40 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
I've not done a personal study or seen statistics but it's been my observation that anyone whose livelihood is either completely or substantially dependent on government money leans toward one party. We need to change an old adage to make it say "Always kiss the hand that feeds you".
Did they just get round to reading the Patriot Act?
Ask the Democrat Congress since 2006
You always insist on stating the obvious, but with a...
... partisan slant that always involves finger pointing.
Both parties are at fault... both parties insist on protecting the rights of everyone EXCEPT the common citizen that they pledge to serve when they take the oath of office. Obama pledged to get our rights back, and then found out he liked the leverage such legislation gave him. So what? Bush and his ilk pushed the rape of our civil rights through in the first place, yet I don't see you mentioning that huge fact. But still... so what? The real issue is that such tools that can be used against us are still in existence. What are we doing about that, hmmmm?
Talk about something the founding fathers would have fought against if they lived today !!!
Until you wake up and see that the problems of government are shared by everyone (even us, the voters who insist on reelecting these bozos), you will always be supporting 50 % of the problem creators.
In short... I never see you comment about the problems, all I ever see you do is jump to point the finger at democrats, liberals, al gore, et al. You need to realize that modern politics as a whole, have become rotten and decayed. We don't discuss what is right for the country anymore... we discuss what is good for the party. You need to put down the kool-aid and wake up and smell the coffee.
is exactly what you are doing.
"Obama pledged to get our rights back..."
He did? When were they gone? The survey refers to the present day, NOW, not some past day. Note that in the survey it's Democrats who DON'T think the government threatens our rights so much as the Republicans and Independents. Maybe, just MAYBE one side is more right than the other.
"Bush and his ilk pushed the rape of our civil rights through in the first place, yet I don't see you mentioning that huge fact."
Complete idiotic hogwash. Which rights did you lose, Grim? What can't you do now that you could do before? As you SHOULD know the Patriot Act was passed by both parties and was tested by the courts and found NOT to be a violation of civil rights. It's not a huge fact. it's a huge lie.
Complete idiotic hogwash.
C'mon Ed don't you think idiotic is a bit strong?
What can't you do now that you could do before?
How bout you answering your own question, since I know how you feel about the guy in power.
In case you forgot
Is your hijack attempt over?
Are you out of lefty blog talking points yet?
Only the impotent try so desperately to provoke.
"Lefty blog talking points" ?
Do you realize how foolish such comments make you appear ?
True are they not?
Yes. People who can think for themselves rarely repeat others' thoughts verbatim as you seem to do so often.
(sigh) Sure Ed, whatever you say.
weird concept Ed
#People who can think for themselves rarely repeat others' thoughts#
so..........if only "original" thoughts are allowed, what do other people say/talk about?
i would say that "original" thoughts are about as rare as "new" jokes,
i.e. few and far between
You can be a parrot or you can apply thought to existing concepts, compare, contrast, accept or reject. Too many just echo the cliches.
You're wasting your breath, Jonah
The man rationalizes his own behavior all the time. He demands proof for innocuous statements but refuses to give the same when he is put on the spot. His arguments often depend on the logic that if he says something is the case, then it simply is. You can't have a conversation with an ideologue that depends on cliches to support his position.
You can't have a conversation with an ideologue that depends on cliches to support his position. unquote
As was demonstrated perfectly by Obama during 'his' summit the other day....especially when his final statements supposedly gave 'six weeks' as a timetable for finding bipartisanship, but in the same breath dictated that the Dems would go forward with a new plan by this coming week and 'elections' would decide later.
I'm no fan of Obama right now, but in all fairness...
... where is the cliche ?
When govt. works for the benefit of people, it works well or tries. However, I find that big business and corporations make govt. act at times or during people's distress rather hastily. usually, "we the people" are snowed to think otherwise. In other words, you're elected to serve the people not businesses.
