were were free to do 30 years ago, but which are illegal now, I see the results of legislation pushed primarily by the Democrat left. A short list includes such things as HOV lanes, seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, smoking restrictions imposed on privately-owned businesses, the redefinition of what is considered "drunk driving," restrictions on political campaigns, restrictions on gun rights, restrictions on religious expression, campus speech codes, jack-booted political correctness, laws against using cell phones while driving, and a law enforcement mind set that believes it's perfectly acceptable to stop people and demand their ID simply because they happen to be walking along the road late at night. While the left is passionate about "free speech" as long as it has something to do with profanity, pornography, or blasphemy, they'll shout down opposing opinions on campus. And let's not forget that it was a Democrat president and a Democrat-controlled Congress that, in 1994, made it a federal crime to offer an opinion on a public sidewalk if there happens to be an abortion clinic nearby.

I can't find very many examples of laws being passed forcing us to comply with the desires of the "far right." Conservatives, especially religious folks, are quickly accused of "imposing" something if they dare make a suggestion, but if you don't do what liberals tell you to do you end up in front of a judge; and if you resist, the police are authorized to shoot you.

In fact, if the Bill of Rights was formally repealed, how much different would our lives be than they are at present? True, to date they're not quartering troops in our homes, but meanwhile you can get fired or prosecuted for saying something that someone else doen't like; you can be arrested for carrying a gun with ZERO harmful intent; you can be ejected from a shopping mall for striking up a conversation with another customer about Jesus; and while driving home you can have your car searched by a K-9 unit for something as innocuous as passing through the highway with out-of-state tags or having a "Greatful Dead" bumper sticker.

True, many of these laws are passed with Republican votes, primarily because lawmakers who don't support such laws are accused of "not caring" about (fill in the blank - "women," "minorities," "the children," "the poor,", etc.) But the fact is that if Democrats don't want these laws, they don't get passed.

You may not think your life is being affected by creeping secular humanism, but if your DZ requires you to use an AAD or won't allow you to jump a rig with a belly band or a round reserve, you're not as "free" as you may think you want to be.

If you still believe the myth that we are a "free country," try riding a bike through Boston without a helmet or walking on a public beach at night. We may be more free than many other countries, but we're going in the wrong direction. It's not primarily the George Bush/Newt Gingrich/Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell/Rush Limbaugh faction of American politics that is doing this to you.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Jon S.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

nothing at all to do with those being power making laws to benefit themselves.

It's all a vast left wing conspiracy.

Except that America is so close to neofascism that the Left here is considered moderate conservative in the rest of the Western World and the Replicans are seen as extremely scary individuals. That's not a potshot at the Right, its how the US is seen by Europe and more mature countries that have already made all these stupid mistakes in their national history.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

You note a couple of times where (IMHO) the biggest restriction we have endured in the past 15 years, has come under the guise of political correctness.

Thought police you know.

Nice post by the way. I look forward to the responces you might get

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

No specifics??


I thought not...........

Maybe coming up??

edited to add....I like all the scarry buzz words!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

So, if two wrongs don't make a right, try three?

Congress is not in the business of increasing freedoms and liberties. Laws restrict conduct, not the other way round. Every law passed by every legislature is another step that detracts from your freedoms.

Guess why the gun lobby is so fiercely opposed to gun laws. It's because they've seen how freedoms have been slowly and incrementally eroded in everything else. Hey, it was cool when smoking was banned on flights of two hours or less. Then four hours. Then all transcontinental. Then intercontinental. Then airports. Then restaurants. Then bars...

Civil liberties? Yeah, slowly taken away piece by piece. And repubs and dems are equally guilty.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Airman1270 0]

...nothing at all to do with those being power making laws to benefit themselves...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This is something I've wondered about for a long time. Must a politician support legislation that harms him personally in order to avoid this accusation?

Example: Lawmaker supports laws which make it easier for companies to do business. This is interpreted as being "against" the average citizen.

I don't accept the premise that the employer/employee relationship is an US vs. THEM
situation. However, this world view is exploited by many office-seekers

I am the little guy. I benefit when employers have more freedom to run their companies as they see fit. They are more likely to hire me if they know they're free to fire me if things don't work out. But when Mr. Democrat starts blathering about imposing more restrictions on "big corporations", forcing them to jump through hoops and justify every decision in court, the employer/employee relationship changes.
I have fewer opportunities, and must endure an exhaustive, insulting process in order to get hired because they can be sued or prosecuted for MY actions as an employee, as well as for firing me if they decide they don't need me.

