Unpopular
Not to be the voice of pessimism, but does anyone really believe America will be "Free" 20 years from now?
30 years from now?
Have we not pushed the envelope of "Freedom" too far? That by lying idly by, allowing "Progressive" change to occur, it may be too late to take it all back? A tea party is pretty much out of the question-- the government would only send in troops and shoot us all. Does anyone recall Kent State?
Are we really "Free"? Is this still "America"?
Let's talk about the Bill of Rights. Why do you suppose the Framers chose to protect speech? And what is it about speech that needs protecting? What KIND of speech, exactly, needs protecting? I'll tell you... Unpopular speech.
To protect the voice of dissidents, is the highest charge of a just and fair government, and our Founders knew this well. How do I know this? It was the very first thing they addressed in the Bill of Rights:
What's very interesting to note about the First Amendment, is it's subject matter. First, there is the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, comprising this nations right to Freedom of Religion. And here's the interesting part: Immediately after is Freedom of Speech. Now, why do you suppose they included Freedom of Religion in the same Amendment as Freedom of Speech (to say nothing of the Press, Assembling, and Redress)? Were they not then deemed to be of equal importance?
Let's extend this line of thought a little further...
If we've allowed this nation to devolve to such a point that many feel the squashing of Christian liberty is not only Constitutional, but chic in many instances, why should it surprise us that they now want to squash speech? Again, what kind of speech is protected by the First Amendment? Unpopular speech.
Many in this nation already believe they can toss out the Ten Commandments, Portraits of Jesus, and any mention of Jesus in Student sponsored prayer from the public square. And they've largely gotten away with it because Liberalism has been largely responsible for the state of our Public Education System. Too many students graduate from Public Education without an adequate, factual, understanding of our Founding, our Constitution, or our History. By design? Who can say, but it's not relevant to my point, which is: Because of the poor state of education in this country, many citizens see no problem whatsoever with regulating speech. The Fairness Doctrine is a prime example.
What kind of speech does the First Amendment protect? Unpopular speech. Why does the Left and their uneducated myrmidons see no problem in squashing the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz and so many more? Because they see nothing wrong with kicking God out of the classroom. Because they see no problem with stipping the Ten commandments from the Courtroom wall. Because they've felt no compunction in inventing doctrines like "Separation of Church and State" and the "Fairness Doctrine". Both of which go against the grain of real Americans, and blatantly violate, the First Amendment.
If they care nothing for the First Amendment, why should we expect them to respect the others?
So again, I ask you...
Do you really believe America will be free 20... 30... years from now? How much more "Progressive" -ness can this nation absorb and still REMAIN America?
30 years from now?
Have we not pushed the envelope of "Freedom" too far? That by lying idly by, allowing "Progressive" change to occur, it may be too late to take it all back? A tea party is pretty much out of the question-- the government would only send in troops and shoot us all. Does anyone recall Kent State?
Are we really "Free"? Is this still "America"?
Let's talk about the Bill of Rights. Why do you suppose the Framers chose to protect speech? And what is it about speech that needs protecting? What KIND of speech, exactly, needs protecting? I'll tell you... Unpopular speech.
To protect the voice of dissidents, is the highest charge of a just and fair government, and our Founders knew this well. How do I know this? It was the very first thing they addressed in the Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What's very interesting to note about the First Amendment, is it's subject matter. First, there is the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, comprising this nations right to Freedom of Religion. And here's the interesting part: Immediately after is Freedom of Speech. Now, why do you suppose they included Freedom of Religion in the same Amendment as Freedom of Speech (to say nothing of the Press, Assembling, and Redress)? Were they not then deemed to be of equal importance?
Let's extend this line of thought a little further...
If we've allowed this nation to devolve to such a point that many feel the squashing of Christian liberty is not only Constitutional, but chic in many instances, why should it surprise us that they now want to squash speech? Again, what kind of speech is protected by the First Amendment? Unpopular speech.
Many in this nation already believe they can toss out the Ten Commandments, Portraits of Jesus, and any mention of Jesus in Student sponsored prayer from the public square. And they've largely gotten away with it because Liberalism has been largely responsible for the state of our Public Education System. Too many students graduate from Public Education without an adequate, factual, understanding of our Founding, our Constitution, or our History. By design? Who can say, but it's not relevant to my point, which is: Because of the poor state of education in this country, many citizens see no problem whatsoever with regulating speech. The Fairness Doctrine is a prime example.
What kind of speech does the First Amendment protect? Unpopular speech. Why does the Left and their uneducated myrmidons see no problem in squashing the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz and so many more? Because they see nothing wrong with kicking God out of the classroom. Because they see no problem with stipping the Ten commandments from the Courtroom wall. Because they've felt no compunction in inventing doctrines like "Separation of Church and State" and the "Fairness Doctrine". Both of which go against the grain of real Americans, and blatantly violate, the First Amendment.
If they care nothing for the First Amendment, why should we expect them to respect the others?
So again, I ask you...
