Our basic constitutional rights vs. the political parties

There has been a lot of talk on this subject over several threads that have gone slightly off topic. So I thought I'd start a thread just for this topic.

Some have accused liberals of wanting to take away constitutional rights. I maintain that both parties are equally guilty and will offer examples.

First, I would like to quote what both Justin and I posted in the "legalizing marajuana" thread:

When law tries to set morality, and force people to do what some feel they should do, it's entering the abuse category in my opinion.

I've been a bit undecided about the issues, but when put that way, I do totally agree. It falls under the same category as same sex marraige (or any other nonconforming social or familial arraingement for that matter) or any behavior that isn't forced or causes harm to other people.

Some of the more extreme liberals have tried to abridge the 2nd amendment to the point where law abiding citizens were disqualified from owning any guns. In fairness, other liberals were just as against this as their more conservative countrypersons. I have mixed feelings about taxing the rich more than the poor; I do agree that only the very rich and the very poor are not getting harmed by these policies; it is the vast majority in the middle who are getting badly hurt. Our tax policy is badly broken and we need to start from scratch. Injustices and inequities are rife. I have no problem taking money from those who robbed everyone to get it in the first place and their descendents; but tax loopholes usually exempt them anyway and the rest of us pay. (As for corruption and wasting taxes: that is a huge subject for another thread.)

But, some of the more extreme conservatives have tried to impose the standards of one religion's morality on everyone. Some examples have included curtailing first amendment rights so that is agrees with those standards, defining legal marraige by those standards, as well as marajuana use and prostitution, requiring christain prayer and celebrations at public schools, restricting birth control and abortion while rewarding having as many children as possible; in short taking away choice from people who do not have their views. Also in fairness, other more moderate conservatives do not agree.

I know I hit chords from people on both sides of the political spectrum; let the discussions begin!

Well said.

But, you must remember that not all conservatives are driven by religion.

True, but the conservatitve party has been controlled by the religious right for some time. I keep hoping more moderate conservatives will gain power in that party.

In truth, I am not enamoured with the far left any more than the far right.

i am enamelled by both extreme wings, but for different reasons....the left enamels me blue, and the right enamels me red...it has been said that the left dint want the red on the blue, since this was 'too close to identifying with communist color' lol!

the middle is getting the whack beat out of it. i can become a 'one issue voter' when the candidates offer nothing of substance on anything else....no tax reform, such as a federal vat, no border control, no reduction in corporate taxes, or attempts to bring jobs back here, no worthwhile dealing with health care issues....these two clowns are disgusting. so, i'll pick the one that'll leave me the most alone....obama is a socialist. mccain is...hell, i dunno what he is, but he seem sto not be 'anti-gun' enough to come after my firearms...disgusting, the whole process....disgusting...there should be no funding allowed for elections....give them 100k from the treasury, and don't allow any more from anywhere...
reb

This topic clearly belongs in 'Controversial'..

Citrine, can you give examples of conservatives not driven by religion?
Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind

I think most often it's a power struggle anyway... & people just want to get rich & influential.. On both sides... (conservatives AND democrats, or the equivalents of those in other countries!) Religion (or another worldview) may just be a 'tool' or one of the 'tools' they use as vehicles of their beliefs...

I've read up on the attitude of both parties to environmental issues (which I'm most passionate about) - & it seems neither of the parties has done so well in that regard... They may be even worse here in Slovenia...
I really admire Germany for having a strong 'green' party... But it took great pollution of many decades, & muchly destroyed environment to get the greens active there...

A right to clean air & water & soil & healthy food surely is one of the most basic human rights too...

I think good people (& good ideas!) can be found in both parties, & outside them too... As good people (& at least some ideas) can be found in (almost) all religions too.. One is a human being at first, & party member 2nd, IMO...

So if I understand it right, is this thread intended for discussion of beliefs & agendas you agree with, regardless of which party they belong to? (Or even if 'the other' party brings them up & supports them?)

A lot of people feel very passionately about the current climate of abridging garaunteed rights of the US constitution and it seems to be coming from everywhere. Posts on the topic were showing up in multiple threads, so I intended this as a place where people can discuss these issues from whatever perspective they see it from.