As an an American consumer, I use oil; I benefit when the oil industry in able to operate freely. When a politician (who has knowledge and experience with the industry) refuses to support further restrictions on the industry, I benefit. But the politician is accused of being "in the pocket of" the industry, of using his official position to enhance his own net wealth. (As if there's something wrong with his net wealth being enhanced by wise public policy decisions that benefit EVERYBODY.)

This is like saying that it would have been wrong to save the Titanic because "the rich" would have disproportionally benefitted from such an effort.

Cheers,
Jon

[Channman 2]

Now, finally a post worth reading and having a discussion. (Airman1270) That must be your AM freq.?

Just want to toss in the ACLU, are they helping to protect or restrict our civil liberties. So far they have been really good at taking our tax dollars through multiple law suits in the pursuit of restricting our liberties, and not being very civil while doing it.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Rush, I'll make a deal. forget I exist.

There's a good chap.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Now, finally a post worth reading and having a discussion. (Airman1270) That must be your AM freq.?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

It was. Been out of radio for a year, but I have a few demos floating around Atlanta. Hope someone will listen to it...

Cheers,
Jon

• Quote

[Channman 2]

I know Kalland is reading your post, but has'nt come up with any good argument yet. Must be cruising the web looking for a article that I'm sure will enlighten us all.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Rush, I'll make a deal. forget I exist.

There's a good chap.

I never forget a face.
funny how you avoid the topic however.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

...nothing at all to do with those being power making laws to benefit themselves...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This is something i've wondered about for a long time. Must a politician support legislation that harms him personally in order to avoid this accusation?

Example: Lawmaker supports laws which make it easier for companies to do business. This is interpreted as being "against" the average citizen.

I don't accept the premise that the employer/employee relationship is an US vs. THEM
situation. However, this world view is exploited by many office-seekers

I am the little guy. I benefit when employers have more freedom to run their companies as they see fit. They are more likely to hire me if they know they're free to fire me if things don't work out. But when Mr. Democrat starts blathering about imposing more restrictions on "big corporations", forcing them to jump through hoops and justify every decision in court, the employer/employee relationship changes.
I have fewer opportunities, and must endure an exhaustive, insulting process in order to get hired because they can be sued or prosecuted for MY actions as an employee, as well as for firing me if they decide they don't need me.

As an an American consumer, I use oil; I benefit when the oil industry in able to operate freely. When a politician (who has knowledge and experience with the industry) refuses to support further restrictions on the industry, I benefit. But the politician is accused of being "in the pocket of" the industry, of using his official position to enhance his own net wealth. (As if there's something wrong with his net wealth being enhanced by wise public policy decisions that benefit EVERYBODY.)

This is like saying that it would have been wrong to save the Titanic because "the rich" would have disproportionally benefitted from such an effort.

Cheers,
Jon

Would you do all my posts for me please??

Another nice one!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

I think the main issue is that people like to be part of a group. Leaders know this. Take any management or sales course and you will be taught how to evoke feelings in the people you are talking to. Evoke the right feelings and you can guide (never manipulate) the other person into an action you find favorable.

If anyone thinks that someone with several million dollars thinks the same way as the guy who's busting his ass 60 hours a week to make ends meet have the same priorities then you're obviously not trying hard enough to not be stupid.

Lets pick up a great Left Wing paranoid fantasy: John Kerry was in Skull and Bones - a secret society with ties to the neocons. Urm. Yeah, he's a rich guy.

The toughest thing for people to see is that the world is not about how you believe it is. We're egocentric creatures and it takes a great deal of stuff to happen for us to get knocked out of the 'our reality is the right way' stuff. Without going into specific posters there are many here who think that way and cannot comprehend alternate philosophies, standards or morals applying.

Easiest way to illustrate it.

My kid at school is taught that 'its about playing the game'.

My friend - who is technically exiled european royalty - is raised to win at all costs - from birth.

