Poll: Do you believe any civil liberties will be returned under a fully Democratic federal government?

[Gunslinger08]

Poll.

 

[jonks]

Of course. Guantanamo is going bye bye and right quick.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Unlikely

 

[sonambulo]

Yes.

 

[alien42]

we will not regain all the civil liberties that GWB flushed down the toilet but i believe that we will regain some.

 

[Brainonska511]

I feel like we'll get some back, but not to what it was before GWB.

 

[SparkyJJO]

No we won't. If anything we'll lose more. Obama wants to control your life. You voted him in. Enjoy.

 

[Drako]

Likely we will lose more. The "Fairness Doctrine" comes to mind.

 

[nixium]

You need another choice: Not all of them.

 

[alchemize]

Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

Exactly.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

I agree with you that these are bad things, but you lost me with the bolded part. I live in a state with mandatory minimum sentence laws and every single one of them was pushed through by Republicans, frequently under Kevin Mannix, a far right winger. Democrats are also far more likely to oppose the drug war than their Republican counterparts. Or are you arguing that the drug war and mandatory minimum sentences are a good thing, and the Democrats should be supporting them?

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

Exactly.

+2

 

[JS80]

I'm sorry, what civil liberties did I lose under Bush?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

I agree with you that these are bad things, but you lost me with the bolded part. I live in a state with mandatory minimum sentence laws and every single one of them was pushed through by Republicans, frequently under Kevin Mannix, a far right winger. Democrats are also far more likely to oppose the drug war than their Republican counterparts. Or are you arguing that the drug war and mandatory minimum sentences are a good thing, and the Democrats should be supporting them?

I always thought drug war was a bi-partisan thing.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

I agree with you that these are bad things, but you lost me with the bolded part. I live in a state with mandatory minimum sentence laws and every single one of them was pushed through by Republicans, frequently under Kevin Mannix, a far right winger. Democrats are also far more likely to oppose the drug war than their Republican counterparts. Or are you arguing that the drug war and mandatory minimum sentences are a good thing, and the Democrats should be supporting them?

Narcotics Penalties and Enforcement Act of 1986

Led by Tip O'Neil and the democrat congress....minimum federal manadatory sentences...property seizures, etc.

Good article.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

Just use MA as the benchmark...smoking, gambling, gun laws, mandatory health care that you must pay for...all pretty restrictive policies when compared to states north and south of us....I wouldn't be surprised if this state along with a few others become the model that the Dem party uses for the nation

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Drako
Likely we will lose more. The "Fairness Doctrine" comes to mind.

You better have checked the third poll option.

 

[fskimospy]

You guys need to lay off the right wing talk radio. No matter how many times you guys cry about it, it won't change the fact that Obama is opposed to the fairness doctrine. He's on your side of the issue, and still you freak out.

We aren't going to get back the liberties we lost in terms of warrantless wiretapping, things like that. What will likely end is the continuing assault on the 4th amendment and habeas corpus in the name of fighting terrorism. Not great, but a plus.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

Just use MA as the benchmark...smoking, gambling, gun laws, mandatory health care that you must pay for...all pretty restrictive policies when compared to states north and south of us....I wouldn't be surprised if this state along with a few others become the model that the Dem party uses for the nation

+3

And come to think of it, I can't think of any liberties I've personally lost under Bush that have affected my day to day behavior. Then again, I'm not phoning terrorists overseas so I don't have anything to worry about...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

Just use MA as the benchmark...smoking, gambling, gun laws, mandatory health care that you must pay for...all pretty restrictive policies when compared to states north and south of us....I wouldn't be surprised if this state along with a few others become the model that the Dem party uses for the nation

+3

And come to think of it, I can't think of any liberties I've personally lost under Bush that have affected my day to day behavior. Then again, I'm not phoning terrorists overseas so I don't have anything to worry about...

Yeah seriously, I mean the 4th amendment is just a coverup for criminals anyway. And Habeas Corpus? If you're not giving the president a reason to throw you in jail indefinitely without trial then you don't have anything to worry about either! The Constitution should just say "hey guys, if you're not doing anything wrong the government won't have any reason to come after you" and leave it at that. The bill of rights is a lot of wasted paper.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
We aren't going to get back the liberties we lost in terms of warrantless wiretapping, things like that. What will likely end is the continuing assault on the 4th amendment and habeas corpus in the name of fighting terrorism. Not great, but a plus.

This.

Though I think wiretapping is going to be redefined given that technology has changed so much since the 70's.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: alchemize
Of course not. Dems have a long history of selective civil liberties, usually targeted at their base.

They are completely happy to ban behaviors (smoking), free speech (music, right wing radio), explicit constitutional rights (gun ownership, property rights), unreasonable search and seizure and unconstitutional punishment (drug war support, Tip O'Neil w/ min mandatory sentences), infringe on the rights of business owners by creating an ever increasing list of protected classes, I could go on but you get the idea.

Just use MA as the benchmark...smoking, gambling, gun laws, mandatory health care that you must pay for...all pretty restrictive policies when compared to states north and south of us....I wouldn't be surprised if this state along with a few others become the model that the Dem party uses for the nation

+3

And come to think of it, I can't think of any liberties I've personally lost under Bush that have affected my day to day behavior. Then again, I'm not phoning terrorists overseas so I don't have anything to worry about...

Yeah seriously, I mean the 4th amendment is just a coverup for criminals anyway. And Habeas Corpus? If you're not giving the president a reason to throw you in jail indefinitely without trial then you don't have anything to worry about either! The Constitution should just say "hey guys, if you're not doing anything wrong the government won't have any reason to come after you" and leave it at that. The bill of rights is a lot of wasted paper.

Yah, it's happened to a grand total of 1 US citizen right? Or was it two, I lost count.

In any case, I'd just assume it happen to zero. As for folks nabbed internationally, that's a diplomatic/treaty issue, our constitution doesn't apply to non-US citizens imo.

 

[PrinceofWands]

No, but the erosion of them should at least slow a little. With the possible exception of gun rights/self-defense.

 

[Infohawk]

Depends on what civil liberties you're talking about. I think a basic step that shouldn't be a problem is requiring warrants for internal surveillance. Set up something like FISA to make the warrants near-instantaneous.