Calling all Conservatives.

[shanek]

Let's be clear here, do sovereign rights include being able to lay down in the street and stop traffic

No. Let's be clear here: are you saying that all of those arrested were doing this?

 

[shanek]

What makes you think its a him? But seriously, do you think that the majority of the protests at either convention were unorganized? Who are they? Some we know and some we don't know. I could rattle off some names but I doubt its necessary.

I know one of them: The Manhattan Libertarian Party. Are you really saying that Libertarians would want to violate the freedom of speech and assembly of the Demopublicans by using force to prevent their conventions from running?

Now, they (like all Libertarians) would prevent them from spending taxpayer money on them, but that's a different issue entirely.

 

[shanek]

As an activist, I have met a few some folks who would fall into the category of 'let's protest, any protest will do'...

Or, in a much more classic line:

"What are you rebelling against?"

"Whaddya got?"

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

That is funny. Such sheep.

I generally don't attend protest. I couldn't get out of work to be there and I generally don't agree with the people who come out to protest.

Although the half naked woman that was here in the city protesting animal rights was interesting. The pictures, not the message.

IU saw the pictures of the ACT up peeps and except for one redhead all I can say is YUK!

 

[merphie]

IU saw the pictures of the ACT up peeps and except for one redhead all I can say is YUK!

Hey the girl they had here was brunette and she was very hot. The only thing they reported on the news was whether or not she was violating the law. She was nude except for some well placed paint.

 

[billydkid]

C-span

I love C-Span because they have all the stuff on you can't see anywhere else - alternate voices and boring stuff that nobody likes but dorks like me. They are current replaying a discussion at some university with a panel of high profile conservatives. As I have mentioned, I am personally pretty conservative and think that traditional values are a good thing. However, I think it is a very bad thing to use the government to dictate your values to other people.

Anyway, the moderator - sorry I don't remember his name but he is commonly on Fox as a commentator - listed off traditional conservative values and included on that list was "smaller government". To me the term "smaller government" refers not merely the size and cost of government, but more significantly the degree of its intrusiveness into our lives. Clearly on both counts the people who call themselves conservatives today can hardly, honestly, call themselves advocates of smaller government.

I wish in the name of basic honesty they would give up that conceit. Their real agenda is to make America a reflection of their moral viewpoint - just as do the liberals. I just simply can not understand why noone ever calls them on that. They seem inclined to believe that freedom means the right to impose their viewpoint on the rest of America - the very thing they accuse the left (rightfully so) of doing. I just find it all very, very frustrating.

For ages we have heard about what is thought of as the traditional left constituency (gays, minorities, women, disabled) being disenfranchised. And more recently we have heard about how disenfranchised the traditional right has been. Personally I believe it is men and women like myself who are most disenfranchised in the sense that absolutely nowhere in the mainstream do we hear our views expressed. The closest thing we have are the Libertarians who are routinely dismissed as wackos. The single party I am aware of that represents genuine American values as I understand them, that champions liberty above all else and who represents core values of most Americans at heart is the one voice we truly never hear. I find it all very discouraging. my besk, BDK

 

[merphie]

Re: C-span

The Bill of Rights was meant to protect the people you don't agree with. No one seems to believe in Freedom any more.

We have people all the time trying to impose thier views on everyone else. (Special interest groups) They try all kinds of methods to do this. Most of the time they use the law to impose thier ideals.

This really shows when it comes to homosexuals. Now they are going to propose a amendment which would take away rights instead of giving them. My state even has a bill this November for this very thing. Even though I am not homosexual, I believe in the freedom of people should do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I suppose I have this view point because I am a athiest.

I find it disturbing that more people don't get more involved to change the way things are in their government. Somewhere they said that the USA has only a 36% voter turn out. It seems that the Republicans and Democrats are becoming so alike that it is almost impossible to tell their platforms apart.

I don't see how two parties could accurately show the opinions of the majority of Americans. Perhaps we have all become sheep and just follow the shepard that the minorities elect president?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: C-span

This really shows when it comes to homosexuals. Now they are going to propose a amendment which would take away rights instead of giving them.

Sorry if I sound like a pendant, but I think this point is no less important than the points you make: THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS. You HAVE rights simply because you're a human being. The first amendment doesnt say "the people are hereby granted freedom of speech," it says that Congress shall make no law abridging it. The second amendment doesn't say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is hereby granted," it says that this right "shall not be infringed." Rights are assumed to exist already, independent of anything in the Constitution.