Do you really believe America will be free 20... 30... years from now? How much more "Progressive" -ness can this nation absorb and still REMAIN America?
from the mind of... Eric | 9:05 PM
45 Comments:
As long as we have the 2nd amendment, we might have a chance.
We will indeed be free. Freer than today, just as we are freer now than we were in the 1940's, just as we were freer then than in 1840's, just as we were freer then than in 1770's.
Despite people who thought we needed to lock up anyone of Japanese descent to protect our way of life. Or deny women the vote. Or kill Indians. Or prop up slavery. Or maintain loyalty to the crown.
We are a nation of ideals. As long as we remain committed to those ideals, we will prosper.
We have a president and a loud contingent of the populace who want to surrender our rights out of fear. Goodbye Habeas. Hello wiretaps. Indefinite detention. Torture. Unprecedented secrecy.
These threats to our liberty, I believe, will pass.
And other things will improve. For example, in 30 years, people will marvel that it took so long for the government to stop telling people who they could marry. Despite people who want government to enforce their beliefs on others.
Freedom marches. We will continue to perfect the vision of the Founding Fathers and extend it to all Americans.
"perfect the vision"
The "Vision" was perfected when the Constitution was ratified. It has been debased by people who believe the Constitution to be a living document. Sorry, it is quite static. Sure, we add to it from time to time, but nothing we add changes the underlying principles of the original document. The only example one could point to in argument would be prohibition (which was repealed) and the Seventeenth Amendment, which has done a grave disservice to individual states.
Instead, with the way things are today, we get abominations like "McCain-Feingold" which tramples all over Free Speech.
When I hear people say the 'Vision must be perfected', it sends a chill up and down my spine. That's what Michael Jackson has tried to do, and look where it got him. He looks like some freak from a Japanese cartoon... One can't help but feel pity for him.
How many face-lifts can THIS nation take and still BE America.
I'm pretty sure we'll be less free in the future. Anybody who knows anything of our history knows that we are less free than in the 1940's or 1840's. Liberties for Americans have slowly been eroded, and as long as we have a congress that makes laws instead of repealing them, this trend won't change. The end is near, unless we have a revolution...
I'm with Solomon in thinking that yes, we will still be free. And that being progressive has only helped make us more free.
We are, in many ways, a better nation than we were in 1776, when slavery was legal and women couldn't vote. Progressive voices have called for an end to state-supported racism, sexism, slavery, Jim Crow laws, disenfranchisement. And many conservative voices were amongst those progressive voices.
We oughtn't try to confuse progressivism with any sort of fascism - progressivism is anti-fascism.
Now, are there a few voices claiming to be progressive who'd go too far in limiting speech? Sure. Just as there are a few "conservative" voices who'd silence free speech ("If you're not with us, you're against us..." "America, Love it or leave it!")
Trader rick, if you asked a woman or a minority or gay person if we're more or less free than 75 years + ago, you'd be laughed at because the answer is obvious for them. If you asked pacifists who were jailed during WWI - or who were just summarily killed - if we're more free than then, the answer is obvious.
So, perhaps it depends upon who you ask and whose history you're reading? Because anyone who knows anything of our history knows that we have made some tremendous gains in free speech.
I'm curious: what freedoms do y'all think have been lost or eroded? Do you have a list of about five freedoms that are more curtailed now than 100 years ago?
For myself, I can list the following improvements:
1. Right to vote for women
2. Right to vote for minorities
3. Freedom to express opposition to a war or a policy
4. Freedom to be openly gay without too much fear of being killed or otherwise oppressed
5. Freedom to drink from any public water fountain
6. Freedom NOT to have to ride in the back of the bus
7. Freedom from fear of being lynched for the "crime" of being black and talking to a white lady or of being too uppity
8. Freedom to be a woman and take a job as a doctor, lawyer or pretty much any field of her choosing
9. The right to clean water has been codified and we've been made more free from others' pollutants
10. The right to clean air has been codified and we've been made more free from others' pollutants
For starters. Those are some pretty seriously significant gains and I'd go back to those days for nothing. Thank God! for progressive voices and others who weren't satisfied with the status quo of disenfranchisement, Jim Crow, Corporate rights to pollute, etc! Thank God, indeed!
What in the eorld are you talking about EL? What speech is being threatened by the government? Corporations stifle more speech than the government does. And ain't that ironic? The vaunted free market wants freedom for uitself and not for the workers who make it profitable.
Hell yes we'll be free. Freer than ever. Maybe under different political geography. But free.
Amen on the Second Amendment. We may need it to protect the First.
