Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech

Too late (which is really not too late) is when he gets elected like Bush and starts to take away our constitutional rights.

 

Won't happen for him any more than it will for Kerry. I'm not certain about the Republican, but the Democrats will run Clinton/Obama.

 

You are right. It assures that all of a peoples' rights are protected.

I am not exactly sure what your point was though. The "way that seems right" currently is an unjust gov't dictating social outcomes to people and using the resources of the innocent to protect people from the consequences of morally derived choices.

Ask yourself, was our country more holy, just, respectful, and civil before or after gov't got into the business of social engineering?

 

My point was based on a couple of libertarians I know who favor acceptance of homosexuality in churches. I am fully in favor of some social engineering laws, such as defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I am fully in favor of laws outlawing partial birth abortion and removing our government as a payee for any abortion.

The libertarians I know oppose such legislation.

 

That has nothing to do with the libertarian political position.

They are free to favor such depravity in a church... and to find a church that agrees with them. They are not free to force themselves as members into your church or mine and use the force of gov't to make us agree with them... this is the libertarian position.

If gov't must be involved in marriage then I agree with you. If truly libertarian however gov't's role would be to enforce contracts, not to define marriage.

I would not have them involved in marriage at all... especially not at the federal level.

Abortion should not be outlawed or restricted because it is immoral. It should be outlawed completely because it violates a person's most fundamental right- the right to live.

Without a right to live that is only forfeited as an extreme punishment for extreme crimes, no other right of any kind is safe or even valid.

Saying that one person can decide to avoid the consequences of their own FREE choices by killing another person with protection of the "law" is equivalent to saying that there is no such thing as an inalienable right.

People call themselves libertarians like people call themselves Baptists or Christians. Labeling yourself doesn't mean that you are consistent with a set of ideals.

The Libertarian Party following the splintering off of pro-lifers into other 3rd parties has become very much pro-abortion. Wishing to have a different option, I wrote to the state rep about their hostility and inconsistency concerning the most fundamental right to live. He was not pleased at having that stand questioned and offered no justification or answer to my argument.

I am small "l" libertarian... but would not vote for the LP because they are not small "l" libertarians anymore.

 

I would roughly equate a small "l" libertarian with a Jefferson Democrat.

 

Scott, you don't really expect any self respecting liberal to ask themselves that question , do you?

And perchance they do, do you really expect them to answer it honestly?

 

And I woiuld not enjoy being equated to Thomas Jefferson.

Thanks for the education in lower and upper case, though.

 

Wow: so in addition to being a bad guy, he thinks we should "reexamine freedom of speech?"

To quote our President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

I guess that this would be one way to fight the terrorists, by curtailing the freedoms that they hate.



Regards,
BiR

 

Jefferson had strengths and weaknesses. However the ideals he espoused on limited gov't were sound, reasonable, just, and maybe most importantly sustainable if left alone.

A few liberals have at least been willing to admit their hostility to the USC and propose its replacement. The USC is designed to govern a free people that use their freedoms responsibly... to include caring privately for social needs and causes.

If we are no longer a people that would help our neighbors in need if left to that responsibility... then the USC needs to be tossed... at least that would have a measure of honesty about it.

I suspect however considering the outpouring of private charity to Katrina that if the press actually did its job of publicizing problems and the people's responsibility (rather than gov't's) to fix them... Americans would still answer the call generously.

 

"Bad guy"?

How is he any worse than any other sinner?

Are you better than he is?

 

It's not liberals VS Conservatives now. It's Americans VS those who want to take away our rights. There are conservatives and liberals on both sides of that divide.

We have been told again and again by the neocons that freedom is too dangerous to trust ordinary Americans with it.

People like that should never, never be given any sort of power over us.

 

I am reproducing this for your benefit. Perhaps you have forgotten my last reply to you.

In predictable fashion, you will undoubtedly offer your Oh, yeah? response. Notice that, for your benefit, I put that in italics. Bear in mind that your reply will say more about you than it will about me.

 

How do you propose to, "limit THAT person FIRST."? Please define "limit" in this context.

 

Actually, you've eaten your own words:

Reminds me of that old saying about "hoist" and "petard." But few read Shakespeare any more.

 

Notice that I was asked a direct question, wasn't I? I was replying to someone else, yet carpro was compelled to asked me a direct question, wasn't he?

Regards anyway, thanks for your insight,
BiR

 

Perhaps, but I notice you didn't address the last question, either.

Are you somehow better than Newt Gingrich?