Thats why with very very few exceptions you'll ever see a 'real person' as President. It doesnt occur. Normal people are not driven that hard. Win at all costs is exactly that.

Those in power will do things to maintain their power. It's why they'll vote themselves pay hikes while cutting defense or educational programs. It has nothing to do with left or right of the line.

It's the .................uhmmm.......politely: its the guys in the working classes that follow, that adhere to strict definitions as a way to identify themselves. Bush is a great guy, Clinton is a great guy. Bush is satan, Clinton is Satan. Urmmm they're both just people that like to win who have a shitload of money.

If you can't understand how different a reality it is I would suggest to people who might think i'm talking out of my ass that they go work in a country club (or renew their membership to it)... I dont mean the community one, I'm talking about the ones where people like Brad and Buffy hang out and can talk to people named Muffy without laughing out loud and you need an invitation and vote to be lucky enough to pay your $200,000 a year dues.

Of course, thats the same as people who really believe that the playing field is even and that society owes no one anything and it's survival of the fittest.

Well guys, there's your fittest, and they dont give a fuck about any of us - we're a natural resource, like oil, orange juice and timber.

That answer your question?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

I was taught when I was real young that if I spend time worrying about what other people have I would never be happy. You might want to think about that.

The bitterness comes from a position that someone has more than me

Also, in your post you metion that those "lucky enough" to be able to pay a $200,00.00 dues bill. That is another side of your position I totally regect. That is the thought process the left pushes to create the class envy, I'm gonna get you cause your too rich mentality. Most of those with the kind of mean you speak of work harder than I ever will to get that kind of jack.

.....and, I have never gotten a job from a poor man.

Do ,I believe the field is level? No, and I never expect it to be, and I sure as hell do NOT WANT any government sticking it's nose into that field to try and make it so. Why, because that is when the field is trully slanted to someone's advantage. (because they can)
I do the best I can with what I have. I make myself valuable to those I work for. I am only owed and hours pay for and hour work.

Nice debate in any event.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

Rush, without attacking you, is English your first language?

You've managed to totally misrepresent what I've said to an extent where I'll briefly touch on two main points and then leave you to whereever you are.

Im not bitter, I dont believe in luck and I dont think about what other people have except when I start thinking about how people percieve reality - which unfortunately I do too often.

I also wouldnt draw judgements about my politics, my financial situation or my intention of talking about $200,000 a year country clubs. I realize that to you they may symbolize something other than a $200,000 a year country club but to me they symbolize a place where the rich and powerful (not just the rich, who are not part of this argument - or that circle necessarily) gather and exist in a different place.

I'll try this one more time, because I hold out hope for you. First, step away from the Right or Left Wing. This isnt about politics, its about human nature - [redacted sentence].

When I was much younger I would hitch rides in the UK. One evening a nice businessman picked us up (GF got us much better rides)..we start talking about travelling. This nice gentleman said "I understand that you might not have the money to travel, but what about your credit cards?" This guy couldnt understand that no money meant no money.

By the way, you drawing conclusions about my politics or my social status based on idle chatter on a webforum and my love of evil clowns would seem to reinforce my 'people like to label things and belong to groups' comment. You've decided Im poor, bitter and left wing based on what? an opinion that runs contrary to your own? by placing your own prejudices on my words? GM tried it once but on examination we decided he had only had a much bigger penis.

As for your take on society I'd suggest starting with Plato, if you haven't already, and working your way forward. Then we'll talk about what makes an ideal one and why we feel that way, ok?

Sorry mate, thats not my problem.

I'll do stupid my way unapologetically.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Rush, without attacking you, is English your first language?

You've managed to totally misrepresent what I've said to an extent where I'll briefly touch on two main points and then leave you to whereever you are.

Im not bitter, I dont believe in luck and I dont think about what other people have except when I start thinking about how people percieve reality - which unfortunately I do too often.

I also wouldnt draw judgements about my politics, my financial situation or my intention of talking about $200,000 a year country clubs. I realize that to you they may symbolize something other than a $200,000 a year country club but to me they symbolize a place where the rich and powerful (not just the rich, who are not part of this argument - or that circle necessarily) gather and exist in a different place.

I'll try this one more time, because I hold out hope for you. First, step away from the Right or Left Wing. This isnt about politics, its about human nature - [redacted sentence].