As for the staticness of the Bill of Rights: Bull muffins. Then the First Amendment only applies to the hand presses of the day. Not to the Internet. Not to anything else. Especially not to this amorphous concept of "the press" as in the institution of news-for-profit. Just the physical, static presses that were in use when the amendment was crafted. And if that's not what you mean, EL, then you really don't mean what you say about the Constitution being "static." It does live. Thank God/
I remain unswayed Dan. Especially since Jim Crow was a Progressive (as in "Democratic") imposition on the Constitution. The south, still bitter over their losses after the Civil War, saw their livelihoods and way of life threatened by a huge black population given the power to vote in 1870 via the 15th Amendment. These southern states overthrew (as in: voted out) their state and local governments in favor of a Democratic platform of white-protectionism and establishing Jim Crow to directly contravene the Constitution. Jim Crow was the product of Democratic bigotry. The Ku Klux Klan was the product of Democratic bigotry. It took Republicans to finally push for a renewal of Civil Rights in the late 50's and 60's. Democrats have managed to rewrite history and claim the mantle of 'Champions of Civil Rights' when nothing could be further from the truth. That is sad, historical, fact.
In some respects America IS more free, but in many others we are LESS free. And the growing list of restrictions on "Free" America is becoming more and more stifling to Freedom.
"Goodbye Habeas. Hello wiretaps. Indefinite detention. Torture. Unprecedented secrecy"???
Do you seriously think protecting our nation's security inhibits our freedom?
Think about this: If we don't wiretap terrorists, If we don't detain terrorists, if we don't interrogate terrorists, and if we don't keep national security secrets from terrorists, in 20 or 30 years, after the terrorists have won (and sawed your head off for being a dissident, Solomon),we will have as much freedom as anyone who is not a Muslim has in Islam today. None.
The only freedom under their particular brand of Islam is the freedom of your head from your body.
“Especially since Jim Crow was a Progressive (as in "Democratic") imposition on the Constitution.”
Jim Crow may have been a Democratic device, but it was not a progressive one, EL. Come on, you know perhaps better than many that words have meanings.
Progressive:
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.
I imagine that if I were living in the Civil War days, I’d have been a Republican, because they were the progressive party of the day. That is not the case now. If you want to make a case against the Dems of 130 years ago, I’ll join you in decrying their racist ways.
But I have provided a list of how things have improved (which you, no doubt, agree with) as far as our liberties. What some of us are still wondering is how in the world do you think we’re experiencing an erosion of liberties due to progressives? Which liberties have eroded?
And supposing you can come up with any at all, do they even begin to compare to the impressive progressive improvements of the last 100+ years?
Yes, El should know better. In many ways the Republican party was the progressive party in the 1800's. Remember Teddy Roosevelt?
The Ku Klux Klan was a product of conservative fear and bigotry.
Yeah, that was the Democratic south, angry at the Republican party for reconstruction. A lot like Republican anger today about immigration, integration, affirmative action, etc.
But parties change and switch roles over time as the issues and the electorate change. They're just brand names. Nixon's southern strategy clinched the switch in the south on race issues.
And you bet your ass there are many times in history when I would've voted Republican. Just not in the last 80 years or so.
And Mark,
You're missing the point. The founding fathers were scared to death of the presidency becoming a dictatorship, that's why they had checks and balances, a transparent government, and rights to due process enshrined in the constitution. But what Bush did was bypass many of those checks and balances and shroud his administration in secrecy. And give himself the right to label you an enemy combatant and detain and torture you without giving you any right to challenge your detention. Without being tried, without being convicted, just being accused by the president. How would you feel about that if it was Bill Clinton in office?
And Mark, of course I'm not against wiretapping terrorists. It's warrantless wiretaps- giving the president the right to wiretap anyone he wants without any court oversight- that I object to.
Giving up our principles out of fear is the greatest sign of disrespect to the country and its founders that I can think of.
Let me see if I can jumpstart a list of ways that our liberties might be perceived to have eroded...
1. We Christians used to be able to freely post our Ten Commandments and crèches up in town squares and city halls without worrying about it being questioned or even removed! Of course, Muslim Americans or Jewish Americans or other minority religions as well as subsets within Christianity would not ALL have enjoyed this “liberty.”
2. We Christians used to be able to pray in schools and public events without worrying about having it questioned (assuming our prayer fit in to an acceptable range of expression – we Christians couldn’t have prayed Mark Twain’s War Prayer without having it questioned, for instance)
3. Because of attitudinal changes, people are not as free to make disgusting remarks (ie, racist, sexist, homophobic) – there are no real laws generally prohibiting such talk, but the people’s tolerance for hate talk is lower
4. Conversely, we are less able to be free from foul ideals and language such as expressed in many rap songs, pop songs, country songs; as well as on TV but here again, this is more of an attitudinal change than legal changes – we’re less willing to ban these sorts of offensive language and/or ideals
…that’s what I can think of off the top of my head. Now, if we expand it to include liberties lost due to “conservative” and/or libertarian influences, I could include things such as Chapter 11 in NAFTA, which usurps local gov’ts sovereignty in favor of corporations, or that we continue to lose the liberty of clean air and water (we do pollute at a slower rate, but we have no freedom from pollution in general). But that’s a loss of liberty of a different sort than I think Eric was getting at.
Looking at this list, there are some things to be concerned about, but I don’t think they really compare to the tremendous gains in liberty made by progressive efforts over the last century. These losses are losses due to balancing liberties (ie, I want to have the liberty to NOT have my children exposed to a teacher’s prayer vs that teacher’s right to pray) and not nearly comparable to the gains made by progressives against slavery, racism, disenfranchisement, etc.
