A bit on the abstract SS, because we all know its "funded as you go" there is no "trust fund"
How about gun ownership.? Remember Im a liberal who loves his guns
What about gun ownership? I'm all for it. Just shot some rounds with a friend the other weekend.
I hate guns, I only keep 3 rounds in the Winchester at the front door.
Here's an example of the "It's okay until it steps on my toes" thinking I was talking about:
Quote:WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is aggressively wielding a rarely used executive power known as the state secrets privilege in an attempt to squash hard-hitting court challenges to its anti-terrorism campaign.
How the White House is using this privilege, not a law but a series of legal precedents built on national security, disturbs some civil libertarians and open-government advocates because of its sweeping power. Judges almost never challenge the government's assertion of the privilege, and it can be fatal to a plaintiff's case.
The government is invoking the privilege in an attempt to wipe out the heart of a lawsuit that seeks to examine rendition, the secretive and controversial practice of sending terror suspects to foreign countries where they might be tortured.
Use of the secrets privilege also could eliminate a suit by a former FBI contract linguist who charges that the bureau bungled translations of terrorism intelligence before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The Bush administration is also using the secrets privilege to seek dismissal of a third case not related directly to terrorism. And the administration has invoked the privilege in less sweeping ways on several other occasions.
The use of the state secrets privilege, critics say, is part of President Bush's forceful expansion of presidential secrecy, including a more restrictive approach to releasing documents under the Freedom of Information Act; limitations on the dissemination of presidential papers and curtailment of information on individuals rounded up in the war on terrorism.
Justice Department spokesman Kevin Madden declined to discuss any active cases. But he said, "The state secrets privilege is [asserted] only after a careful determination that, were a secret disclosed, it would adversely affect national security."
The secrets privilege is an especially powerful weapon because federal judges, reluctant to challenge the executive branch on national security, almost never refuse the government's claim to confidentiality.
Chicago Tribune
Many here would claim this privelege is necessary. I say it's protectionist and when it applies to one of those claiming it necessary, we'll hear a different tune.
farmerman wrote:A bit on the abstract SS, because we all know its "funded as you go" there is no "trust fund"
How about gun ownership.? Remember Im a liberal who loves his guns
I don't love guns, but I keep one in the house anyway. I will always believe that folks have the right to self defence, and, while I've re-evaluated since I've had children, so far I'm not willing to trust the police with the protection of my family.
Combining Squinney's mixed scenario to 'prove' that the administration is disingenuous in their motives as they would have a different point of view in a different circumstance, I would have to say that both Dys and Freeduck are also duplicious in their gun statements. No doubt both confronted by a burglar who appropriated the household firearms to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or shoot them would probably suddenly think gun control wasn't that bad.
Or is it possible that we hold different points of view in different circumstances and that this is not at all inconsisent? That we can believe that we have the right to own firearms for any legal purpose, most particularly for self defense, and at the same time see a reason certain people should not have them?
Every U.S. president has at some time evoked executive privilege for a particular purpose. Sometimes I have agreed with it. Sometimes not. But saying that an honest President would make the same decision no matter what different circumstances apply is pretty naive I think.
Even when it comes down to this decency stuff rumbling around in Congress right now. I want the law to give me a degree of assurance that when I set my young grandchild or great neices and nephews in front of the TV to watch a special program, they won't be unexpectedly confronted with program material that is inappropriate for young children.
At the same time, I don't want the government to tell me that my cable company can't allow a raunchy 'adult' movie or explicit programming late on a Friday night. Require a warning about content, fine. But ban it. No.
And I don't see how this opinion is in any way inconsistent.
I wasn't saying the administration is being disingenious. I was saying republican voters, including many who post on this site, would argue on other threads that the president isn't overstepping his use of the states secret privelege. Many if not most would go along with it, agreeing with the president that it likely is in our best interest due to security.
If liberals tried to argue that we don't know that to be the case, and the privilege is likely being overused in order to hide what the administration is doing, many republicans would post here that that isn't the case, blah, blah, blah.
BUT, if it were YOU being directly affected, (ie if you were the fired FBI agent that was just doing your job) it would take on a whole different understanding. Suddenly it would impact you directly and you would be outraged.
To me, liberals are outraged when it affects anyone, not just them directly, because they see the broader view and know it only opens the door to things that will eventually affect their own lives.
Squinney writes
Quote:To me, liberals are outraged when it affects anyone
You really are seriously saying this? (Looking back for evidence of outrage from A2K liberals when Christians, conservatives, GOP members of congress, George W. Bush, other administration members have been falsely accused, ridiculed, maligned, mischaracterized, etc. etc. etc.)
I'm talking about rights and liberties, not ridicule and mischaracterizations.
Same thing Squinney. Same thing.
Foxfyre wrote:Combining Squinney's mixed scenario to 'prove' that the administration is disingenuous in their motives as they would have a different point of view in a different circumstance, I would have to say that both Dys and Freeduck are also duplicious in their gun statements. No doubt both confronted by a burglar who appropriated the household firearms to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or shoot them would probably suddenly think gun control wasn't that bad.
Or is it possible that we hold different points of view in different circumstances and that this is not at all inconsisent? That we can believe that we have the right to own firearms for any legal purpose, most particularly for self defense, and at the same time see a reason certain people should not have them?
Fox, you've managed to confuse me. What is it exactly that bothers you about the fact that I believe in the right to bear arms. In fact, it is exactly the scenario you describe that makes me want to keep mine. How do you know whether I am for or against reasonable gun control measures since I've not elaborated?
Free (my bodies to duplicious for ya, babe) Duck
Nevermind, it appears I misread the conversation. Please excuse.
Foxfyre wrote:Same thing Squinney. Same thing.
I must be missing something, because I certainly don't see where individuals ridiculing the government is the same thing as the government restricting our liberties and rights.
It's the same double standard as I see it Squinney. Liberals are outraged if the rights and liberties they value are curtailed or infringed in any way, but are too often more than willing for liberal values to run roughshod over the rights and values of 'conservative' values that the liberals do not have. Conservatives are capable of hypocrisy too, but I just took exception to the implication that it is a conservative invention or exclusive to conservatives. From where I sit, the neo-libs too often have made it an art form.
Neo-libs? And prey tell who are these "neo-libs?"
Rights and Liberties aren't the same things as values. I don't likely have the same exact values as anyone in my neighborhood. But we all have the same rights and liberties.
Ridiculing the government is a right, right?
I wrote to Sens Santorum and Soecter regarding my feelings re: Sen Stevens oral Diarrhea.
Farmernan steps in and the room goes quiet.
You did what? You actually did something while we were busy talking about it?
I have written my Congresswoman and both of our Senators expressing my views on this. I hope everybody else will do the same.
I will do the same, Fox. I believe we are all still in general agreement regarding this...
