NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed, that many people blame conservatives of trying to "take away all of our rights and turn <insert country name here> into a dictatorship!" Now, it may just be me, I may just be blind, I may have just turned thirteen (Today's my birthday! Whoo hoo!) but it seems to me the liberals are trying to take away our rights.
I, being a moderate, like all of our freedoms, wonder: Where the hell do people come up with conservatives trying to suppress all of our freedoms? I live in Northern Ohio, one of the most conservative places in the North, and have enjoyed immense freedom. It seems to me that NOWHERE are conservatives trying to take away rights (but add none) and liberals are trying to take away some (and add others). My question to you all is: Which way is better? To keep all of our rights, but never add on, or, to keep some of our rights, but add others?

Okay... well, if it was up to conservatives, you wouldn't have freedom of religion or protest.

At least, if it was up to the ones I live with.

That all depends upon which rights you are keeping and which rights you would gain.

I would quite happily trade my right to hitch a horse in the main street of the local town for a right to access the sites I want to access on the internet, for example.

I have noticed, that many people blame conservatives of trying to "take away all of our rights and turn <insert country name here> into a dictatorship!" Now, it may just be me, I may just be blind, I may have just turned thirteen (Today's my birthday! Whoo hoo!) but it seems to me the liberals are trying to take away our rights.
I, being a moderate, like all of our freedoms, wonder: Where the hell do people come up with conservatives trying to suppress all of our freedoms? I live in Northern Ohio, one of the most conservative places in the North, and have enjoyed immense freedom. It seems to me that NOWHERE are conservatives trying to take away rights (but add none) and liberals are trying to take away some (and add others). My question to you all is: Which way is better? To keep all of our rights, but never add on, or, to keep some of our rights, but add others?

Since you are only thirteen, it is unlikely you have gone very much indepth into American Government, and the ramifications of the Bill of Rights, and the rights granted to the citizens by it(You'll probably have American Government somewhere in 10-12 grade). Anyway, one of the major ones includes the fifth amendment, which states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.."

The major problem of this arises from the "due process of law". Currently there are bills slated to redefine whom can be withheld, and how they can be withheld. An American citizen, would under these redefinitions, could be held indefinitely, without ever seeing the court, and without ever being able to appeal to a court(Because of the wording of the bills, a person could not appeal their imprisonment unless they have already been brought to court-but they don't have to be brought to court if the feds don't want to do it). Which bring in the next point, Amendment six:


"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The person being held is not given the right of speedy trial, nor are they given a public one. Infact, they may never go to trial if those holding them don't want to do so. An indefinate imprisonement is quite clearly unconstitutional, and completely circumvents habeas corpus, which may be one of our most valued rights. An innocent man can(and has been) be sent for indefinite imprisonment, and has no way of release due to clearly unlawful imprisonment.

And for another point, the wording of who an enemy combatant is could be anyone who supports a "terrorist" type movement, even if not directly but only verbally, and they can then be siezed. I don't think I need to explain the first Amendment rights violation here.

And many, many other cases, but these are just the more recent ones.

Dems big one is the Second Amendment, a far less important Amendment(in my eyes) than some of the others.

True conservatives are more likely not to take your rights. However most the republicans who claim to be conservatives are simply religious fucknuts who will take your rights quicker than most dems.

True conservatives are more likely not to take your rights. However most the republicans who claim to be conservatives are simply religious fucknuts who will take your rights quicker than most dems.

Amen.

Happy thirteenth.

Both sides want to take away certain rights. Certain rights receive more attention though, and sometimes, certain sides do a better job of publicizing what rights the other side wants to take away.

Anyway, have a good day, and enjoy teenagehood.

True conservatives are more likely not to take your rights. However most the republicans who claim to be conservatives are simply religious fucknuts who will take your rights quicker than most dems.

Yep. Most republicans are not, almost by definition, not conservative.

Conservatives:

-Generally Favor small government(where contemporary ones do not)
-Want slow and small amounts of change
-Generally favor few taxes
-Generally favor as little spending as possible
-Generally favor a small budget


Out of all of those, only one is common among current repubs, and that is low taxes, but really that is only due to popular support for low taxes, and not due to them actually caring(for the most part). It has been my experience that most politicians could give a rats ass about what the people want, and the people could care less about what the government is doing. Hell, most of the nation probably doesn't even know there's a midterm election coming up, and most of the ones that do know probably have no idea A)Who is currently in office, and B)who is running against them. Pathetic, but true.

