Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I would suggest we, as a nation of individuals, have more rights now than in the 1840s or 1940s....particularly if you are a minority or a woman.
|
We were NEVER a nation of collective rights or societal rights. Our nation was founded upon the basis of INDIVIDUAL liberty. To suggest we have more rights now than in previous decades because MORE people have rights is 'clintonesque'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I would agree with you that our rights have been infringed upon in the last six years.
|
But we had no rights infringed from the period of 1992 to 2000? Stop the ridiculous insinuation that Bush has been the great infringer and nobody else ever has. Nearly EVERY president from the last 35 years has infringed upon our rights, with Judicial approval.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
In other areas, perhaps we have less personal freedom (not constitutionally protected rights)...a result of a more complex society.
|
so you're saying that since we live in a more complex society, lets make constitutional rights more complex by judiciating some legislation as constitutional based on compelling government interest?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
<center>
Yeah....the "middle the "moderate" position....
There will come a point when they stop muting their response, powerclown.
The folks you describe, the ones with all of the self control....the 90 percent of American adults who permitted themselves into being duped into supporting the invasion of Iraq, and before that, the 70 percent who supported the Reagan "revolution", trickle down economics, and the "Contract" with America. I missed supporting all of that.....how have most Americans benefited from all of that "self control", powerclown.....they enabled all of these things that, in hindsight, were against their own political self interests......sheep don't make much noise, either.
|
The governments position of moderate is getting the american people to agree that all rights are not absolute when it comes to matters of national security. It then is just a matter of semantics in declaring things 'matters of national security'.