Am I missing some greater erosion of liberties or are those the sorts of losses you are talking about?
My use of "Progressive" was a jeer directed at Liberals who are trying to escape the negative connotations of their present label.
Yes, words have meaning. They can also convey subtleties in speech, which you seem to not have grasped.
...nothing? Trader Rick? Eric? Ms Green?
No list of what liberties you fear are eroding?
"Do you seriously think protecting our nation's security inhibits our freedom?"
do you seriously think we have to give up our freedoms to be safe?
KEvron
There is a severe lack of freedom of movement due to the "progressive" idea of removing religion, particularly Christianity, from the public square and schools. Since this tragic occurrence, there has been nothing of equal influence to replace it. Instead, we have "MY TRUTH", because as we are taught by progressive thinkers who visit here, truth is relative. Thus, the "MY TRUTH" of some people have made it dangerous to travel into or through certain areas of our country for fear of being terrorized by people who's truth is different from mine.
I have lost the ability to protect my self, my loved ones and my property by progressives who felt I was not responsible or mature enough to carry a firearm. (this of course is not true of every state, I just happen to live amongst "progressives" who've outnumbered the sane and rational.)
Because of "progressives" I have lost the freedom to speak my mind as freely as I deem appropriate because they have ruled what's appropriate and what isn't. I have lost the freedom to protest the debauchery of your average "gay pride" parade where children are exposed to vile acts of all kinds in the name of "tolerance". Tolerance for my views on the matter have been greatly restricted.
As mentioned earlier, political speech has been restricted through McCain/Feingold, and the Fairness Doctrine will do even more damage there if allowed to become policy.
One is no longer safe in one's own property thanks to changes in eminent domain laws.
I have lost the right to full control in the raising of my own child, as the extent of parental notification laws in some states are extremely prohibitive for the parents, some states force the lies of homosexuality upon children as young as kindergarten age, and I recently read of a Circuit Court judge somewhere (the 9th probably, I mean who else is this asinine?) who stated that parents don't have sole rights for educating their kids.
Worse than any lame claim of an offense by the appearance of Christian symbols in a Christian land (rational conservative Jews and Muslims aren't bothered by such things, only the progressives are.), is the fact that every convenience store exhibits pornographic tapes and magazines too often in plain view, as well as ads on my computer, provocative dress of young women and girls, and other envelope pushing that is becoming harder and harder a thing from which I can shield my kid.
And lastly, since I don't feel like sickening myself further, thanks to progressives, I have far less control of how my tax dollars are spent by having far more things for which I don't want my tax dollars being spent.
Just a coupld of corrections, please.
Bush has onl suspended habeus corpus for scumbags at Gitmo or any other detainee considered an enemy combatant. Abraham Lincoln suspended it for every American. I won't compare the two men, but I see no reason to suspect that Bush would use it, or any other strategy to protect us, in any more malevolent way than would Lincoln.
The government doesn't tell anyone who they can marry or who they can't. Everyone has the same rights in marriage. The state does have the right to determine who and what it sanctions or licenses. Not everyone can get a license to drive, carry a gun, own and operate a liquor store or nightclub, etc, etc. Not everyone has the right to form a union of its own making and call it a marriage and receive the bennies allowed real marriages. You, your sister, her boyfriend, his dog and three other people can't get a license to marry each other in one big union of people. They, too, aren't discriminated against.
How do corporations stifle speech? Really, I'm serious. Aside from outright illegal stuff, that is.
Of course the 1st doesn't apply to only handpresses. Whaddya thinkin?
It's not the tools used, it's the words said or not said. For example, the 1st was intended to protect dissenting speech against the feds. Now, thanks to progressives, it means I can say f**k on TV, sell porn, and crap like that. Not what it was supposed to do. A perversion of its intent.
I don't owe you a list, Dan. Marshall felt compelled to rise to your bait, but I'm still not swayed by your argument. It's the same cheap parlor trick you bring to all debates, attempting to take the high ground while thigh deep in moral ambiguities. I choose not to play your game because the rules are stacked against me-- I can't win.
Marshall made mention of a very telling book on another post, David Limbaugh's "Persecution". It's on my book shelf as well. There is too much documentation to support the contention that "Progressive" forces in this nation seek to squelch and stamp out all Christian expression.
But I can't open your heart to the truth of this, Dan.
I can't even open your eyes.
I can't make you see anything you don't wish to see... feel anything you don't wish to feel.
If you choose to keep your eyes closed, you will walk in darkness. If you choose to keep your heart closed, you will live in dark ignorance.
Your list is meaningless by simple virtue of Marshall's list, and the fact that I could rattle out just as many instances of where we are less free. Your list proves nothing except that you are trapped behind an opaque ideology that prevents you from not only opening your eyes, but your mind and heart as well.
No. I don't owe you a list, but you owe yourself a little honest objectivity.
