Well , he signed the NDAA

[Paulie]

What do you think about this?

I think there are people on this forum that still believe that it's acceptable to crush liberty and shit on the law of the land as long as their guy is doing it, for surely their guy is good and has the magic beans necessary to act righteously. I think that applies to many Liberals and Conservatives alike. I do not think it applies to any true Libertarians.

Most liberals and conservatives have their own pet issues that transcend freedom, whereas libertarians' number one issue is freedom.

 

[Foxfyre]

What do you think about this?

I think there are people on this forum that still believe that it's acceptable to crush liberty and shit on the law of the land as long as their guy is doing it, for surely their guy is good and has the magic beans necessary to act righteously. I think that applies to many Liberals and Conservatives alike. I do not think it applies to any true Libertarians.

Most liberals and conservatives have their own pet issues that transcend freedom, whereas libertarians' number one issue is freedom.

Only those who recognize unalienable rights and who would limit the federal government to providing the common defense, promoting the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any targeted group), and securing the unalienable rights of the people understand freedom with any intellectual honesty. Otherwise the federal government should be involved in no way in however the people choose to organize the societies they want to have.

Most identifying themselves as libertarians are no more pure or noble than are those identifying themselves as liberals or conservatives on that issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think there are people on this forum that still believe that it's acceptable to crush liberty and shit on the law of the land as long as their guy is doing it, for surely their guy is good and has the magic beans necessary to act righteously. I think that applies to many Liberals and Conservatives alike. I do not think it applies to any true Libertarians.

Most liberals and conservatives have their own pet issues that transcend freedom, whereas libertarians' number one issue is freedom.

Only those who recognize unalienable rights and who would limit the federal government to providing the common defense, promoting the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any targeted group), and securing the unalienable rights of the people understand freedom with any intellectual honesty. Otherwise the federal government should be involved in no way in however the people choose to organize the societies they want to have.

Most identifying themselves as libertarians are no more pure or noble than are those identifying themselves as liberals or conservatives on that issue.

How about those who identify them self as a Constitutionalist?

 

[Paulie]

I think there are people on this forum that still believe that it's acceptable to crush liberty and shit on the law of the land as long as their guy is doing it, for surely their guy is good and has the magic beans necessary to act righteously. I think that applies to many Liberals and Conservatives alike. I do not think it applies to any true Libertarians.

Most liberals and conservatives have their own pet issues that transcend freedom, whereas libertarians' number one issue is freedom.

Only those who recognize unalienable rights and who would limit the federal government to providing the common defense, promoting the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any targeted group), and securing the unalienable rights of the people understand freedom with any intellectual honesty. Otherwise the federal government should be involved in no way in however the people choose to organize the societies they want to have.

Most identifying themselves as libertarians are no more pure or noble than are those identifying themselves as liberals or conservatives on that issue.

This becomes wrong as soon as you see a conservative advocate for federal drug laws, or a liberal advocate for mandated health insurance.

 

[paulitician]

Of course he signed it. Did anyone really think he wouldn't? More power & control. What's not to like about that for him?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh for Christ's sake. It must really suck to live in fear.

I remember you leftist nitwits crapping your pants over the fear that for whatever reason, Bush and Cheney were sitting in the White House pouring over letters from Aunt Martha.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh for Christ's sake. It must really suck to live in fear.

I remember you leftist nitwits crapping your pants over the fear that for whatever reason, Bush and Cheney were sitting in the White House pouring over letters from Aunt Martha.

It's ok if my guy does it.

 

[Paulie]

Oh for Christ's sake. It must really suck to live in fear.

I remember you leftist nitwits crapping your pants over the fear that for whatever reason, Bush and Cheney were sitting in the White House pouring over letters from Aunt Martha.

Bush signed the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, which threatened Posse Comitatus, and the Military Commissions Act which suspended Habeas Corpus, and the left was up in arms.

Now Obama has done the same thing and it's all gravy.

 

[eflatminor]

Only those who recognize unalienable rights and who would limit the federal government to providing the common defense, promoting the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any targeted group), and securing the unalienable rights of the people understand freedom with any intellectual honesty. Otherwise the federal government should be involved in no way in however the people choose to organize the societies they want to have.

Most identifying themselves as libertarians are no more pure or noble than are those identifying themselves as liberals or conservatives on that issue.

Well, I can't speak for everyone that calls themselves a Libertarian (or a Classical Liberal), but every one of them I know and understand to be an actual Libertarian would understand freedom similarly. When you say "most", I really don't know who you're talking about. That said, I've had some very confused souls refer to themselves as 'Libertarian Socialists', wherever the hell that is. In any case, your statement sounds like you're a Libertarian. Are you?

 

[paulitician]

Oh for Christ's sake. It must really suck to live in fear.

I remember you leftist nitwits crapping your pants over the fear that for whatever reason, Bush and Cheney were sitting in the White House pouring over letters from Aunt Martha.

Pre "Hope & Change." Doesn't count.

 

[Foxfyre]

Only those who recognize unalienable rights and who would limit the federal government to providing the common defense, promoting the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any targeted group), and securing the unalienable rights of the people understand freedom with any intellectual honesty. Otherwise the federal government should be involved in no way in however the people choose to organize the societies they want to have.

