user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Support of freedom is irrespective of political leaning.
^Yeah. Just ask any Nazi
Voted : Liberals
Liberty is something we all aspire to, but more and more repressive acts of legislation seem to me to be the very antithesis of freedom.
I think different people have different definition of freedom, my dear ole mom would have totally different list of top freedoms than I would. Hers would be included in my list, mine wouldn't be included in hers.
Voted : Liberals
Real liberals, by the traditional definition (aka, libertarians).
But if you mean republicans/democrats, both support certain freedoms and would deny us others.
Voted : Liberals
I think this ballot is rather poor. Most of the first examples you list are essentially irrelevant to "freedom". They are your political stance on many issues of today - some of which I agree with. Legalizing various drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc are not freedom enhancing. Drugs by and large lead to addiction and other negative effects. Even on pot someones ability to function and make informed decisions and live a full life. Prostitution is a demeaning "job" and does not enhance anyone's life. Creating a more moral and just society would reduce or eliminate the need for anyone to engage in this degrading "profession". Gambling has few if any benefits other than to encourage greed and in some cases lead to addiction.
National health care is a great idea and one I support. I must point out that this country was founded without national health care.
" Legalizing marijuana would significantly lower taxes by drastically reducing the prison population and would boost our economy by introducing a new market and liberating a workforce that had previously been incarcerated."
This is a false statement. The overwhelming majority of "personal" users receive nothing more than a fine and very limited probation. Trafficking in it is what brings heavy jail terms. Use and possession of hard drugs and the harsh legal penalties is what has dramatically increased the prison population. Additionally, a country that is so devoid of business ideas that it thinks it must legalize pot to boost the economy needs its collective head examined.
Regarding the "voucher system", I fail to see how this has anything to do with freedom, 1st amendment rights, etc. One thing it will do is bankrupt the public school systems and make a bad problem worse.
1. patriot act, OK I agree
2. "repeal of habeas corpus" This is the legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. This has been used only for those strongly suspected of terrorism and only for non-citizens. In case you missed it, there was a Supreme Court decision on this matter. Rather than free a suspected terrorist within a day or so, it allows the government to hold the person longer while investigating the person and alleged terrorist plot. You might also extend this criticism to France (which has no habeas corpus law) and Australia which is doing essentially the same thing the US is. By the way, Lincoln and Grant suspended habeas corpus as well. Conservatives are not calling for the wholesale removal of habeas corpus. Oh, BTW, Roosevelt suspended habeas corpus rights for hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans and he had absolutely zero indication that any of these Americans were planning to do anything harmful to the US. He even herded them into concentration camps.
3. tort reform, - ok I agree.
4. suspension of forth amendment rights - I cannot really answer this because I am guessing that you are referring to habeas corpus.
5. operation condor - this was a counter-terrorism program that was implemented by these South American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The US CIA and other agencies are believed to have assisted the security agencies of the countries listed above. I believe the Nixon, Ford, and Carter were all aware of this and did nothing to stop it. The program was over after the 70s so this seems to be completely irrelevant to this ballot.
6. roving wiretaps - Roving wiretaps allow a law
enforcement agency to intercept the communications of a subject with a
single court order even when the subject's telephone is subject to
change. This is obviously of great use because of the ease of gaining and disposal of phone numbers because of cell phones. This is a primary method that terrorists use to avoid detection. When implemented legally there should be no problem with this.
"I guess the answer to this question should be obvious given that the country has all but slipped into marshal law under the last 6 years of neocon rule"
First, it is "martial law" not marshal law. The power to suspend the constitution and legal rights were given to FEMA (which was not authorized by congress) which Jimmy Carter created with Executive Order Number 12148. That order consolidated a number of other executive orders dating back to the 1930s. It allows FEMA to take over:
* All United States communications facilities
* Electrical power, petroleum, gas, fuels and minerals, public and private
* Food supplies, agricultural lands and facilities
* Transportation of any kind, including private, and control of seaports, waterways and highways
* Civilian labor forces without regard to financial remuneration (this comes from the law "DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950" which authorizes this.
* Health, education and welfare institutions
* All airport and air transportation, public, private and commercial
* Railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities
So, basically Carter made it possible for the government to suspend every single law. Every president following him has not changed the law except to add to it. Clinton even made FEMA a cabinet level position.
I agree with you on some points but your overwrought and uninformed hyperbole is what causes many liberals/leftists to be ignored. Valid criticism is very much warranted but trying to blame everything on Bush undermines your point as this is obviously not the case.
"^Yeah. Just ask any Nazi"
That is a rather arrogant and ridiculous dismissal of a valid point. Its called playing the Hitler/Nazi card when no evidence warrants it.
While I generally think that liberals defend freedom more, I am not going to pigeonhole the vast majority on the right who are good freedom loving Americans. Many of those have or are risking their lives to defend our freedom. Many others lost their lives defending it. To blast himself809's point as being like a Nazi is deeply insulting not only to me but to most Americans who agree with the point I made above.
"^Yeah. Just ask any Nazi"
I could ask Stalin too. It's interesting how political extremism on either side of the scale results in tyranny.
Libertarians do it best.
Voted : Liberals
Lincoln was a gradualist, but mostly liberal.
FDR was a liberal.
King was a liberal.
Truman overcame his personal prejudices and was mostly a liberal.
Former Chief Justice Rehnquist was a conservative.
Nixon was a conservative.
McCarthy was a conservative.
Voted : Liberals
Real liberals = libertarian, not leftists/socialists.
Libetarians are little more than individualists, who want freedom without social responsibilty.
Humans are interdependant on each other, hence communities are born
Steel: would you say rule of law constitutes social responsibility? Agreeing to not harm anyone else in society seems to me to be very responsible. And libertarians are very strong in that aspect.
^Neocons are the most anti-freedom political segment in American society, today
"Agreeing to not harm anyone else in society seems to me to be very responsible."
explicit inaction is as guilty as explicit action.
Steel
Liberals recognize our interdependence. We respect the rights of others in our communities. Socialists seek to leach off of others in their "community".
The only leeches in society are those who exploit the working class to enrich themselves.
Libertarians think the market is the be all and end all of everything.
True socialism is the fair distribution of wealth, there is no leeching involved, we all earn our living, why should those who work hardest be paid less?
You constantly bang on about the 'freedoms' liberatrainism promises but the only freedoms I can see is the freedom to isolate oneself from the rest of society, freedom to starve if you arent employed and the freedom to die if you can pay for decent healthcare.
Long live freedom hmmmmm
Conservatives think freedom of religion means "freedom to choose from any Christian denomination". They pretend to be for freedom of speech when it is in their favor, but if you dare say anything bad about Bush or any other conservative leader, you're "not being patriotic".
|
|