Happy b-day, btw.

Okay... well, if it was up to conservatives, you wouldn't have freedom of religion or protest.

At least, if it was up to the ones I live with.

Well, appearently, you live in California, where all the nutjobs and whackos are.

Thanks everyone for wishing me a happy birthday.

Seangolia, your first post made no sense.

Are all of the conservatives on here younger than 16 or older than 40?

Are all of the conservatives on here younger than 16 or older than 40?



Does it really so surprise you? I mean, thats not true, but it sure seems like it.

Anyway, I'd just like to end wiht a quote: "If you are not a socialist by 20, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist at 40, you have no head.

Damn, cannot remember who said that...

But hey, G&E, yeah, well, what are you gonna do? Everything is about propaganda and winning over others. Its only reasonable that conservatives get things said about them.


Whether they are true or not is an entirely different matter.


P.S. Sorry for the incoherence. Don't know what I am trying to say.

Does it really so surprise you? I mean, thats not true, but it sure seems like it.

Anyway, I'd just like to end wiht a quote: "If you are not a socialist by 20, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist at 40, you have no head.

Damn, cannot remember who said that...


'Twas good sir Churchill.

Are all of the conservatives on here younger than 16 or older than 40?

Yes. Every single one of us on the face of the Earth.

Thats an incredible coincidence.

'Twas good sir Churchill.

Thanks. I never can remember things like that.

I have noticed, that many people blame conservatives of trying to "take away all of our rights and turn <insert country name here> into a dictatorship!" Now, it may just be me, I may just be blind, I may have just turned thirteen (Today's my birthday! Whoo hoo!) but it seems to me the liberals are trying to take away our rights.
I, being a moderate, like all of our freedoms, wonder: Where the hell do people come up with conservatives trying to suppress all of our freedoms? I live in Northern Ohio, one of the most conservative places in the North, and have enjoyed immense freedom. It seems to me that NOWHERE are conservatives trying to take away rights (but add none) and liberals are trying to take away some (and add others). My question to you all is: Which way is better? To keep all of our rights, but never add on, or, to keep some of our rights, but add others?

Hey, I'm the same age as you!
(this can be our little secret)

'Twas good sir Churchill.

No it 'twasn't, as Churchill's own political career would leave him with both no heart and no head.
Some guy just made it up and attributed it to him.

Hey, I'm the same age as you!
(this can be our little secret)

Thirded for the two weeks or so it stays true.

'Twas good sir Churchill.

Except it is 'liberal' not 'socialist'.

And is refering to what would be called a libertarian in the US.

No it 'twasn't, as Churchill's own political career would leave him with both no heart and no head.
Some guy just made it up and attributed it to him.

Nyeh. I'm a scientist. Not a historian.

I, being a moderate, like all of our freedoms, wonder: Where the hell do people come up with conservatives trying to suppress all of our freedoms? I live in Northern Ohio, one of the most conservative places in the North, and have enjoyed immense freedom. It seems to me that NOWHERE are conservatives trying to take away rights (but add none)

Abortion, gay marriage, torture, arbitrary detention, privacy, etc.

and liberals are trying to take away some

Gun rights, I suppose.

My question to you all is: Which way is better? To keep all of our rights, but never add on, or, to keep some of our rights, but add others?

A question I cannot answer without specifications of which particular rights are being discussed.

I happen to be closer to the "liberal" position politically (though not on gun rights).

whatever the good or bad, advantages or disadvantages of anything else-ism, trying to make everything have to begin and end with little green pieces of paper has not made this world a happier place. nor can it, nor will it. ever.

that is the reality we all need to face. one of them.

break it down: what is being "conserved"? what is being "liberated"?

i mean in reality, not in some mumbo jumbo of words and code phraises that chaise their own tails.

it seems to me that it is liberals who are trying to "conserve" basic rights while it is "conservatives" that are attacking anything that might stand in the way of keeping their hands in your pockets, with little or no honest concern with or about anything else, whatever they may pay lip service to, to the contrary.

and who bennifits? does anyone? even ultimately themselves? other then in the sense of outward austintatious display. and how gratifying is that really?

for five minuetes maybe.

but to coerce everyone into expecting that to be the sole and ultimate source of gratification?

conservatives? what conservatives? of what?

i only see conscousless economic interests destroying everything for everyone. even nature's diversity upon which our own existence ultimately depends.

=^^=
.../\...