Constitution Day ...

ViRedd

New Member
I was right, you don't even bother to digest what I've written! I defined liberal right out of Merriam-Webster in one of my posts, and then again once more as describing you as not fitting the criterea. Read the dictionary!
Dude ... I don't have to read the dictionary to know what the definition of the term "liberal" means. I've made a study of the issue for years. I've read dictionarys. If you want to have your eyes opened a bit (sure opened my eyes) get yourself a dictionary that was published a hundred years or so ago. I have one from the 1920s. If you get one, you'll see how the definition of words have changed over the years.

For example, the term "liberal" used to define (and it was common knowledge at the time), a person, or mindset that believed in limited government and individule liberty. It would be the libertarian mindset of today. Around the turn of the last century, the socialists took the word for themselves and began to call themselves "liberals." The original liberals, like myself, are now called Jeffersonian Liberals, or Classical Liberals.

It just occured to me to ask you if you've ever read George Orwell's book "1984." If so, you may remember the main character, Winston Smith. His job was in the Ministry of Truth where he was responsible for changing history by changing or destroying a word, a paragraph or a page in various books and journals. Sometimes I wonder who is running OUR Ministry of Truth. *lol*

The term "liberal" today defines a socialist. The term "liberal" in previous times defined a freedom devotee.

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Can't you see your own hypocracy, "dude I don't have to read the dictionary to know the meaning of liberal" Yet you expect me to document my every word with someone elses Ideas. I also am a free thinker, I don't subscribe to any formal form of Govt. With the exception of the greed thing, we're not that far apart, unless you subscribe to the Bush-Cheney doctrine, then your on another planet! Sometimes I wonder why I bother to debate with you. You claim to be liberal but your views are the exact opposite of the definition in the dictionary, and then you claim the dictionary is wrong and that I should read an outdated dictionary for the true meaning. Are you a true schizophrenic, or just a little crazy? And as far as the ministry of truth thing, Bush is already changing the history books about Iraq. Every time he speaks, untruths (LIES) about the war are spouted, he's creeping up on our freedoms a little at a time, what makes you think we don't have a ministry of truth adjustment dept., they're called Bush's cabinet members!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Can't you see your own hypocracy, "dude I don't have to read the dictionary to know the meaning of liberal"

Did you read my post? I don't have to read a dictionary to know what the term liberal means. I have some of the BEST dictionarys in my book collection and have read the terminology many times. If you would take the time to read the post, you'll find an excellent explantion and history of the term liberal.

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Thats not the definition in Merriam-Webster, I think I'll take their word over your tainted version formulated to fit your need!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

In the spirit of cooperation, here is the history of liberalism. Its really interesting reading and it will explain to you where I'm coming from ... (you too). Its hardly a tainted version formulated to fit my need. :)

Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way, the article mentions a book by Friedrich Hayek called "The Road to Serfdom." Its one of the very best books I've ever read on the subject of socialism. It can be purchased at Border's Book Store in paper-back. Its great, and I highly recommend it to you.

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
V, Ive told you "I wouldn't become a member of any organization that would have me as a member", is that an oxymoron? In fact I'm just not that interested in what kinds of societies exist or all their rules. I just feel (think) we (Human Race) should try and be more tolerant of others, cultures, races, political views, etc. I realize that would not solve the worlds problems, but as Individuals, It probably would lower the stress level. As far as your liberalism article I read some of it and found my niche but since it was so long I got bored with it. I'm the one who wants more taxation on the wealthy (progressive) High taxes on corporations (and making it illegal to go offshore with their manufacturing or money) and preserve individual rights (no wire tapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant) not that I've got anything to hide, but if we accept that, whats next, a camera in our house, rewarding our children to spy on us (Hitler) etc. Freedom and equality for every citizen, not just the wealthy. Notice I said citizen, If your not a citizen then you shouldn't expect the same benefits as us citizens!
 

ViRedd

New Member
The government is not wire tapping phones without a warrant. It would be unconstitutional to do so. This is nothing more than DNC talking points ... and Moveon.org stuff.

Now then, if you can direct me to a link that actually PROVES your wiretapping allegations, I'll apolgize to ya.

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Links: NBC-ABC-CBS-CNN-CNBC-New york times-Washington post-La Times-Phoenix gazette-Ad noseum. Watch the news or read the papers, It's been in all of them. Yes they're doing it without a warrant when there is a program that gives them 72 hours after the wiretap to get a warrant (FISA). the whole reason for the FISA laws is to have records of who they wiretap so as not to create a Hitlerian situation. We need accountability! Your right it's unconstitutional to do so, another reason for Impeachment! And By the way watch C-span-1-2, you might learn something. Do you live under a Rock, poke your head out and learn! Oh I forgot, to you, those are all communists news medias! Notice I didn't mention FOX news!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Gee, thanks for the "proof."

Media hype is not proof, my friend.

NBC-ABC-CBS-CNN-CNBC-New york times-Washington post-La Times-Phoenix gazette-Ad noseum.

^^^ These are all media sources that are anti-Bush, anti-Republican and anti-liberty. Again ... where's the proof of the warrantless searches you spoke of?