I didn't know Marshall was mentally unstable. The christianity thing was a sign sure. ;-) Or maybe he's a former felon. Those are pretty much the only qualifications to keep someone from owning a gun. NOW carrying a gun everywhere you go is curtailed by law. Was that what he was were referring to? Does he feel threatened at Wal-Mart? Is his church in a dangerous neighborhood? Perhaps he just wants to be ready in case murdering mongol hordes stream across the countryside.
Maybe he's also confused about ideas like parental control software, and video tapes, and the free market. If Marshall wants his children to live in a sanitized idealic 1950's sitcom, that's his prerogative. There are all sorts of products and options out there to let him live in his fantasy world. But that isn't what he wants. He wants everyone else to live there too.
That's what this is post is really about. For almost 200 years Christianity ruled the country. It was like the first child in the household. Christians got their way, socially, morally, culturally. But now there's new ideas to share the country with, and like a spoiled first child Christians are pouting. Why aren't homosexuals locked in the closet? >:-( Why don't women just stay home and cook? :-$ Why can't things be like they used to be? :@
GROW UP!
Eric said:
"I don't owe you a list, Dan."
It's your blog. You don't owe me anything. You can write what you wish.
But, if you're going to make the wild accusation that we're losing our liberties due to progressives and our liberties will possibly be gone within 30 years because of progressives, one would think that you would support that.
If you want to just make crazy allegations, that's fine. I just thought you were more rational than that.
"It's the same cheap parlor trick you bring to all debates, attempting to take the high ground while thigh deep in moral ambiguities."
Asking you to support what appear to me to be wild accusations with some reality-based facts is a parlor trick? Where I live it's just called "discussion."
If a fella approaches me on the street here in Louisville and says, "Tomorrow the world's going to end!!" then I might quite reasonably ask him, "What makes you think so?" If he just rambles about the wrath of God or global warming, then I can see he's not basing it on anything solid, just some hypotheses with no support.
If on the other hand he says, "Because there's an election and I'm a Republican!!" then I get a little laugh and catch his joke.
It's just discussion, Eric. No parlor tricks. You and others here have made some pretty serious allegations. I was just asking for some support.
Why the hostility towards me, brother?
Dan, This new found enlightenment that you talk about finding is nothing but willing deception that you have fallen into or deliberately walked into. Your method of trying to force people into falling into your trap is very irritating too, if you don't realize that either. Your mind is totally closed and hence, you are impossible to dialog or debate with. You rattle off opinions and think yours are the only ones with value, sorry.....buddy.
Now, as you noted, at least Marshall tried to make the case. I'm with Ben, though. I'm not sure that I see much validity in them.
Marshall said:
"Thus, the "MY TRUTH" of some people have made it dangerous to travel into or through certain areas of our country for fear of being terrorized by people who's truth is different from mine."
???
Now, I know for some gays and some minorities, it is still not safe to travel openly everywhere throughout the country, but where in the US is it dangerous to travel because of "your truth"?? How are people even going to know "your truth" if you're just traveling there?
"I have lost the right to full control in the raising of my own child"
Full control? We never had full control. People use to intervene if they saw someone beating their children, for instance, even back in the day. Now, are people a little more ready to intervene if they see a situation that is borderline abusive? Probably so, but that is a good thing.
Do you have full control (within reason) to teach your children what you want? Sure you do. What gov't agency or progressives are trying to stop you from teaching your children as you wish?
If you're teaching your children to stop bullies by taking a knife to school or teaching them to hate gays or blacks or Christians, then people may intervene - at least to the extent that they expect your children to not speak hatefully at school. But again, that's a good thing and only to be expected.
Are there things taught in school that we don't always agree with (and that's true Left, Right or moderate)? Yes, but that has always been the case. We have more chances today, at least, to choose to opt our children out of certain classes than we used to. At least around here.
"Tolerance for my views on the matter [gay rights] have been greatly restricted."
Yes, there is less tolerance amongst the population at large for what sounds like hateful speech. But the gov't is not stopping you from holding a counter-rally on a gay pride day, nor are progressives.
Now sometimes, there are some who dislike Nazis or the Klan or others they disagree with who are tempted to try to legally stop a rally by them, but generally speaking, the "gov't" is on their side, protecting their right to free speech.
Do you have examples where your right to protest gay pride type events has been stopped by the gov't?
I guess there are two issues here: Tolerance for minority positions amongst the people at large and legal actions against minority positions by the gov't.
I guess I better quit, but I do agree strongly with you, Marshall, that eminent domain has given way too much power to gov't's and corporations (those who've paid off the gov't) and it is a legitimate loss of liberty, or can be.
"Your mind is totally closed and hence, you are impossible to dialog or debate with."
Because I request that people who make wild accusations support them with actual facts, I'm impossible to dialog with? Do you really want me and others to just meekly accept what you have to say with no proof whatsoever?
Who all would you have me meekly submit to, Mom2? Elashley? Yourself? What if some Nazi type was saying that gays and blacks were supporting terrorists? Should I also blindly accept what he's said and join in his crusade?
Whose word should I blindly accept and whose shouldn't I? Please let me know so I can do as you say...
