How do you see the opposition?

[Jarhead]

But that is a consequence of a democratic system. And all laws can be repealed when the majority changes.

I, for one, am OK with the consequences of our system. They are worth the pros of our system.

Except we're not a Democracy. If we were, Al Gore would of been Presidency in 2000. We're a Constitutional Republic.

I did not say we are a democracy. I said we have a democratic system. Yes, we are a republic.

 

[Foxfyre]

The war on drugs is what government is for; like it or not. Defend and protect. Sorry if those that like to break the law for profit feel it is intrusive.

You use something NOT in the control of the American people like the holocost to things that the American people have control of?

I admire the thinking of a libertarian and agree with much. But I do not agree with your examples of how rights are not rights but privelages.

I'm merely telling you what happens when people say "never again". If "rights" can be taken away from you (War on Drugs, Patriot Act, etc) then they aren't rights.

Yes, they are rights. Rights, as defined by the Founders, are that which require no participation by any other person other than his/her non interference. Among those, as written into the Declaration of Independence, are 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. It was such rights of the people that inspired everything that is included in the Constitution of the United States. It is such rights that had been denied to them that the people took for themselves and resolved to never allow a government or individual to take away from them again.

You seem to think that because governments or individuals can infringe your rights, that the rights don't exist? You seem to think that because bad judgment is employed or mistakes are made that it negates any concept of rights?

If you have a dollar and somebody takes it away from you, does that mean you never had a dollar or that it doesn't exist?

 

[Ravi]

How do you see the opposition?

I usually picture them naked.

 

[Liability]

Rdean made an interesting thread. Not so much for what it tells us about about the topic at hand, as much as it tells us about Rdean.

He seems to feel all employers are Republican, that they hire only like minded people, that they are easlity manipulated, lazy, and cheap. His head holds so many contradictory opinions that it is a miracle he has only one head to hold them all. * * * *

This is rdean you're talking about. As irrational liberoidals go, he really should.

But seriously, if you took away their ability to rely on the cartoonish caricatures and the simple-minded stereotypes they use in place of rational thinking, many of these uber-libs couldn't say a single solitary word about their opposition.

rdean is one of the poster-children for such folks. I can't recall any of his posts where his position is not founded upon a stereotypically biased image as his premise.

 

[Jarhead]

The war on drugs is what government is for; like it or not. Defend and protect. Sorry if those that like to break the law for profit feel it is intrusive.

You use something NOT in the control of the American people like the holocost to things that the American people have control of?

I admire the thinking of a libertarian and agree with much. But I do not agree with your examples of how rights are not rights but privelages.

I'm merely telling you what happens when people say "never again". If "rights" can be taken away from you (War on Drugs, Patriot Act, etc) then they aren't rights.

Yes, they are rights. Rights, as defined by the Founders, are that which require no participation by any other person other than his/her non interference. Among those, as written into the Declaration of Independence, are 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. It was such rights of the people that inspired everything that is included in the Constitution of the United States. It is such rights that had been denied to them that the people took for themselves and resolved to never allow a government or individual to take away from them again.

You seem to think that because governments or individuals can infringe your rights, that the rights don't exist? You seem to think that because bad judgment is employed or mistakes are made that it negates any concept of rights?

If you have a dollar and somebody takes it away from you, does that mean you never had a dollar or that it doesn't exist?

Better way to put it:

If you had a dollar and you opted to spend it, does that mean you did not have the right to keep the dollar if you so choose?

Same with our rights. We elect those that legislate so, in actuality, we choose what rights should no longer be rights. But we do not lose our rights. We opt to forgo them for a greater good.

 

[Flopper]

Finally an intelligent discussion. With a few exceptions these are really good points. I spent 25 years as a Republican and almost as long as a Democrat. The picture painted of the two parties on these message boards are about as far from the truth as you can get. It's just fantasy fueled by half truths. Fun? yes. Constructive? No way. As long as the only point of view you are interested in hearing is your own, you can not have an intelligent discussion. My greatest concern is not the issues, it is inability of each side to work with the opposition even on issues they agree on.

"Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens and then everybody disagrees." Boris Marshalov

 

[Some Guy]

Been meaning to respond for a little bit now.

I'm more of a libertarian, so i'll just quickly hit some points.

Gay marriage: I'd call conservatives either close-minded and/or intolerant on this. If two people, regardless of gender, want to be joined, then why not? As long as they're not infringing on my rights, i don't care. Let them live and be happy together.

Abortion: I fall on both sides. I'd have a hard time looking anyone in the eye who could support late-term abortions. However, i'm no expert, but very early term abortions are a little different. I could understand either side of the argument here though so i don't have strong feelings regarding early term abortions and have no quibbles with contraceptives whatsoever.

Taxes: I have a hard time respecting anyone who thinks that a steeply progressive tax code or re-distributing wealth is "fair." For one, there's very few ways for one to make lots of money alone, so in that respect, they are spreading the wealth around already in the process accumulating their own wealth. Anyone who thinks that someone should be punished or forced to pay more than their fair share (by percentage) is an asshole as they are afforded the same rights and ability under the law the achieve the same success.

A big problem today is the two party system. There really isn't much representation for people like me who generally sides with lefties on social issues and righties on fiscal issues. It seems like by virtue of having to pick one party or the other (for all intents and purposes), people will try to gravitate toward one party even though they don't really agree with everything they say, then defend them on that. Hence why many conservatives are still behind the republican party even though they suck since they're the closest thing to their ideals that actually has a shot at winning. In elections, i'm pretty much forced to side with republicans because fiscal issues are much more important and they're more likely to be on the right side there, though i hate how some preach way too much about social issues, especially gay rights as listed above.

Speaking more so in general than on this board, i don't have much of a problem with liberals in general. I don't have much respect for anyone who favors a nanny state that emulates Robin Hood, but i don't think most people who lean left or identify themselves as liberals think that way. I do think that most sensible liberals are liberals because they do care deeply about social issues and are generally concerned for the welfare of the less fortunate, though their methods for trying to help those less fortunate are often as naive and ineffective as their intentions are good.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm merely telling you what happens when people say "never again". If "rights" can be taken away from you (War on Drugs, Patriot Act, etc) then they aren't rights.

Yes, they are rights. Rights, as defined by the Founders, are that which require no participation by any other person other than his/her non interference. Among those, as written into the Declaration of Independence, are 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. It was such rights of the people that inspired everything that is included in the Constitution of the United States. It is such rights that had been denied to them that the people took for themselves and resolved to never allow a government or individual to take away from them again.

You seem to think that because governments or individuals can infringe your rights, that the rights don't exist? You seem to think that because bad judgment is employed or mistakes are made that it negates any concept of rights?

If you have a dollar and somebody takes it away from you, does that mean you never had a dollar or that it doesn't exist?

Better way to put it:

If you had a dollar and you opted to spend it, does that mean you did not have the right to keep the dollar if you so choose?

Same with our rights. We elect those that legislate so, in actuality, we choose what rights should no longer be rights. But we do not lose our rights. We opt to forgo them for a greater good.

And with much room to debate various pros and cons within it, the drug laws fit into that concept. Should I have the right to drug or drink myself into oblivion as long as I am alone or other adults around me don't mind? Sure.

Do I have the right to endanger or inconvenience anybody else because I'm stoned or impaired? No, because that requires participation or involvement of others and it is their right to choose to not to be endangered or inconvenienced by my actions.

And so within the social contract in which we create the sort of society we wish we have, I might agree to laws infringing on my right to drink or drug myself into oblivion in order to ensure that more people would not have their rights endangered or inconvenienced by the irresponsibility of others. That would be in the interest of the greater good.