I'll give an example when govt. worked well. When the TVA, Tenn. Valley Authority had to buy land and basically get a dam built, it pushed people aside. But, in the meantime it provided jobs, offered a fair(really) deal for the land and because the demand for workers was so high, it provided employment to those of even dark skin directly. While that caused a reckless, it did put money to those in real need. When done, the TVA provided electricity fairly cheaply and more important to users that hadn't ever had access to electricity. The roads and infrastructure is used today plus the electricity.
A bad example is when Katrina hit. While the cause and effect of damage was huge, normal rebuild should have worked just as it did before. However, in this case it really got of hand. So much money was thrown at the rebuild that corruption was bound to arise. While authorities did have to rethink just how this was going to play out, rebuilding "what". It appears many neighborhoods that shouldn't have been build or were too close to levies, etc., got hosed. However, many homeowners didn't get a fair shake for property values and all too often it was the poor that got shoved aside. To this day, yrs. later problems persist. The mere fact that New Orleans remains below the water level and even if levies are improved and other measures taken, the potential for disaster remains to be all done again. So, was this money well spend? Oh, let's not forget the insurance cos. hemming and hawing about payment or a settlement less than what many expected or none at all. The insurance cos. all of a sudden believed damages were caused by other than what they were insured for. If there was such a discrepancy, then it should have been brought long before the hurricane happened. -----Willy
Yes, personal privacy rights took a hit
......... under The War Against Terrorism and the Patriot Act.
And we've long dealt with the question of one man's rights stopping at the other man's rights.
IMO, there is nothing wrong with our federal government. After all, we citizens are the federal government. We just send people there to conduct our business. Some of us could probably do a mighty fine Job attending to it, but the rub is that some that cannot.
So the blame should falls on us when things don't go as we like. Some we elect work for us, some work only to please their base
During the program yesterday, Cafferty talked about how entrenched they become in the Washington games and revolving doors.
Personally, I believe this country is in extreme danger, not form enemies or debt, but from the line drawn in the sand that neither side is willing to cross. I see no one or no way to end this malignant partisanship. It goes far beyond being the voice of opposition. Too many believe in a specific list of issues, and are convinced that deviation from that list spells doom. There is fear/distrust and dislike for that other side, with the only comfort being among one's own.
It is just so easy to place blame on "them" rather than on "us".
Took a bigger hit...
under FDR. That was the beginning of it.
you will be assimilated
Resistance is futile
this topic is about people's attitudes towards BIG GOVERNMENT, not about what some one on a partisan blog thinks of a decade old piece of legislation.
people's attitudes towards BIG GOVERNMENT,
you sure about that?
OP header says:
Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights
the first sentence of the article says:
A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans
only the third sentence says:
they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens
almost reminds me of the list of ingredients on a can of chicken soup,
always listed with the largest (most important) percentage first
Yes, I am sure about it.
A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans.... they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens
That is the crux of the survey, is it not? That is what it's about. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is BIG GOVERNMENT. What is the problem with understanding that?
That decade old piece of legislation
is still law, and thus is certainly part of the government, just like every other law buried in the books.
And it did make huge changes in the way some things were quasi-legally done.
If you want to talk about big government, that encompasses all of it, not just the bit enacted last month, last year, or last decade. It's the sum that determines the size after-all.
Just because something is a decade old, or a five decades old, doesn't mean it can't be a problem or need review, revision, or modification.
But that is NOT what the survey was about.
I would also point out...
That the Patriot Act is there for defense of the nation, which is one of the Federal Government's tasks specifically mandated by the Constitution, unlike the many entitlements. social engineering programs and welfare state giveaways that have been loaded on over the years.
Whether it does so properly or not is another discussion that should be conducted rationally. Talk of "Bush raping civil rights" is just the usual propaganda from the lunatic fringe.
You do realize I hope, that it was brought up only as an attempt to hijack/derail the discussion and start a political argument. S.O.P. for some.
A SOP for more than one.
this topic is about people's attitude towards BIG GOVERNMENT
Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights
Washington (CNN) ? A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
The first sentence in your OP is about "threat to rights" in fact your subject line mentions "rights"
What does the size of government have to do with rights?
Only BIG GOVERNMENT can threaten the rights?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)