I've read that this problem is happening in Europe too, where freedom of speech, privacy and other rights are being curtailed, little by little. So the perspectives of others from other countries is welcome too.

From my own perspective (no labels please) if we did away with labels and simply spoke about the issues, we could have a more productive interchange. All I'm seeing is people going on the defensive, trying to defend their political party of choice. Using labels to identify candidates (socialist is a good example) sucks and, quite frankly, I refuse to take part in interchanges or conversations where labeling occurs. As I said, to me, it is simply counter-productive.

Give me examples, cite facts, but leave out the labels. Only then can we truly converse about what is important - the issues. And when we can do that, well, maybe we can actually start to implement some needed changes.

Yeah, I think it is better to focus on the issues too...

I've often seen different parties all come up with stupid ideas... Or not well-thought-out ones...

Yes, I've seen it in my country too... Journalists rebelled against it a few months ago... Also, we now have a free paper here that praises the current 'man' of the politics (& his fiancee - we're still not sure if she's for real or just a good PR move!!) & trashes all others, pretty much... Also citing crimes in ex-Yu countries (so that people are distracted from current problems/affairs OoO) Guess who he's 'best buddies with'? lol Yup, you guessed it... Look up into the US political sky... (?!!)
/Some people even say this guy was an American spy lol - Who knows? )

The whole issue of freedom of speech,and privacy is a little complicated and yes, certain little rights have been eroded away here in Australia. I can't provide examples, but the whole anti-terrorism philosophy which basically an excuse clamp down on certain peskie laws. The thing that distrubed me most here was the the increase of police powers under the guise of anti-terrorism laws, and passed under cover without so much of a wispher from the general public a few years ago. It actually made me quite sick. I also think the whole marajuana issue is a farce, but that's a whole other topic. I don't think Australia has a constituion - being part of the common wealth (for how much longer?), same goes for NZ, which was less paranoid about things, being on the edge of the world and far from troubles....and certainly more liberal (in an odd conservative way, you have be a kiwi away from home to understand that I guess.)

Adain,

i can give you an example of erosion of rights....i don't know the oz constitution, but they outlawed all 'semiautomatic firearms' there a few years ago. saw pics of them being cut up and melted down, dumped out of dump trucks.

so, what's the crime stats since they did that? are they up, or down...i guess i could blackle, but it's your country, not mine. our crime stats are down; i think 36 states now have laws to allow concealed carry. only a small percentage in each state carry, but, mostly, the fact you have the license is not public, so the crooks don't know who's packin'. lol....a deterrent in REAL form.

Nan, if i don't use 'socialist', then what do you want? a short description, please, as my hands always hurt, and i don't want to type out' person who steals my taxes, raises my taxes, puts part in their pocket, gives some to their friends, uses some more to buy votes with, and then gives the rest away to the sick, lame and lazy, while promising not to do any of that stuff in public'.....'thief' works as well to me. robber, disciple of the devil, dictator, el jefe, wannabe king or queen???....which short words can i use to describe someone who wants my money to give to someone else, and to pocket some as it passes by them? if you'll tell me a short one, i use it instead of socialist or commie pinko or other words that evoke the same reaction from those of us who pay taxes....lol!
reb

Hm, Reb, it seems your issue with 'socialist' is purely tax-based. So how about sticking to topic & saying 'people who want to raise taxes'?

I bet 'conservative' party would wann do it too if they weren't rich themselve , & looking to entice & make happy that part of the 'voting body'... (again, not sure if I used correct terms-?!)

Yes, it would be interesting to see crime statistics mentioned... Also, one must take in account those things can take time... & those statistics can also easily be 'tweaked' or so... Depending on what gets included into them etc. (!) There was a documentary on something like this being done in one of US cities, if I remember it right... (maybe New York) Certain crimes were increasingly 'filed' under a different number to make it seem like crime rates were 'falling'... or something like that...

StrawberryLife wrote:Hm, Reb, it seems your issue with 'socialist' is purely tax-based. So how about sticking to topic & saying 'people who want to raise taxes'?

I bet 'conservative' party would wann do it too if they weren't rich themselve , & looking to entice & make happy that part of the 'voting body'... (again, not sure if I used correct terms-?!)