If the Constitution doesn't give you rights, then how can it take them away? This amendment, if passed (not bloody likely), will NOT take away your rights, it will just give the government the authority to violate them.

My state even has a bill this November for this very thing.

Your state doesn't give you rights, either.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: C-span

Sorry if I sound like a pendant, but I think this point is no less important than the points you make: THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS. You HAVE rights simply because you're a human being. The first amendment doesnt say "the people are hereby granted freedom of speech," it says that Congress shall make no law abridging it. The second amendment doesn't say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is hereby granted," it says that this right "shall not be infringed." Rights are assumed to exist already, independent of anything in the Constitution.

If the Constitution doesn't give you rights, then how can it take them away? This amendment, if passed (not bloody likely), will NOT take away your rights, it will just give the government the authority to violate them.

Your state doesn't give you rights, either.

My dear Shanek. Not this again. I will give you as much to say that in America we are born with certain rights. These rights are futher regulated by the government and states. If they can not give rights then why can't homosexuals marry?

They may not give rights, but they they certainly can take them away.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: C-span

My dear Shanek. Not this again.

Oh, yes, not the founding principles of our country again...

I just completely object to the idea that there is any human authority with the power over my rights. I find the very idea offensive and borderline tyrannical.

If they can not give rights then why can't homosexuals marry?

Because their rights are being violated. They have the right to marry, but they are prevented by force from getting married.

Before the Civil War, no one needed the government's permission to get married. George Washington did not have a marriage license. Neither did Abraham Lincoln. You just proposed, got the friends and family together, made an announcement to the community, had some guy in a funny hat say "man and wife," and maybe write it down in the family Bible. No government anywhere.

After the Civil War, some people didn't like the fact that blacks could (gasp!) marry whites! (Blacks marrying blacks was okay...kind of like animal husandry. They have to breed, I guess...) So the first marriage license laws were passed, to prevent exactly that from happening. They were, from the very beginning, racist and oppressive.

The solution here is to get rid of government intrusion into our most private lives. That way, if you're a gay couple and can find someone to marry you, bully for you. Likewise, if you can get your employer or your insurance company to recognize your marriage and give you benefits, wonderful. But no one should be forced into anything, one way or the other.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: C-span

Oh, yes, not the founding principles of our country again...

I just completely object to the idea that there is any human authority with the power over my rights. I find the very idea offensive and borderline tyrannical.

I think we just have a difference of opinion. I agree with your statement. Maybe I should rephase. The government can give/take rights with the consent of the people.

Because their rights are being violated. They have the right to marry, but they are prevented by force from getting married.

Before the Civil War, no one needed the government's permission to get married. George Washington did not have a marriage license. Neither did Abraham Lincoln. You just proposed, got the friends and family together, made an announcement to the community, had some guy in a funny hat say "man and wife," and maybe write it down in the family Bible. No government anywhere.

After the Civil War, some people didn't like the fact that blacks could (gasp!) marry whites! (Blacks marrying blacks was okay...kind of like animal husandry. They have to breed, I guess...) So the first marriage license laws were passed, to prevent exactly that from happening. They were, from the very beginning, racist and oppressive.

The solution here is to get rid of government intrusion into our most private lives. That way, if you're a gay couple and can find someone to marry you, bully for you. Likewise, if you can get your employer or your insurance company to recognize your marriage and give you benefits, wonderful. But no one should be forced into anything, one way or the other.

I didn't know that but it sounds plausible. After the civil war they had gun registrations and more restrictive laws. This included the banning of "Saturday Night Specials" or cheap handguns. (Sound familar?) This was all in place to prevent newly freed slaves from owning guns. (Although the laws didn't effect the KKK) They still viewed these people as slaves or animals and didn't want them to have any means to fight back. This and other things helped pass the 14th amendment. They feared the exact thing that happened. The Deacons of Defense took up arms to meet the KKK head on. It worked. BTW, that didn't happen after the civil war. That was 1968.

I agree with your statement and the government should be out of this area as well as others. I guess this leads back to my initial statement. As you pointed out, Marriage license are taking freedom away. They no longer discriminate against blacks in this manner, but not they are after a class of people who perfer the same sex. History repeating itself?