THAT's your list Marshall?
Only one problem: there's no "there" there.
Everything on your list can be characterized as 1) imagined, 2) massively exzaggerated, or 3) just the price you pay for living in a democracy and not getting everything your way.
It's the list of someone desperate to feel oppressed.
You're like Paris Hilton crying for her mommy. Except nobody's sending you to jail.
Grow up, you crybaby. Stop crying wolf.
Come back when you have a real complaint, like my gay friends who opened a bookstore in a small town and had it burned down.
Nice try guys. Jeez, talk about a fantasy world.
In my state, concealed carry is illegal. I am deprived of the right to bear arms. What other possible way can you interpret "to bear arms" other than to carry a weapon? Progressives have decided to deprive me of that right. Perhaps BenT doesn't get the newspapers at his particular rest home, but here in the world, we're aware of murder rates, wackos on mass murder sprees and other episodes where life is threatened that could have been prevented or reduced if there were good, honest citizens allowed to carry weapons. It is for this reason as well that certain areas of Chicago and other towns are dangerous for the average citizen to find themselves. Thus, they have lost the right to enter those areas for fear of personal harm. Progressives took away our rights to defend ourselves. When they took religion out of schools and the public square, and replaced it with the "My Truth" philosophy, we find that the truth by which some people abide is that which says they can take your money, rape your women, kill you for sport. One would have to be mentally unstable to ignore these realities.
Parental notification is routinely voted down, or otherwise inhibited by progressives who are so afraid to lose their right to kill their unborn children that they impede a parent's right to know that their child will subject herself to major surgery. They won't give a kid an aspirin in schools, but they won't prevent them from getting an abortion for any reason. My rights as a parent are trampled by progressives. One would have to be mentally unstable to deny these realities.
There are a number of states, California and Massachusetts that teach the lie of homosexuality to the kids whether the parents approve or not. In fact, parental approval for discussing such a volitile subject is not sought at all. As I mentioned, a judge ruled that parents don't have the ultimate authority over what their kids are taught. Thus, we are deprived the use of the public school system unless we agree to whatever foul indoctrination a given state wishes to impart. Even if we home school or send the kids to a good parochial school that still understands right from wrong, our taxes are used for the support of the public schools without our consent. One would have to be mentally unstable to pretend such things don't exist.
One has to be mentally unstable to think that a nation of higher values than we see today would be something not worth the effort to create.
"do you seriously think we have to give up our freedoms to be safe?"
What freedoms have been taken from you, Kev?
I think, when it comes to security, I'm kind of like the Democrats when they say they don't mind paying higher taxes if it helps the poor people.
I don't mind having my phone tapped or waiting a little longer in line at the airport if it helps stop terrorism. There isn't a thing going on in my personal life that would make anyone suspect that I might be a terrorist. I have nothing to be hide from my Government. Do you?
If you are afraid of Homeland security doing what is necessary to protect you, perhaps you have something to hide?
ER states, "Hell yes we'll be free. Freer than ever. Maybe under different political geography. But free."
One question:
A different political geography? You mean like Sharia law? Cause if the Dems get their way and we give up our rights to protect ourselves from terrorists, that's the political geography we will have to live with.
But to answer your question, Eric, I think we will still be free in 20-30 years. One thing none of us has yet factored in is the indomitable will of the American people to stand united when our inherent freedoms are threatened.
We have survived many threats to our freedom in the past and we will continue to persevere, by the sheer strength of our will.
Have faith in America. We fight and squabble among ourselves, but when the chips are down, we stand firm and united against tyranny.
Mark would give up your right to know why you were being held in prison? How about the right to any sort of trial at all? How about the right to see the evidence against you? These are the basic rights of the US, and they have all been violated for US citizens and legal foreigners on US soil. These violations have been made by the Bush administration.
This is a country of 300-million people. We have a standing military of 1.4-million men, and a reserve of 1.2-million. We have 12 aircraft carriers and 79 submarines. There is no place in the world our devastating power can not reach. There is no country in the world with the exception of Russia and China with enough troops or weapons to destroy our country or even our government.
You don't need to give up your liberties to feel safe. You already are.
These "terrorists" are jokes. Sure occasionally they get it right, but even then we're back on our feet in a few months (Brattain wasn't cowed for even a week). Most of the time they're so inept even terrorist doctors can't accomplish their mission. Remember the guy who wanted to take down the Brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch? Or how about the group in Miami that asked the FBI agent to help them get uniforms?
----
According to the FBI violent crime is down 17.6% in the last 10 years. So you have less to fear there as well.
OK Marshall, I'll bite.
What exactly is the "lie" of homosexuality?
"These are the basic rights of the US, and they have all been violated for US citizens and legal foreigners on US soil".
You are dead wrong. US citizens rights have not been violated. The Terrorists, who by their plans to commit acts of terrorism and because of that, have no rights, are having their phones and computers monitored. US citizens who have done nothing to make anyone suspicious have not lost any rights. And the enemies of the United States deserve to lose any perceived rights they have.
