November 5, 2006 at 9:58 AM #39249
“I’m actually not a leftie, more of a libertarian although I find myself siding with lefties this election cycle.”
The libertarian on the side of lefties is a leftie. You can put lipstick
on the pig, is still a pig. I’m sure you’re for legalizing pot, but don’t
mind to screw the cigarette smokers (great accomplishment of the LEFT!!!). You’re against government intrusion into property rights,
but don’t mind to screw the bar and restaurant owners (another great
accomplishment of the LEFT!!!). Let the left get rid of the Patriot Act
(as they indicated before), so some suicide maniacs can freely blow up
Christmas shoppers in malls. The new American Left are a bunch of
neo-bolsheviks with one goal in mind, to destroy the only defender of
Liberty, America. Siding with the left is the ultimate hypocrisy.
L ThekNovember 5, 2006 at 11:47 AM #39253LA_RenterParticipant
Would it be anymore hypocritical than siding with this GOP. The current administration has the cloak of conservatism but they are anything but, they just want to replace the lefts big government with their own big government which is being forged by religious fundamentalist. They make LBJ look frugal and have recklessly increased our debt. I am for keeping the American people secure but I have never seen such zeal to take away our freedoms in the name of that security. The degree that we give up our freedoms is the degree that the terrorist win. Here is an excerpt from General Tommy Franks from 2003, and the “successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq” quote is very much in question in 2006.
“Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.
Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, “… the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.
Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.
But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.”
L Thek in the event something like this happens, are you going to be leading the charge in favor of a military form of government?? Are we not trotting down this path now? How can America defend Liberty if we lose it on our own soil?November 5, 2006 at 12:26 PM #39258PerryChaseParticipant
jg, the story of the university president is fascinating. It would make a great novel. It reminds me of the movie _Damage_ with Jeremy Irons and Juliette Binoche (also based on a novel).
LA Renter, I agree with you. In my opinion, the Patriot Act is leading us down the path to a military government (aka fascism). The price of liberty is that we have some prostitution, some drugs, some crime, and yes, some terrorism. I would rather have that kind of liberty than a world where every action is scrutinized and examined in the name of security.November 5, 2006 at 12:26 PM #39259
“Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.”
I’m not interested about “If my mother-inlaw has a … (you know what),
she is my father-inlaw” comments. There is no one, single case of
violating anyone’s civil liberties by the Patriot Act. Even the ACLU
“L Thek in the event something like this happens, are you going to be leading the charge in favor of a military form of government??”
The American Constitution is stronger than a theory of a few military
professionals. I trust the civilian leadership and oversee of military.
An all volunteer military will never turn against the liberty of American
people and the Constitution. I can’t repeat enough, the results are in,
the evidence is clear, all the infringemens of liberty are originated by
L ThekNovember 5, 2006 at 6:02 PM #39263no_such_realityParticipant
There is no one, single case of
violating anyone’s civil liberties by the Patriot Act.
You are uninformed.
Brandon Mayfield is the Portland Lawyers that was falsely imprisoned and then had his house and belongings searched under the patriot act.
In addition, several foriegn nationals have been returned to their countries without ANY charges having been filed even though they were detained for months.
The reason there isn’t more backlash on the patriot act is the information on anybody charged is kept classified. In addition, anybody taken under the act, subsequently released is also barred from talking about it under provisions of the act that make talking about any activities under the act a crime.November 5, 2006 at 8:50 PM #39268
Non of those cases has anything to do with the Patriot Act.
This is another typical leftist lie. To learn more, read
and digest the actual Patriot Act, not a silly leftist blog.
L ThekNovember 6, 2006 at 7:40 AM #39282no_such_realityParticipant
L-Thek, it’s BS to say we can only use your approved sources. The Patriot Act is responsible for Brandon.
The Patriot Act requires no oversight, that’s a fundamental flaw.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.