Gore slams Bush over loss of civil liberties

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am still wondering why the most logic and non-violating-liberty steps haven't been taken:

1) every tourist comes in with a 3 month automatic or embassy issued visa. NOBODY CHECKS IF THEY LEFT THE COUNTRY after 3 month.

2) no illegal aliens! They are illegal, they are criminals according to US laws. Businesses and companies that employ illegals are criminals according to US laws. Our dear "mainstream" media, Democrats and even Republicans tell us that there is not such a thing as an illegal alien, they call it "undocumented immigrant". Newspeak!

None of this measures would violate civil liberties or cripple the constitution more as it already have been.

But, face it. Politicos are not interested in civil liberties or any constitution. They are ONLY interested to gain power. If it gives them more power, they act like fierce defenders of the constitution.
 
Angus
The ACLU does not support civil rights any more, if they ever did. They are a leftest organization out to push a liberal agenda in the courts that legislatures will not adopt.
 
Ya know, I was thinking...

WESLEY CLARK!

So hes a Democrat, and with a republic govt we have now, it will be a ....whatchamacallit....lockout?

AND he is military, so hes gotta be pro-gun right?

or at least it would seem that way, i should probably check...
 
oh nm....
he is in support of assault rifle ban, but he does support the 2nd amendment...kinda
Gun Control:

Clark takes a moderate position on gun control. He told CNN: "I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them." He supports Second Amendment rights;he also supports a ban on assault weapons, but believes that gun control is mostly a local issue
 
but believes that gun control is mostly a local issue

Oh, wouldn't that be nice? A Democratic politican comes up and says:

"I believe Gun Control is an issue that should be left to the States, who are more in tune with what the voters of each State want."

I'd vote for that guy. Seriously.

Unfortunately, that's not what we're dealing with, I don't think.
 
Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want.

My BIGGEST problem with this position is, of course, the current misguided "assault" weapons ban. I like having 20 round magazines for my FAL. For reasons I don't understand, this is important to me. I'd be just as happy with an eight shot Garand, I think, but I don't like having that choice made for me.
 
I find it incredibly amusing that a Democrat, being champions of gun control, racism, and big government, is complaining about a "loss of civil liberties."

Further, while I am against any expansion of govt. powers and am against the Patriot Acts I&II, I have yet to be arrested and detained without reason nor trial by a bunch of JBTs rappelling out of black helos.
 
… champions of gun control, racism, and big government …
The embarrassing GOP
Smaller government, less spending? That's a joke

By Cal Thomas | Commentary
Posted November 29, 2003


The just concluded (thankfully) Congress is an embarrassment to itself and everyone who favors smaller government. This Republican Congress, in addition to increasing spending on entitlements and expanding big government -- like the Democrats they once criticized -- also dished out $95 billion in tax breaks and pork-barrel projects.

The Heritage Foundation's Brian M. Riedl says mandatory government spending will reach 11.1 percent of GDP this year, a record high, and non-defense discretionary spending in 2003 will amount to 3.9 percent of GDP for the first time since 1985. Riedl also predicts taxes will inevitably have to be raised to pay for it all. What politician wants to be demagogued about cutting "essential services"?

The Republican "oath" says, "I believe that the proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people." Would some lawyer please sue the Republican National Committee for violating truth-in-labeling laws?

Smaller government and less spending? That's a joke. Eleven years ago, Newt Gingrich, who would soon become Speaker of the House, blasted Democrats for seeing "no contradiction between adding a billion and a half dollars in pork-barrel (spending) for the politicians in their big-city machines and voting for a balanced budget amendment." Now that Republicans are doing precisely what Democrats did when they were in the majority, what shall we call these overspending Republicans? Hypocrites? Liars?

The Wall Street Journal editorialized (Nov. 24): "The Republican Congress is turning into something of an embarrassment, if not a crackup." Who is going to pay for all of this stuff? Who will pay for the new prescription-drug benefit that will not even be means-tested? There are no cost controls in this bill. Without them, congressional spending will be out of control.

The Bush administration was supposed to hold the line on spending as a justification for the tax cuts. The president has criticized Washington for spending too much money, yet without a peep he signs legislation that increases the budget of the Department of Education and many other agencies. And the justification for more federal education spending is that we are going to make sure the kids are held accountable. Accountability takes money?

The federal government will now spend $21,000 per household, up from $16,000 in 1999, according to the Heritage Foundation's Riedl. How much of that $21,000 could you spend that would produce better results for yourself and family?

We are moving rapidly, under Republican "leadership," past the nanny state and the welfare state to what might be called the state as family. The government will be our keeper (we shall not want). Though we walk through the valley of the shadow of poverty, the federal government will be there to comfort us. Anyone who complains about this will be called "rich" and (by definition) insensitive and uncaring about his fellow man.

The time when the Republican Party stood for something worth standing for is over. The "G" in GOP might as well stand for government. Smaller, less intrusive government with less spending and lower taxes is the stuff of history books and fond memories for a party that once had a purpose. But Republicans, having tasted power, are now drunk with it. Like the Democrats before them who became inebriated with the wine of success, Republicans now seem interested only in preserving their elective offices.

Truly there is less than a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. If only term limits would catch on. But the very people who are the problem would have to vote for the idea, and there isn't any money in it.

Defense and anti-terrorism spending aside, there is no excuse for much of the rest of it. It is a pathetic betrayal of the faith many had put in the Republican Party to reduce the size and role of government in our lives.

Is it time for another revolution yet? Who's got the tea?

Cal Thomas can be reached at www.calthomas.com.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...03,1,1653431.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines
 
Excuse me...but that article doesn't mention TAX CUTS

That is the real difference.

The Dems want to spend more...and have us pay for it.

At least GWB is "trying" to make the Govt live within its' means.

As to the idea of safety and the comment on Visa's

I seem to remember the government trying to implement checks on students to acertain that they were, in fact, attending classes like their visa states.

The screaming you heard from the schools and ACLU should still be ringing in your ears.
 
Obiwan, the GOP has *expanded* the government since coming into power and they are paying for it through loans (future taxes). Watch what they do, not what they say.
 
Good advice, w4rma.....

"Watch what they do, not what they say."
************************************************************

Please, please heed this advice and observe what the Democrats DO about gun control, rather than what ONE of them says about it.:eek:


************************************************************
"Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want."
************************************************************

NO! There are too many overlapping and conflicting federal gun laws now.

There in NO "gun show loophole":mad:

And Howard Dean can put his suggestion about letting the states 'decide for themselves' where the sun don't shine.....

Are we to be denied a Constitutionally enumerated inalienable right because some Democrat hopeful thinks it O.K. as long as the states do it?

:eek: :fire: :scrutiny:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top