Jose Padilla is a US citizen. He was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan in June 2002. Charges were not filed against him until January 2006.
Yaser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He was also a US citizen. In June 2004, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's attempts to detain Hamdi indefinitely without trial. In September 2004, Hamdi was to Saudi Arabia on the condition that he gave up his US citizenship.
Ali al-Marri is a legal citizen on Quatar who was studying here at college in the US. He was arrested in December 2001. He was givien access to a lawyer in 2004.
Yes these men might be enemies of the US. But two are US citizens and are therefore have the right to just know the charges against them and access to a lawyer. Mr. al-Marri is a foreign citizen legally on US soil and he also has basic rights.
Why is your fear so great that you want to overturn all of our history of equal justice under the law?
Mark, get a handled on political geography in general, and then I'll let you play grown-up. But Sharia has nothing to do with. Ironically, the imposition of Sharia law will happen in this country a lot sooner because of would-be theocrats, not because of the godless.
Let me give this a shot...
Marshall said:
In my state, concealed carry is illegal. I am deprived of the right to bear arms. What other possible way can you interpret "to bear arms" other than to carry a weapon?
1. The right to bear arms is a wide ranging phrase which I'm sure we all agree needs to be defined a bit by we, the people.
2. For instance, we don't want (or at least I don't want) our neighbors to bear nuclear arms and a whole host of other arms.
3. We AGREE that some limitations on arms is a legitimate function of the gov't, as decided by we, the people.
4. Where to draw the line can be and is debated. From what you've said, in your state, they have decided the right to bear arms does not mean that you can carry hidden weapons on you when you are out at large. "They," being the citizenry as a whole.
5. Some people are going to disagree on where we draw lines in any given state on any given topic. You are in the minority, it would appear, in your state.
6. Sometimes, it sucks to be in the minority, but thus is life in a Republic. Would you prefer that the majority accept the minority's opinion on where to draw the line on bearing arms? Which minority should get to make that call? The minority that wants to have no line and all arms are okay for all citizens?
7. I hope you understand and can accept that this is how our republic works. If you don't like it, our wonderful constitution allows you the freedom of speech to try to change the majority opinion and it offers you the freedom of travel to leave to a state or nation more to your liking.
8. A similar argument can be made for most of your concerns about "losses of liberty." These aren't genuine losses of liberty but rather instances of philospical/political minorities not getting their way. Which, I hope, we can all agree is a good thing at least in theory (although none of us likes being in the minority).
For Solomon,
Here's a few:
1) The lie that they can't change.
2) The lie that it's safe.
3) The lie that it would benefit society.
4) The lie that the Bible doesn't prohibit it in every and any form.
No. I will not elaborate (again) as it is off topic. But I thought it proper to answer your direct question.
Dan,
Your comments aren't totally without some merit, but the point has to do with what rights have been lost, and for me I listed those lost by mandate of Dems/lefties/libs/progressives. The Constitution honors my right to bear arms. Idiots like to pretend it means something other than personal weapons for self-protections. Idiots think it's effecient self-protection to carry nuclear weapons or bazookas or any other of the stupid counter examples I've heard before. I'm surprised you even tried to run that stuff as a counter argument.
Marshall, you think there's "some validity" to what I have said? Mighty big of you. But just where in what I've said is there anything but reality?
1. "The right to keep and bear arms" IS broad and vague - undefined, yes?
2. Clearly, banning all arms would be against the Constitution (and I'd oppose it - not that anyone is suggesting that) and clearly we don't want our neighbors owning nukes.
3. The right to bear arms lies somewhere between those two extremes, right?
4. As a result, the People have a right and obligation to set reasonable bounds for that particular Right, correct?
5. The People in your state have done so. They've gone too far, in your minority opinion, not far enough in others' minority position. Regardless of your wishes, the will of the People has been done.
6. And I would assume that you would not wish to impose your minority position upon the majority, in spite of their wishes (just as I would not mandate pacifism, regardless of my position)?
Am I wrong in thinking I'm NOT expressing opinion above, just the facts and reality?
1) The lie that they can't change.
I can't change my sexual orientation. Hell, I could be stranded on an island with the hottest gay men in the world, and I wouldn't have a bit of interest. Why should I t expect a homosexual to change their sexual orientation?
2) The lie that it's safe.
I've never heard that claim. In fact, admonitions to practice safe, monogamous sex or abstain are common. Heterosexual sex isn't "safe" either.
3) The lie that it would benefit society.
If by "it" you mean gay marriage, I think it would. Marriage encourages monogamy and committed, stable relationships. The same thing we want for heterosexual couples.
4) The lie that the Bible doesn't prohibit it in every and any form.
Irrelevant to me. But even so, the Bible prohibits lots of stuff we all do. And homosexuality didn't even make it into the top 10!
The sooner people accept gays as full citizens, the sooner those gay pride rallies that offend you so much will become rarities (just like the civil rights marches of the 1960's have).
solomon, wow, what a misnomer; as for your statement that heterosexual sex is not safe either......it would be if practiced according to the Biblical plan of sex in marriage between two lifetime partners.