When I was much younger I would hitch rides in the UK. One evening a nice businessman picked us up (GF got us much better rides)..we start talking about travelling. This nice gentleman said "I understand that you might not have the money to travel, but what about your credit cards?" This guy couldnt understand that no money meant no money.

By the way, you drawing conclusions about my politics or my social status based on idle chatter on a webforum and my love of evil clowns would seem to reinforce my 'people like to label things and belong to groups' comment. You've decided Im poor, bitter and left wing based on what? an opinion that runs contrary to your own? by placing your own prejudices on my words? GM tried it once but on examination we decided he had only had a much bigger penis.

As for your take on society I'd suggest starting with Plato, if you haven't already, and working your way forward. Then we'll talk about what makes an ideal one and why we feel that way, ok?

Sorry mate, thats not my problem.

I'll do stupid my way unapologetically.

I make no conclusions from where you come or your current status. But I did read what you posted and if I misinterpted them, forgive me.

I was not speaking of left or right in my reply to you (except for the class evny comment) But those that you spoke of in the country club are in a world of thier own as are all the the classes. My piont was only to point out that those that choose to be sad/mad because some one has more than them, will always be sad/mad.

But you did stir me a bit on your resource comment. (If that doesn't direct one to a certin perspective of your thoughts then what will?) But thought that one comment where you say you believe that the working class in nothing more to the rich, well, I don't agree with you at all.

What really gets me in posts such as these however,( and I should not admit it) is when people seem to indicate thier own percived supriority by taking shots at the one they reply to.

Sorry I rambled and jumped around but I do not commint my thoughts to print well. My brain, and I do have one, works faster than my fingers as I spend much time hitting the backspace key

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

I think you misinterpret 'superiority' for 'pressing buttons because I have nothing to prove to anyone'.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I know Kalland is reading your post, but has'nt come up with any good argument yet. Must be cruising the web looking for a article that I'm sure will enlighten us all.

I agree with much of what he wrote.

I think he has a hard time differentiating between government imposed restriction and those imposed by others. The 1st Amendment only prevents the government from restricting your free speech, for example. Nothing in there prevents those who disagree with you from drowning out your speech (although that is bad manners, we do not legislate good manners). Nothing in there says an employer has to employ someone who badmouths him (or her).

Little by little our freedoms ARE being eroded, and these erosions are currently being cheered on by the likes of you, rushmc and gravitymaster. In 10 years time I expect the balance of power will have shifted and you'll be whining about some new Democrat imposed restrictions. So will I.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AlexCrowley 0]

I'll be burning Christians at the stake.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Then why take the shots?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I know Kalland is reading your post, but has'nt come up with any good argument yet. Must be cruising the web looking for a article that I'm sure will enlighten us all.

I agree with much of what he wrote.

I think he has a hard time differentiating between government imposed restriction and those imposed by others. The 1st Amendment only prevents the government from restricting your free speech, for example. Nothing in there prevents those who disagree with you from drowning out your speech (although that is bad manners, we do not legislate good manners). Nothing in there says an employer has to employ someone who badmouths him (or her).

Little by little our freedoms ARE being eroded, and these erosions are currently being cheered on by the likes of you, rushmc and gravitymaster. In 10 years time I expect the balance of power will have shifted and you'll be whining about some new Democrat imposed restrictions. So will I.

You place me very wrongly. I also believe that some of our freedoms are being eroded. I also believe that great institutions in this country are being attacked for the very reasons to continue that erosion. I believe large chunks have already been taken by desions in the supreem court. You seem to think (pardon me if I am incorrect) that they made decisions that advanced freedoms.

I also however look at facts. (I have come to understand ,and again forgive me if I misread you, that you blame government in general. Regardless of who is in power) But to make statements that Bush "lied" make no sense to me when put into full context of what has been happening in the past 15 years.

Anyway, I regret that you put me where you do but hey, I have been mislabled before.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

Personal disclosure is for girly men.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Point taken, but I regret it when I take shots. I think what you speek of can be learned without an air of insult.

Buy the way, even though my political views may be in focus for me, your phyilisophical points do make me think

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlexCrowley 0]

Thanks.

Now lets delete all this happy stuff. It's making me ill.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

take another pill

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln