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

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Huh? Why does it matter if it happened to 1 or 100? How many does it take until it's wrong? Is that part of the Constitution I wasn't aware of? Where it says "if you just violate this document a little bit it's okay."

The president detaining any US citizen indefinitely and without trial should strike fear into the heart of anyone who believes in the Constution and the rule of law. Arbitrary detention powers are the hallmark of every police state that has ever existed.

 

[blackangst1]

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.

I agree 100% with your underlying message Nice poke

 

[BigJelly]

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

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

This basically sums it up

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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.

QFT. More people were innocently put in prison than this and no one seems to get upset about that. Or when someone gets found innocent after they were put to death.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 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.

Huh? Why does it matter if it happened to 1 or 100? How many does it take until it's wrong? Is that part of the Constitution I wasn't aware of? Where it says "if you just violate this document a little bit it's okay."

The president detaining any US citizen indefinitely and without trial should strike fear into the heart of anyone who believes in the Constution and the rule of law. Arbitrary detention powers are the hallmark of every police state that has ever existed.

Did you read my next to last sentence? Anyhoo, the point was Bush used the power very rarely and under very unique circumstances, so the whole "erosion of civil rights that effect you and me" argument is moot. It's the principle, as you said.

 

[Avalon]

Maybe a couple.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: alchemize
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.

QFT. More people were innocently put in prison than this and no one seems to get upset about that. Or when someone gets found innocent after they were put to death.

As far as I'm aware there has been no exoneration of a death penalty victim after his execution. My friend does pro bono legal work for an anti death penalty group, and that's the sort of case they are all looking for desperately. If it turns out the government killed an innocent man, there's going to be a shitstorm. (which is precisely what they are looking for)

I don't like it one bit when innocent people are thrown in jail, there is a huge difference though. When innocent people are put in jail after a trial, the government is (sadly enough) completely constitutionally imprisoning innocent men. The constitution only guarantees you due process and a trial by your peers. It doesn't guarantee you they won't be idiots about it. So, while I really don't like innocent men being imprisoned, I view that as a procedural problem with our legal system that must be corrected, not an egregious violation of the Constitution as Bush has done. One is an unfortunate byproduct of an imperfect system that should be corrected as soon as possible, and one is an assault on the foundation of our society.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Did you read my next to last sentence? Anyhoo, the point was Bush used the power very rarely and under very unique circumstances, so the whole "erosion of civil rights that effect you and me" argument is moot. It's the principle, as you said.

I did in fact read your entire post, and I dismiss your argument that if Bush only violates one person's civil liberties that it doesn't affect us all. We collectively own our civil liberties, if the government takes them from one of us, he takes it from all of us because there is absolutely nothing saying that you couldn't be next.

The sad part is that if you were next I couldn't even come by and say "I told you so!" because you would be in a sensory depravation chamber 23 hours a day.

 

[piasabird]

More likely than not the Democratic Party will try to take away the liberty of the people. The only way Democrats can succeed is to make free people slaves to the government.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Thats it. Fairness is you bust yourass and give freeloaders a ride on your dime.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
More likely than not the Democratic Party will try to take away the liberty of the people. The only way Democrats can succeed is to make free people slaves to the government.

I'll admit I'm enjoying watching you implode after this election, but you can't really believe this crap you're spewing. If you do, you need to get outside more.

 

[XZeroII]

Um, you realize that we elected OBAMA, right? The guy is worse than Bush when it comes to civil liberties. You'll be lucky if you have the right to own a home after 4 years of Obama. He'll take it away and give it to someone else.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
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.

We will see. Pelosi and Reid are all for it. Obama's track record gives me no reason to believe he will veto a bill they are behind. In fact, last year Congressman Mike Pence tried to pass a bill, H.R. 2905, that would make it impossible for the "Fairness Doctrine" to ever be brought back by a President without Congressional approval and not a single Democrat would sign it!
Besides, didn't his campaign go so far as to send mass emails and calls to Obama supporters having them tie up the phone lines to Milt Rosenberg's radio show (Chicago) when they learned there would be an interview about Obama's relationships with Ayers and Wright. Yes, and they did it. He has been doing his show for 35 years and never once experienced that before. I know there are other cases of threatening TV stations because of the ads they were showing as well.
Face it, there is hardly a Dem in office that would disagree with the fact Obama is one of, if not the most liberal Senator out there. You can't go any further left, and both Pelosi and Reid know this. Obama will be their puppet.

 

[LumbergTech]

some, but obviously change takes time

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Um, you realize that we elected OBAMA, right? The guy is worse than Bush when it comes to civil liberties. You'll be lucky if you have the right to own a home after 4 years of Obama. He'll take it away and give it to someone else.

Guantanamo Bay
Patriot Act
Warrantless wiretapping

 

[seemingly random]

In other news: The democratic party will institute a nationwide program to implant rfid chips in all citizens for identification purposes. Notices are expected to be mailed in the next six months. The procedures will be performed by companies reported to be major campaign contributors. There will be no bidding process since the need for identification is considered to be an emergency.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Um, you realize that we elected OBAMA, right? The guy is worse than Bush when it comes to civil liberties. You'll be lucky if you have the right to own a home after 4 years of Obama. He'll take it away and give it to someone else.

Guantanamo Bay
Patriot Act
Warrantless wiretapping

I'm not quite sure what you view as the relation between Guantanamo and our civil liberties, but there have been past reports about how either Obama or McCain (both of whom would like it closed) would have a very difficult time closing it down once they get their briefings on the individuals held there. Obama spoke about Guantanamo last year, saying he knows the people being held there probably belong to be detained, but our legal management of the case has been flawed. So my guess is he will be briefed on the detainees, then try to do something to speed up the process of prosecution.

Patriot act and wiretapping are on in the same, and the act was passed by a wide majority with both Dem (including Pelosi, Reid, and Biden) and Republican backers. What makes anyone believe Obama will do away with it?

 

[SirStev0]

I hope so. With that said, I definitely don't believe that they would have been given back under a Republican Federal Government and they probably would have been further taken away.

Well, unless Ron Paul won.

 

[SirStev0]

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.

Funny... If you replace the word Dems with Repubs you get an accurate statement.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Um, you realize that we elected OBAMA, right? The guy is worse than Bush when it comes to civil liberties. You'll be lucky if you have the right to own a home after 4 years of Obama. He'll take it away and give it to someone else.

Guantanamo Bay
Patriot Act
Warrantless wiretapping

How did Obama originally vote on #2 and #3? There's your answer.