As for the homosexual committed relationships, do you remember the first legally married couple in the North East?.....they got a divorce. Guess that is not a perfect plan either, huh?
As for the tolerance for foul language being lower, that is false because in my younger days, men especially would not talk vulgar in front of women. Now, anything goes. Plus, with the gradual insensitivity of tv and movies toward our children, it is far too common with everyone.
Mom2,
They got a divorce. Wow. That never happens in heterosexual couples. This changes everything!
As for practicing sex according to God's plan, maybe you should concentrate on promoting that- the prohibition on adultery actually did make the top 10. Good luck, since adultery has always been rampant, regardless of one's religious affiliation.
I myself have always been monogamous, despite being a heathen.
Your point about safe sex is just another reason to encourage gay marriage, since married gays will be more likely to be monogamous, and thus practice safe sex.
I think you misread the post about foul language. Take another look at it.
Dan,
Once more, and I'll speak slowly this time, this point is in regards to losing rights. I don't argue about how I lost them, just that I did. And it was the result of liberal/progressive thought. Conservatives understand what "to bear arms" means. There's no confusion whatsoever except for that which was injected into the argument by libs. I defy you to find anything from the framers that would suggest anything other than my right to carry a weapon for protection. They had canons during the Revolution. Do you recall it to be common that anyone would drag around their own canon? Even with the time it took to prepare the firearms of the time for shooting, don't you think a canon would prove even more difficult for self-defense? The nuke-next-door argument is crap. The object of concealed carry is to protect the self. How is that accomplished with a nuke? "Hey honey! I think someone's in the house!" "No problem. Just remember we have to turn the keys at the same time!"
Sol,
1) If you're hetero, there's no need to. That's the right orientation. Homosex is deviant behavior in that it deviates from the norm. And thousands have left the lifestyle. But it doesn't matter whether you could or couldn't change yours (I believe you ideed could if you wanted to) but that they say they can't. They can and it happens all the time.
2) Well now you have heard it. It shows up when they try to indoctrinate the kids. Even barring STDs, the practices of homosex are harmful and damaging to the human body. Not so with hetero sex, aside from acts that both engage in. But as Mom2 said, when properly viewed, hetero sex is not inherently damaging to the human body.
3) Not borne out by observations of the Netherlands. At the very least, let them be the laboratory for this outrageous cultural experiment.
4) Irrelevant to you is irrelevant to the point, which is gay lies. And the fact that many fall short of perfection is no argument for enabling more bad behavior. In fact, it's a terrible one. God doesn't rank sin. He just says "Don't do it."
The sooner people accept gays as full citizens the sooner our country will go to hell in a handbag. That is, if we accept them on their terms. The fact is they are already full citizens with all the same rights you and I have. And yeah, I know why they disagree with that statement. They're wrong.
But I don't think this is on topic, so I'll leave it there.
"The nuke-next-door argument is crap"
Yes, and those who use it do so because it is the only argument they have. They see the lie as having teeth-- and in some respects it does in that many pliable people see sense in such nonsensical statements.
Granted. No honest citizen needs automatic weaponry for self-defense. But too many on the left, including hypocrites like Ms O'Donnell, seek to ban ALL weapons.
I don't want to own a Howitzer. I don't need a Howitzer. But the Constitution gives me the right to own a 45 cal. Smith & Wesson, or a Glock 9mm.
To my mind, people who use the "Personal Nuke" platitude have already lost the argument.
Once more, and I'll speak slowly this time, the range between a total arms ban and nukes for everyone is just that - the range from one extreme to the other.
No one is arguing that your side wants everyone to have nukes!! It was just a range to show the extreme positions on both sides. In the real world, that would represent two extremes.
In the real world, we the People have to decide where to draw the line between those two extremes. In the real world, we have.
In some places, the line has been drawn (by the People - not progressives, nor conservatives, but all of us in all our various nooks and crannies along the political spectrum) and in MA's case, he doesn't like where the line has been drawn.
And that's fine. Leave your state, if you don't like it, or work for change. Just don't go making this a Progressive boogeyman bashing post. Your beef is not with progressives but with The People. Take it up with them.
In my city, for instance, one of the most consistenly strongest sources of calls for more restrictive gun access comes from members of conservative black churches in the inner city. They see the damage being done by gun violence and that is their idea as to how to deal with it.
That is the point, MA. The People in your state drew the line where they felt appropriate - and I'm sure the People there in support of stronger gun control is similar to the People here: A mix of all stripes of people who are concerned about gun violence.
Take it up with the People.
Dan,
Tell me the truth. You just get a charge out of purposely missing the point, don't you? Even conceding the possibility that there are, just like near you, some conservative factions in the inner city who support gun control as a result of their experiences, there could not be a law passed without there being a majority of libs to help it along. Keeping me unarmed is simply a lib position and certainly NOT a conservative one. In addition, any position that attempts to disavow the 2nd Amendment provision that recognizes my right to carry a weapon is an idiotic position that ignores simple English.
Post a Comment
<< Home