Vi


PS: Just to reiterate, when you show proof that our federal government is conducting warrantless phone taps, I'll appologize to ya.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
The newspapers and TV News are just makin this shit up eh! Where's your proof that the Iraqi dead aren't 650,000, eh? Proof damn it proof! your as full of shit as the Christmas goose!
 

ViRedd

New Member
"your as full of shit as the Christmas goose!"

Hee, hee ... you forgot Nazi & Racist again. Remember, Med ... a personal attack is a symptom of a mind that has run out of cogent arguments.

Have a nice day ...

Vi
 

ViRedd

New Member
The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published December 22, 2005

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.
A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."
The year after FISA became law, a columnist in The Washington Post described what could still happen to any person or group determined to be "an agent of a foreign power."
"Once the attorney general has made that finding about someone, then the FBI can spy on them or burglarize their offices," wrote William Greider in a May 1979 column.
The Bush administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill say terrorist cells in this country are precisely what those FISA loopholes were intended for, even if they don't represent a traditional enemy state.
"Following the 9/11 attacks, it was obvious that al Qaeda utilized high-tech communication systems and modified its communication methods to avoid surveillance," Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said.
Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans have agreed with Democrats that hearings are necessary to learn more about Mr. Bush's domestic spy policy. There remains disagreement, however, over whether those hearings should be open to the public.
One area certain to be discussed in any hearings would be the use of warrantless searches in previous administrations.
In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president's "inherent authority."
"The Clinton administration did not take a position on that," she said.



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.[/FONT]
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Fear is one of the building blocks that lead to a dictatorship. This regime has lambasted us with fear ever since 911. Removal of privacy is another building block. It would take a blind person (or the majority of American voters) not to see the progression here. You claim to be a libertarian and yet you condone the removal of liberty under the guise of fear. Does that make you a hypocrite or just an Idiot?
 

ViRedd

New Member
I've already answered the "liberty" question. I've asked YOU to list the rights that you've lost, and to date, you've not done so. Let's just assume that I'm "blind" as you say I am. Please open my eyes and awaken this fool who has been duped by the current administration. Come on big boy ... list the rights that you've PERSONALLY LOST. Let's start with:

Have you lost the right to free speach and a free press? Are government agents burning your books? How about the right to practice the religion of your choice? Government thugs desicrating your church? Are government agents confiscating your gun collection? Do you still have the right to a jury trial judged by a panel of your peers or have they turned our courts into star chambers? Is the military boarding troops in your home without your consent?

Come on, Bro ... list the rights and liberties you've lost.

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Well, not yet, do you think I'm just paranoid, maybe I should just trust my govt. to do the right thing. One of the reasons they aren't doing those things is our right to bear arms. I'm sure the govt. would most likely like to do all those things except maybe the troop billeting. Remember this " It would be a lot easier if this was a Dictatorship" G.W. Bush, and I don't believe he was kidding! how do I know they (the Govt.) are not wire tapping my phone or watching my posts on this site for example, there are no existing oversights to G.W.s spy program. With a 72 hour leeway on court orders, there is only one reason they don't adhere to FISA, they don't want accountability for thier invasions. FISA requires a record be kept on every wiretap or electronic surviellance. How else would we know if the taps are constitutional or not. Remember Watergate! Maybe they're wiretapping the Democrats to counter any future adds or for whatever reasons. Without the protection of FISA, we the citizens of the country must rely on the integrity of the Bush White House, a dismal prospect seeing that almost every word out of their mouths are lies or cover-ups!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Now wait a darned minute here ... you said we are losing our liberties. When challenged to state the liberties you've lost, you say "Not Yet." That's a bit of a conflict, wouldn't you say?

"...maybe I should just trust my govt. to do the right thing..."

Now here we may have an important agreement for a change. I know you meant that tongue in cheek ... at least I hope you did. The comment I would make is, of course you shouldn't trust your government. Government is nothing more than power. Always has been and always will be. As I've said before, I am not a Bush supporter, nor am I a Republican. Of the two parties, I consider the Democrats to be the more dangerous of the two ... by far. I don't like their history on the race issue, wars and usurpation of liberties. I admit to you ... the Republicans leave a LOT to be desired too.

Vi

 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
I think the way you feel about the Democrats parallels my view of the republicans, but for different reasons. I don't see very many Democrats I'd go out of my way to support, just the lessor of the two evils. There is one bright star in the demo. party, Arak Obama. God willing he will ascend to the throne (presidency), and make this a better country for everyone! Even you!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Oh, my GAWD! Obamba is just a kid! Maybe in twenty years or so ... just maybe. It would be to his advantage, in my opinion, to stay to the center, or to the right of center of his party. If he becomes a statesman like Zell Miller, he may even attract some folks from the conservative camp of Republcans (those who are really fed up with their party), and maybe even a libertarian thinker or two.

Quite honestly, I haven't heard him speak much ... hardly at all in fact. What ideas of his ideas do you find attractive?

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
All of them! On freedoms lost, do you watch the news? we just lost Habias Corpus and the right to a speedy trial. ie they can pick you up for any reason they want and hold you (an American citizen) for as long as they want without any trial date or court appearance, as it used to be 72 hrs. Now tell me that isn't a loss. And yeah they said it would apply to terrorists, but do you really trust the Government. If they didn't like your message, you could just dissapear into one of their Gulags! Wake Up Vi, wake up!
 
Top