Yes, it would be interesting to see crime statistics mentioned... Also, one must take in account those things can take time... & those statistics can also easily be 'tweaked' or so... Depending on what gets included into them etc. (!) There was a documentary on something like this being done in one of US cities, if I remember it right... (maybe New York) Certain crimes were increasingly 'filed' under a different number to make it seem like crime rates were 'falling'... or something like that...

Oh yes, crime statistics are inaccurate; at least locally. I know for a fact, that if a crime is reported, but they don't have the man power to investigate it, then it never gets counted as actually happened. Over 90% of crime falls into this category as our police force is severly understaffed right now and slated due to lack of money to shrink another 10%. Even with the statistics artificially deflated like that, our crime rate is still one of the highest in the nation for a city our size. I'm pretty sure though that most other municipalities do the same thing with their crime statistics too.

So comparing statistics between countries and areas of the world might be interesting, but given the statistics do not reflect the true scope of crime, it would be hard to draw anything but the most preliminary of conclusions from it.

As for using the correct terms, the way you worded things is a bit different, but essentially you used the terms correctly.

SB and Nan, i have thought about your request. in sum, with all due respect, i will give up my freedom of speech when others, whom i termed earlier 'liberal, pinko commies' give up trying to take away my economic freedom, my birth given freedom to defend myself as effectively as the criminals running loose and my other freedoms with their 'control' agenda. my issue with socialists is their sticking their noses into everything that others do and trying to control it. you can't say this; you must do that; you must be 'politically correct in your speech'. give 30% of your income to the government; they will take care of all your problems (lol! i really won't say what i think of this idea-i'd be truly insulting).

i'll agree with you; statistics don't really matter. the ability to poke big holes in someone who tries to hurt me does. and i'll give up that right just before they cremate me, not before. i really don't care who passes what laws....you can put that in your pipe and smoke it. i'm old enough i'm tired of being told what to do 'for my own good', and having thieves pass laws that they themselves don't obey, because they are 'political parties'.

i think the point is being completely missed 'stay on topic' (when you wander around like a drunken sailor-oh, excuse me, i might offend the sailors); the things i am referring to as 'my rights' do not stem from the Constitution, nor do they stem from the noblesse oblige of some 'elected' power monger.....they come from the fact i was born a free human being. no one can take that away unless i let them, and it'll be over my dead body.

anyone who's a socialist, stand up and wave the commie flag lol! vladimir loves ya!
reb

I'm quite distressed by the current trend to abridge our individual freedoms. Safety and freedom are always a balancing act, but we're tipping too far towards "safety" in my opinion. In other words, we're starting to live in fear rather than just living, and the news media fans fear's flames incessantly to make sure we don't forget to be angry & afraid all the time. Worse - the current "terrorist" mentality is making it far too easy for politicians to shove through crap like the new copyright laws.

The US constitution give us the right to bear arms. That should be the beginning and the end of that discussion, but it never is. We also have strict rules about the separation of church & state, and those are under attack as well. Taxes have never been constitutionally supported, but seem to be a necessary evil in modern society. Where our constitution falls short is clear rules about the division of business and state, and it's there that the most serious problems are arising in my opinion. Powerful corporations are happily destroying the middle class in this country, with the apparent blessing of our politicians.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's tush about liberal or conservative, or political parties for that matter. Like Nan, I think those things confuse more than they clarify. Many of the problems we face are hard to solve, but nothing gets solved by obscuring the issues with meaningless labels.

Justin Passing wrote:I'm quite distressed by the current trend to abridge our individual freedoms. Safety and freedom are always a balancing act, but we're tipping too far towards "safety" in my opinion. In other words, we're starting to live in fear rather than just living, and the news media fans fear's flames incessantly to make sure we don't forget to be angry & afraid all the time. Worse - the current "terrorist" mentality is making it far too easy for politicians to shove through crap like the new copyright laws.

