Skip to main content

View Diary: You just elected Paul Ryan POTUS in 2016 (240 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I seriously think you need to give this (0+ / 0-)

    issue some serious thought.  It is NOT nearly as simple as you want it to be.

    There is not ONE American liberty that does not have limitations placed on it when that liberty can or will impinge on someone else's right.

    The liberty of free speech is limited such that you can not yell fire in a crowded theater, you can not lie in your advertising, you can not attempt to hire someone to murder your spouse, even if you're doing it with speech, you can't tell lies about another person that harm that person.

    The liberty of voting is limited by having to be registered, being limited to voting in the precinct in which you live, etc.

    The liberty of privacy is limited such that a woman's right to have an abortion is limited by how far the pregnancy is  (even ignoring the many laws that go far beyond the limitations placed on it by the Supreme Court.

    I could go one, but hopefully you get the point.  There is not right whatsoever that is absolute.  Once it impinges on someone else's right - for example, their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - limitations on your right become not only possible but desirable.

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:28:06 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The right to keep and bear arms is limited...... (0+ / 0-)

      you can't have full-auto, FFL sales must have a background check, etc.

      However, I am unwilling to have more restrictions put on ANY of our Constitutional Rights for percieved security. And I will NOT vote for anyone who does.

      Are there any other Constitutional Rights do you want to infringe upon for the perception of security?

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:43:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have the right to vote or not vote for (0+ / 0-)

        whomever you choose.  Using whatever criteria you choose.  Even when I think it's quite bizarre criteria.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:50:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can't think of a better criteria of who to vote (0+ / 0-)

          for or not vote for, than protection of Constitutional liberties.

          And I really don't think I am alone in this.

          A ban will likely result in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, & Virginia voting Red, make Minnesota purple & turn North Carolina from purple to Red.

          As I have stated earlier, I reject notions of stripping Rights away from people who have committed no crimes, for percieved security.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:42:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think we've all received your opinion and intent (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness

            loud and clear.   And no matter how many times you repeat it, I and many others continue to think your intensity  about this particular Right bizarre and unreasonable and continue to believe that reasonable regulations established to protect the lives of innocent people are not only acceptable, but desireable.  (Sure you don't want to just cap the whole word - it would make your position so much more convincing.)

            And no, it won't be turning those states red.  You might want that to be the case, but you have virtually no evidence to support that contention.  Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.  The rethugs still haven't accepted that, but most Kossacks have.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:15:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "this particular Right" (0+ / 0-)

              Many thought that the 'particular Right' of Warrants for Wiretaps, or to not be tortured, or to not be held without charge was 'bizarre and unreasonable' in order to 'protect the lives of innocent people'.
              It didn't make it any less wrong-headed. To limit the Rights of innocent people is not only wrong, but insulting to the tens of millions of people whom have done no wrong.

              "you have virtually no evidence"
              You mean other than the Republican Revolution?!?
              ........O.......K...

              Granted, we have not yet seen what is the plan....if the task force focuses on people and not objects.....then all will be well.

              Otherwise....not so much.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:28:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Except the torture etc was NOT done to protect (0+ / 0-)

                lives of innocent people and did nothing towards that end.  It was done for sick and pathetic purposes, against the law, and with no one knowing.

                You have no evidence the "Republican Revolution" was caused by - well, I'm not even sure what the hell you're claiming caused it.  I do find it hilarious, though, that you consider one election a "revolution", but when the Dems then wipe the floor in the next election, it means nothing except that the Dems are bound to be wiped out in the next election if they dare establish some reasonable limitations on the right of idiots to put the lives of innocent people at risk.  

                It's amazing to me you're virtually unable to see the slightest bit of the immense contradictions and lack of logic in your arguments.  So much so that I can't even enjoy any kind of discussion with you.  Having a discussion requires someone who can at least recognize the flaws in their own arguments and then try to address them.  You just keep parroting the same talking points regardless of which flaw is pointed out.  It's gotten to the point that it's just damn boring.

                "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                by gustynpip on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:07:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  "It was done for sick and pathetic purposes" (0+ / 0-)

                  It WAS sick and pathetic....if you think that was why they did it, you need to learn that the world isn't filled with James Bond villains.
                  In fact, they gave the same 'sacrifice liberty in the name of security' argument that you do.
                  "you consider one election a 'revolution'"
                  I don't. It was the name the event was given...and for good reason. It was a trouncing, that has been felt to this day.
                  "virtually unable to see the slightest bit of the immense contradictions and lack of logic in your arguments"
                  What is 'contradictory' in refusing vote for anyone that infringes upon the Constitutional Rights that Americans enjoy today? This is not 'contradiction'...it is 'consistency'
                  "Having a discussion requires someone who can at least recognize the flaws in their own arguments and then try to address them. "
                  Then address them. My beliefs are consistent. Yours are not.
                  "parroting the same talking points"
                  And whom am I 'parroting'? Do provide a link....or an apology.
                  "its just damn boring"
                  Try entertaining yourself by actually proving your untrue accusations.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:06:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site