Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Government at all levels, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, is stripping the American citizen of all his rights. Gone. We are on a direct trajectory toward collectivism. Individualism is dead. Property rights are dead. Your rights to your own body, your own health, and your own habits are dead. The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments are in peril. The First isn't exactly thriving.
And you wanna' know what the talk of the town the last two weeks has been?
What Dick Durbin said, and whether he should be spanked for it. And what Karl Rove said, and whether he should be spanked for it.
That's what talking heads have deemed important. Meanwhile, as we're all passionately debating who ought to apologize to whom, government is stealing our freedom.
The attitude on both sides of the aisle is that the ultimate principle is, simply, getting your guy in power. Donkeys and elephants above all else. The Elite Left's reaction to Raich and to Kelo has been abominable, and a wholesale selling out of traditional leftist principles. Why'd they do it? Because someday, the donkeys might run this country again. And when/if they do, they want an all-powerful federal government at their disposal.
And what of the right? The Bush administration sided with the leftist justices on Raich. And had the Bush administration filed a brief in Kelo, it would have filed it in opposition to the homeowners. Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that our president himself abused eminent domain to make room the baseball stadium the state of Texas gave him. Shortly before he became governor. But that doesn't matter. A conservative activist told me recently that he sort of sympathized with medical marijuana patients but that frankly, he was okay with Raich, because he didn't want the give those hippies any victories (his words). He also conceded that the only guiding principle in his political activism is to "help my team move the ball down the field."
The sports analogy is apt. Political activism is about for your favorite team. Nothing more. The actual consequences are the same no matter who wins -- more government, more collectivism, fewer individual rights, less freedom. The last ten years have proven that. The last four have emphatically driven it home.
Browse the comments threads to the Kelo posts at Kos or Atrios. Note how much more outraged the commenters are than the pundits. Commenters at these sites are rank and filers. They're the conscience of the left. Principle still matters to them. That's why they're generally outraged by Kelo. And it's why they're shocked to find themselves on the same side as Thomas, Rhenquist, and O'Connor -- three figures the Elite Left have misled them into believing are evil concentrate.
Wake the hell up, people. What's happening to this country is beyond politics. Once you're stipped of your individual rights, it doesn't really matter whose favorite team is in office.
Just because you are paraniod doesn't mean they are not after you.
Quote:
Government at all levels, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, is stripping the American citizen of all his rights. Gone. We are on a direct trajectory toward collectivism. Individualism is dead. Property rights are dead. Your rights to your own body, your own health, and your own habits are dead. The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments are in peril. The First isn't exactly thriving.
I think the dude's paranoid and delusional because I think he means the above literally. If it's hyperbole, it's only paranoia.
I think there is a little hyperbole there but maybe I am just a little more optimistic than Mr. Balko.
I guess according to you I am almost equally paranoid and demented.
I guess maybe I am a little troubled, because the march to a more powerful central state is considered mainstream and completely normal. Selling out principle for power is completely normal and even expected.
Do you deny there is movement in the direction he suggests?
For clarification are we not on a heading to collectivism or is that just ok?
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
Last edited by SirChaz; June 27th, 2005 at 04:36 PM.
I think there is a little hyperbole there but maybe I am just a little more optimistic than Mr. Balko.
I guess according to you I am almost equally paranoid and demented.
I guess maybe I am a little troubled, because the march to a more powerful central state is considered mainstream and completely normal. Selling out princilpe for power is completely normal and even expected.
Do you deny there is movement in the direction he suggests?
For clarification are we not on a heading to collectivism or is that just ok?
Nothing in his article suggests a move toward collectivism, as I understand the word to mean essentially communism (maybe I'm wrong), and Kelo was about siezing property not for the state, but for private enterprise. The rest of his article seemed about the government abridging personal rights, which again seems not exclusively collectivist.
I do agree the power of the Federal Government is being increased, and the S.Ct. is one reason why (medical marijuana being recently constricted by the commerce clause, which is nonsense). But I just don't agree that individual rights generally are being abridged--library snoopes notwithstanding. I asked on this board once for examples of Patriot Act abuses and got none--maybe somebody can enlighten me. And I agree that under the Patriot Act, abusing civil liberties is a little easier--but I think the Act is necessary. If real abuse starts occurring, maybe I'll change my mind.
And on your other point, sacrificing principle for power? That goes without saying inside the Beltway.
Nothing in his article suggests a move toward collectivism, as I understand the word to mean essentially communism (maybe I'm wrong), and Kelo was about siezing property not for the state, but for private enterprise. The rest of his article seemed about the government abridging personal rights, which again seems not exclusively collectivist.
Collectivism does not equal communism. Communism is a result of collectivist thought and priority but not the only one.
The Constitution is based on the rights of the people (or individuals) over the rule of the State (or collective).
Collectivism would be the opposite.
Kelo was about the government choosing one private party over another for the monetary gain of the government (increased tax revenue). This signals (to some) the triumph of the powerful government/corporate collective over the rights (particularly property rights) of the individual. Add to that the past 70 years of American history and you have some people concerned about the march of collectivism in this country.