Most identifying themselves as libertarians are no more pure or noble than are those identifying themselves as liberals or conservatives on that issue.

Well, I can't speak for everyone that calls themselves a Libertarian (or a Classical Liberal), but every one of them I know and understand to be an actual Libertarian would understand freedom similarly. When you say "most", I really don't know who you're talking about. That said, I've had some very confused souls refer to themselves as 'Libertarian Socialists', wherever the hell that is. In any case, your statement sounds like you're a Libertarian. Are you?

The 'most' is a generic 'number' of those who really don't apply concepts of freedom in all circumstances. The 'most' are all those who have never been taught the concepts of American exceptionalism or the philosophy of the Founders who had the courage for the first time in all history to try a great experiment in which the government would not assign rights to the people, but would rather secure their God given unalienable rights and then otherwise leave them alone to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness whatever that meant to them. It was a government free of king, dictator, totalitarian authority but a government responsive to the people who would govern themselves.

Their experiment was successful beyond their wildest dreams and produced the greatest, most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, and most prosperous people the world had ever known. But, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt, there have been those who claim to be libertarian or conservative or liberal who have been chipping away at the core principles the Founders built into the Constitution and who attempt to revert to the old system in which the people were beholden to and subject to a king or pharoah or emperor or other authoritarian government.

I identify myself as a modern American conservative, i.e. "classical liberal" or "libertarian" of the variety the Founders were. And as long as I am able, I will keep pushing and teaching those basic concepts re American exceptionalism and a free people that governs itself that apparently is being taught in precious few institutions of learning these days.

 

[Cervantes22]

It was either make this law, or the military has no budget while he sends it back, which is political suicide.

I'll wait to see how he behaves when this is challenged in court. Go ACLU!

There were proposed amendments to this in Congress that would've removed the indefinite detention of citizens without trial clause. They were rejected, and I hope all the congress members who voted against them get crushed in the next election.

 

[Cervantes22]

Oh for Christ's sake. It must really suck to live in fear.

I remember you leftist nitwits crapping your pants over the fear that for whatever reason, Bush and Cheney were sitting in the White House pouring over letters from Aunt Martha.

Bush signed the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, which threatened Posse Comitatus, and the Military Commissions Act which suspended Habeas Corpus, and the left was up in arms.

Now Obama has done the same thing and it's all gravy.

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

 

[Paulie]

I remember you leftist nitwits crapping your pants over the fear that for whatever reason, Bush and Cheney were sitting in the White House pouring over letters from Aunt Martha.

Bush signed the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, which threatened Posse Comitatus, and the Military Commissions Act which suspended Habeas Corpus, and the left was up in arms.

Now Obama has done the same thing and it's all gravy.

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Well the dem senate passed it, the dem reps voted yes, and he signed it, so apparently not nearly enough.

 

[Cervantes22]

Bush signed the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, which threatened Posse Comitatus, and the Military Commissions Act which suspended Habeas Corpus, and the left was up in arms.

Now Obama has done the same thing and it's all gravy.

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Well the dem senate passed it, the dem reps voted yes, and he signed it, so apparently not nearly enough.

You can't pin this all on the dems, the Republicans voted for it too.

And dem or Rep, anyone who didn't try to remove that bit, should be deeply ashamed.

I'm hoping for ritualistic suicide. Maybe lock themselves in a bus and light it on fire.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I remember you leftist nitwits crapping your pants over the fear that for whatever reason, Bush and Cheney were sitting in the White House pouring over letters from Aunt Martha.

Bush signed the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, which threatened Posse Comitatus, and the Military Commissions Act which suspended Habeas Corpus, and the left was up in arms.

Now Obama has done the same thing and it's all gravy.

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Haven't seen very many dems pissed at all about this. Actually, a lot are excited about this new law.

 

[Paulie]

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Well the dem senate passed it, the dem reps voted yes, and he signed it, so apparently not nearly enough.

You can't pin this all on the dems, the Republicans voted for it too.

And dem or Rep, anyone who didn't try to remove that bit, should be deeply ashamed.

I'm hoping for ritualistic suicide. Maybe lock themselves in a bus and light it on fire.

It's not about pinning blame to a party.

In fact, I think it says a lot that the republicans voted in large part for this bill as well.

 

[paulitician]

Do people still believe in that "Hope & Change" stuff? Just wondering?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bush signed the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, which threatened Posse Comitatus, and the Military Commissions Act which suspended Habeas Corpus, and the left was up in arms.

Now Obama has done the same thing and it's all gravy.

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Haven't seen very many dems pissed at all about this. Actually, a lot are excited about this new law.

I haven't seen many regardless of the political party upset about this. I think it's because they feel it will never happen to them.

 

[Paulie]

I've seen lots of leftwingers get pissed about this.

Haven't seen very many dems pissed at all about this. Actually, a lot are excited about this new law.

I haven't seen many regardless of the political party upset about this. I think it's because they feel it will never happen to them.

Yep.

Which just goes to show how truly selfish most people are. Even the bleeding heart liberals are selfish.