The US constitution give us the right to bear arms. That should be the beginning and the end of that discussion, but it never is. We also have strict rules about the separation of church & state, and those are under attack as well. Taxes have never been constitutionally supported, but seem to be a necessary evil in modern society. Where our constitution falls short is clear rules about the division of business and state, and it's there that the most serious problems are arising in my opinion. Powerful corporations are happily destroying the middle class in this country, with the apparent blessing of our politicians.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's tush about liberal or conservative, or political parties for that matter. Like Nan, I think those things confuse more than they clarify. Many of the problems we face are hard to solve, but nothing gets solved by obscuring the issues with meaningless labels.

I agree with most of this. But the people who would take away our freedoms and collaberate with business themselves proudly lable themselves as liberal or conservative. It would be nice if we could do away with the lables. But there is a power struggle going on and those lables are attached to it unfortunately. It is those people who have co-opted the lables and not the lables themselves that are the problem.

smoke screen. the whole 'political process' is smoke screen. it's the thieves against the farmers as it was in the times that kings sent their knights to take peoples' produce and livestock to fee dthe castle. this was the old way to 'tax'; the new way is to invent the old way out of nothing, and call it legal because they control the 'law'. the sheriff of nottingham would be proud....

Justin, i think you are absolutely correct in 'we have a problem'; campaign finance reform is a phrase that is ajoke. as i've stated before we could never get into major corp's 'home office g&a' accounts. i have always maintained this is where the political contributions came from. they buy influence with profits from our money...a simple change...give ALL POLITICIANS $100,000 from the u.s treasury (or state or whatever) to fund their campaign. no other funds are legal to use for ads, etc., even their own funds (too easy to launder money with the power they have). this self limits the crap on tv/radio/media, it removes them from the 'slop trough', and it puts them all on an equal footing. they are already required to get equal time on tv/radio if the station has one on...they have to have the other. we will never, ever get to the money inthe corporations accounts, so, let them do what they will; if we catch a pol taking money under the table, we ought to throw the book at him/her. when i took organizational structure, the guiding principle was you never let the people who handle the money be the same people as the ones who purchase.....duh! congress does both. our governmental structure violates principles found in any mba organization course....duh to us all.

the reason their destroying our country is because they have created a middle class in india and china; they don't need us to have any purchasing power; they'ver transferred that and the jobs they leech off of to two other continents...we can suck wind for all they care, and they'll just tax us to death for any surplus we might have...simple, brutal, effective....while we all argue and debate politics...do i need to define 'poly-ticks' again?

mel, there is no 'power struggle'; it's all show....the two major parties have all the power, and the corps give them all the money...did you see the latest list of earmarks? disgusting...jsut disgusting...thieves, liars, sneaks, killers, vote buyers....rape....we're all getting raped.
reb

I think you're wrong about where the power is Reb. The two major parties have no power - not anymore. They're all bought and paid for. Government isn't running anything anymore. We're the screaming crowds in the coliseum, desperately awaiting the "show" that's fed to us by our "masters" via the media. We react to what they want us to react to, since they control what we're thinking about. They control the topics, and they manage our reactions. And they've gotten quite skilled at it.

Our politicians & our governments are virtually powerless. If they admit to real opinions they're news, and ultimately they're crucified by the public no matter what they try to do. The only thing politicians can do is criticize others without being tarred & feathered by the media & the public. They're patsies. Figureheads. Leeches. All sorts of things. What they're not is in control. That power lies elsewhere.

Justin,

we could debate 'where the power is' endlessly. the trilaterist freaks did for a long time..useless. there is no separation between parts of the system that controls, i think we would both agree on that....it's a hydra...cut off one head, it grows another; attack one part, it puts its strength into another part, and then does a 'distraction' to pull attention off the part that was attacked. sun tzu, machiavelli....they've read and internalized all these.

i bet we would also agree on this; the people either have no power, or are too afraid to exercise it. lol! kinda fun to watch, from my perspective...an interesting game of chess, that many have no idea they are pawns in....
reb

But this game of chess is truly on an international level. So if the people have any power at all, it also must be on an international level, and different movements to improve things need to join up to have a hope at all. National borders became somewhat meaningless as far as real power, wealth and issues go quite some time ago.

If I accept the premise that our government is a sham meant to distract from the real issues, then it follows that the people of the world must not allow themselves to be played off of one another, but work together to undermine the chess masters. Of course, I can't see that happening in my lifetime.