Quote:
I do agree the power of the Federal Government is being increased, and the S.Ct. is one reason why (medical marijuana being recently constricted by the commerce clause, which is nonsense). But I just don't agree that individual rights generally are being abridged--library snoopes notwithstanding. I asked on this board once for examples of Patriot Act abuses and got none--maybe somebody can enlighten me. And I agree that under the Patriot Act, abusing civil liberties is a little easier--but I think the Act is necessary. If real abuse starts occurring, maybe I'll change my mind.
So you don't agree that when government expands liberty contracts?
So the fact that the PATRIOT Act allows searches without a warrant doesn't bother you? That people can be rounded up on suspicion or that people can be charged with assisting terrorists when they have never actually conspired with terrorists but rather FBI agents posing as such?
Why give the government more power to abridge individual rights even if they never use it? Do you think that things that are created with good intentions cannot go bad?
A benevolent master is still a master and it still makes slaves of people. Well fed and entertained slaves they may be but slaves none the less.
Freedom isn't easy and it isn't always pretty but I think it is extremely valuable and should not be given up in the name of security against whatever the boogyman of the day is. Especially when there are serious questions about the ability of the government to protect us and or be effective in the first place.
Quote:
And on your other point, sacrificing principle for power? That goes without saying inside the Beltway.
I was thinking after my last post that Mr. Balko lives in the D.C. area so he is probably a little more sensitive to it than we would be.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
So the fact that the PATRIOT Act allows searches without a warrant doesn't bother you? That people can be rounded up on suspicion or that people can be charged with assisting terrorists when they have never actually conspired with terrorists but rather FBI agents posing as such?
Freedom isn't easy and it isn't always pretty but I think it is extremely valuable and should not be given up in the name of security against whatever the boogyman of the day is. Especially when there are serious questions about the ability of the government to protect us and or be effective in the first place.
On the first point, right before 9/11 the Feds were denied a warrant to search Z. Moussaoui's computer. Whether that would have prevented the hijackings, I have no clue. But I think the lesson is that under limited circumstances, the Feds should be permitted warrantless searches. If there's abuse, deal with it on an individual basis--and if abuse becomes rampant, reconsider the Patriot Act.
On the second, I think you can fairly switch "freedom" and "security," and make the case that both readings are fair--depending, of course, on just how truly menacing the boogyman of the day is.
So the fact that the PATRIOT Act allows searches without a warrant doesn't bother you? That people can be rounded up on suspicion or that people can be charged with assisting terrorists when they have never actually conspired with terrorists but rather FBI agents posing as such?
Things like this bother me more than the terrorists themselves.
On the first point, right before 9/11 the Feds were denied a warrant to search Z. Moussaoui's computer. Whether that would have prevented the hijackings, I have no clue. But I think the lesson is that under limited circumstances, the Feds should be permitted warrantless searches. If there's abuse, deal with it on an individual basis--and if abuse becomes rampant, reconsider the Patriot Act.
On the second, I think you can fairly switch "freedom" and "security," and make the case that both readings are fair--depending, of course, on just how truly menacing the boogyman of the day is.
So did the FBI not have enough information or power to prevent 9/11 or did they just mismanage the information they had? What about the Phoenix memo?
Weren't the hijackers already on a CIA watch list? What plane did Moussaoui manage to hijack again? Only if they could have searched without a warrant he would be in jail right now.....Oh wait he already is.
Warrantless searches are ok huh? Isn't that one of the Amendments you said was not in peril?
Quote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Is guess it is only unreasonable if they don't find anything. I am sure the government will be more than willing to (not) admit any mistakes they make.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
So did the FBI not have enough information or power to prevent 9/11 or did they just mismanage the information they had? What about the Phoenix memo?
Weren't the hijackers already on a CIA watch list? What plane did Moussaoui manage to hijack again? Only if they could have searched without a warrant he would be in jail right now.....Oh wait he already is.
Warrantless searches are ok huh? Isn't that one of the Amendments you said was not in peril?
Is guess it is only unreasonable if they don't find anything. I am sure the government will be more than willing to (not) admit any mistakes they make.
Note that I said underlimited circumstances. As I understand it, the Patriot Act permits warrantless searches only where "time is of the essence." As far as I know, that clause has not been invoked yet. If it is, and time is determined not to have been of the essence, punish the agents accordingly. And I can't imagine that you can't imagine some scenario where agents truly would not have time to go to a Federal judge to obtain a warrant to prevent some terrorist action--whether you would want them to bypass the judge might be another question.
Otherwise, judicial scrutiny attaches to every other provision under the Act--including perusing library records.
Wake the hell up, people. What's happening to this country is beyond politics. Once you're stipped of your individual rights, it doesn't really matter whose favorite team is in office.
If I could see as far into the future as I do in the past....
methinks it would have been better after September 11 to call on all Americans to particapate in organizations to help this country against terrorism and get more involved in politics (doesn't matter which party)...instead of telling folks to go shopping and let the government run things on its own...
Linear Mode