Since the "Moral Majority" see this as an OK infringement then they allow (and even encourage) the government to restrict our rights.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Rob Lister:

What makes you think its a him? But seriously, do you think that the majority of the protests at either convention were unorganized? Who are they? Some we know and some we don't know. I could rattle off some names but I doubt its necessary.

But it is. Obviously we know the organisations that had a presence, and obviously they're organised because a) they're organisations and b) if they weren't they wouldn't all get to the coach on time with all the banners and beer. What I want to know is what I should be looking for under my bed. Or is this a new ploy : nameless as well as faceless, and thus more dreadful? Whatever you fear, they are it. The Room 101 ploy. I can see that working on the proles.

Interesting aside, one of the news channels (fox, cnn, msnbc, I forget) did a man-on-the-street interview on the day before the repub convention. It appeared (to my ear, I only listen) to be uncut/unedited. The reporter was randomly asking protesters what specifically they were here to protest. The majority of the replies went along the lines 'we haven't been told yet'.

This stretches credulity way beyond my means. Weren't these "sheep" the ones that were brought out by the puppet-masters for the anti-war demonstrations? So they at least know about the war, and that they're agin it. These people are not Republicans, and thus are, to your mind, thoroughly ignorant of current affairs, but that's to your mind. Given that they're actually there, and not sat at home for beer and football, they are at least activists, so the idea that they don't know what they're there for just doesn't make sense.

I found it amusing.

I find it incredible.

 

[CapelDodger]

from merphie:

I find it disturbing that more people don't get more involved to change the way things are in their government. Somewhere they said that the USA has only a 36% voter turn out. It seems that the Republicans and Democrats are becoming so alike that it is almost impossible to tell their platforms apart.

What disturbs me are the way that policy differences are ignored by the media, and the influence of Karl Rove and his ilk. Winning elections is now simply a job, and has nothing to do with actual policies. Bush will make the US "Safer, Stronger, Better" - the rhetorical troika. Kerry will "flip-flop", never went to Vietnam and speaks French - the Rove troika. No wonder so many people don't vote, and no wonder the transcendent glory of democracy is so hard for the US to sell to the world in the light of this farce.

The Bill of Rights was meant to protect the people you don't agree with. No one seems to believe in Freedom any more.

I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death my right to tell you so.

 

[merphie]

from merphie:What disturbs me are the way that policy differences are ignored by the media, and the influence of Karl Rove and his ilk. Winning elections is now simply a job, and has nothing to do with actual policies. Bush will make the US "Safer, Stronger, Better" - the rhetorical troika. Kerry will "flip-flop", never went to Vietnam and speaks French - the Rove troika. No wonder so many people don't vote, and no wonder the transcendent glory of democracy is so hard for the US to sell to the world in the light of this farce.

I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death my right to tell you so.

I could agree witht he part about the media.
That's why I said seems like. Perhaps present company is excluded?

 

[CapelDodger]

from merphie:

I could agree witht he part about the media.
That's why I said seems like. Perhaps present company is excluded?

Present company at least uses the InterNet.

 

[merphie]

Present company at least uses the InterNet.

huh?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Sorry, I have been down due to the hurricane clusterfuge in Fla.
It's nice to see a few folks view the incidents in NY as disturbing as I do and that the usual gang of idiots dropped out early in the thread. I know this is now old news but I would like to express sentiments that have gnawed at me for a week.

Shanak , Liked your Analise's but I agree with "They may not give rights, but they they certainly can take them away."
There has never ( AFAIK) an example of the government restoring freedoms that have had taken away . Case in point ....The income Tax. It was supposed to be a temporary, emergency shoring up of the economy in a time of war that would be rescinded upon cessation of hostilities............Hmmm I use 1040EZ, You?

Many people on the board who have 1/2 of a brain ( and some agent provocateurs, aka trolls) think they have me pigeonholed.
I am a Libertarian. That means ( for the slowest ) I believe in basically total social freedoms while recognizing that we must have a standing army ( to defend our nation, not to kill kids for profit for some greedy , spoiled son of a ) and keep commerce flowing ala infrastructure.So I enjoyed the feedback and opinions , meanwhile back at the circle jerk we're in trouble.

Please vote.