Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64
  1. #21  
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    My completely unscientific and dormant gut FEELING is that most people here did not choose JM. I would have gone for Fred or Huckabee. JM wasn't even in my top four.
    Maybe not, but your fellow travellers out there did, and most of you are going to vote for him next week. Besides, you think Fred and Huck don't want to redistribute wealth? Or are you just more comfortable with the things and people they want to redistribute wealth to?


    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    Heard it on the Great One's online stream from his show today, this is pure insanity.

    "But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. "

    When I heard him say that I almost spit water all over my laptop. Is he serious? A charter of "negative liberties"....sweet Lord if this man believes this to be true imagine the nutjobs he'll try to get on the Supreme Court. :eek:
    It's a fairly common way of putting things. Negative liberties being things like freedom of speech or religion the right to bear arms. Things you have unless the government interferes. Positive liberties require government intervention. Things like the right to free healthcare or the right to vote.

    Or to put it another way, a negative liberty is a freedom from government interference, a positive liberty is a freedom from anything else: Freedom from fear and freedom from want as St. Roosevelt put it.

    If anything, it's surprising to hear a dirty commie put things that way. Usually they don't recognize a difference between positive and negative liberties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    You're not voting in this one either.
    I have voted in every election since I was 18. Registered to vote on my birthday. I am a citizen and I take said citizenship seriously. Registered to be called for jury duty as well.

    Happy to say that if I was a US citizen I wouldn't be staying home, either

    Whats your excuse?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by FeebMaster View Post
    It's a fairly common way of putting things. Negative liberties being things like freedom of speech or religion the right to bear arms. Things you have unless the government interferes. Positive liberties require government intervention. Things like the right to free healthcare or the right to vote.

    Or to put it another way, a negative liberty is a freedom from government interference, a positive liberty is a freedom from anything else: Freedom from fear and freedom from want as St. Roosevelt put it.

    If anything, it's surprising to hear a dirty commie put things that way. Usually they don't recognize a difference between positive and negative liberties.
    It's a wording I don't agree with, but come on Feeb even you know that's a stretch....we all know what he's getting at here. He views the Constitution as a "fatally flawed" document, he said so himself, I heard it. How's he even going to swear to uphold the Constitution when he doesn't even believe in it?

    I took my oath of enlistment and re-enlistment swearing to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, Foreign and Domestic. Kinda peeves me off when morons like Barry have zero respect for it. :mad:
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    I have voted in every election since I was 18. Registered to vote on my birthday. I am a citizen and I take said citizenship seriously. Registered to be called for jury duty as well.

    Happy to say that if I was a US citizen I wouldn't be staying home, either

    Whats your excuse?
    I'm not batshit crazy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    I'm not batshit crazy.
    You sure???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    It's a wording I don't agree with, but come on Feeb even you know that's a stretch....we all know what he's getting at here. He views the Constitution as a "fatally flawed" document, he said so himself, I heard it. How's he even going to swear to uphold the Constitution when he doesn't even believe in it?
    I'm just saying that what he said and you highlighted was true. The Constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights, is a charter of negative liberties. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt for a second that Obama or McCain or anyone else running for office, even Palin, wouldn't toss every single one of those liberties out the window in favor of their favorite positive liberties. They have to. Respecting negative liberties would require them to do nothing, or worse, reduce the government's power, and they are simply not capable of that.

    Besides, the Constitution is a fatally flawed document. Honestly, would you rather he lie to you like McCain? Tell you that he believes in the Constitution and will uphold it and then stab you in the back with more gun control or ratchet up the war on drugs or something?

    Frankly, disgusting as the commie and his policies are, he's more honest about it than most politicians. Certainly more so than your guys.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    You sure???
    Not when it comes to voting, at least.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by FeebMaster View Post
    Besides, the Constitution is a fatally flawed document. Honestly, would you rather he lie to you like McCain? Tell you that he believes in the Constitution and will uphold it and then stab you in the back with more gun control or ratchet up the war on drugs or something?

    Frankly, disgusting as the commie and his policies are, he's more honest about it than most politicians. Certainly more so than your guys.
    How is it fatally flawed? Exactly what about the proclimation of our most sacred liberties is flawed? And McCain wouldn't stab the american people in the back with gun control, he's pro-gun.

    They aren't my guys too Feeb, I'm registered Independent and I voted for Bob Barr. I don't trust the majority of those in Washington further then I can throw 'em.
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    How is it fatally flawed? Exactly what about the proclimation of our most sacred liberties is flawed?
    Have you taken a look at the federal government lately? How much does it resemble the government layed out in the Constitution? Does it even remotely care about protecting those sacred liberties?

    No, the Constitution is hopelessly flawed. For one thing, it should never have allowed for amendment without the unanimous consent of the states. For another, it probably should have spelled out an explicit right for a state to secede. Not that those would have prevented the government we have now, but it might have delayed it for a few extra years.

    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    And McCain wouldn't stab the american people in the back with gun control, he's pro-gun.
    At best, he won't pass any more gun control. Even that's wishful thinking as far as I'm concerned. Seeing a Republican pass another gun ban is about the only reason I can think of to look forward to another Republican in the White House.

    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    They aren't my guys too Feeb, I'm registered Independent and I voted for Bob Barr. I don't trust the majority of those in Washington further then I can throw 'em.
    Bob Barr the gun grabbing drug warrior. Oh how the Libertarians have fallen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. "

    When I heard him say that I almost spit water all over my laptop. Is he serious? A charter of "negative liberties"....sweet Lord if this man believes this to be true imagine the nutjobs he'll try to get on the Supreme Court. :eek:
    So...essentially...If I understand him correctly, he believes in a system where the federal government will define a list of things you can do, and everything else will be considered illegal save those things defined by the fed ?

    Do I have that about right?
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by FeebMaster View Post
    For another, it probably should have spelled out an explicit right for a state to secede. Not that those would have prevented the government we have now, but it might have delayed it for a few extra years.
    I saw an argument spelled out in a Thomas Wood's book that the states did have the right to secede because of the 10th amendment and the fact that most states included a clause in their ratification of the Const. allowing them to leave the republic if they wanted.

    ....but thanks to Lincoln the fed forever solidified it's preeminance.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •