Where Libertarianism and Liberalism Intersect

[ADG]

http://youtu.be/0aPGq3ovKCI

(above is link to video)

Good speech, and it's always refreshing to know that common ground can be found amongst any two groups.

Do you agree with Paul, or do you agree with the other Senators that passed the Patriot Act extension with only 30 minutes of debate?

What drives me nuts are comments like these:

"He feels very deeply about his positions, and I have a lot of respect for him, he's a very fine young man," Sen. Orrin Hatch told TPM. "He's a gentleman and I think he realized that people wanted to get home for Memorial Day."

Really? You couldn't find a flight out of town on Saturday?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Isn't Obama and co FOR the patriot act? :ssst:

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Isn't Obama and co FOR the patriot act? :ssst:

It's a Bush policy. Obama must support it.

 

[Henrin]

It's a Bush policy. Obama must support it.

So he had to extend it and expand it. Ok?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

That wasn't sarcasm. I have yet to see a Bush policy that Obama hasn't quietly continued. Hell, that's my primary objection to his administration.

 

[ADG]

Isn't Obama and co FOR the patriot act? :ssst:

You are correct in part. The Obama Administration is for this extension.

Is your point that all liberals must follow behind Obama lock step like conservatives follow their leaders? That would be an incorrect assumption.

 

[ADG]

It's a Bush policy. Obama must support it.

It doesn't surprise me that Obama supports the act since his foreign policy is the same, if not more draconian, than Cheney/Bush's.

 

[ADG]

That wasn't sarcasm. I have yet to see a Bush policy that Obama hasn't quietly continued. Hell, that's my primary objection to his administration.

Ok, I didn't see the sarcasm in your first post. I agree. His foreign policy is just Bush part III.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You are correct in part. The Obama Administration is for this extension.

Is your point that all liberals must follow behind Obama lock step like conservatives follow their leaders? That would be an incorrect assumption.

Actually it wouldn't. But you get 10 points for irony, kudos to you. :thumbs:

 

[ADG]

Actually it wouldn't.

And Why not?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

And Why not?

The Good Reverend while awesome can not in this case delve into your mind to answer such a query. impdaddy:

 

[ADG]

The Good Reverend while awesome can not in this case delve into your mind to answer such a query. impdaddy:

Well can you, in all your awesomeness, delve into your own mind and answer why you think liberals must believe as Obama does regarding the Patriot Act extension.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Well can you, in all your awesomeness, delve into your own mind and answer why you think liberals must believe as Obama does regarding the Patriot Act extension.

The Good Reverend was about to try but this man, he, he, was made of straw..... Some sort of strawman god of some sorts, he tried to refuse the Good Reverend entry into his realm. The Good Reverend would have slayed this man of straw. But the Good Reverend chose mercy this day and spared this man of straw from certain death.

 

[DashingAmerican]

YouTube - ‪Rand Paul's Epic Speech Against The Patriot Act‬‏

(above is link to video)

Good speech, and it's always refreshing to know that common ground can be found amongst any two groups.

Do you agree with Paul, or do you agree with the other Senators that passed the Patriot Act extension with only 30 minutes of debate?

What drives me nuts are comments like these:

Really? You couldn't find a flight out of town on Saturday?

I personally feel that most parts of the Patriot Act need to be abolished.

 

[Jeezy]

I personally feel that most parts of the Patriot Act need to be abolished.

It's good to share your feelings. :sun

 

[American]

I personally feel that most parts of the Patriot Act need to be abolished.

I think most parts of our federal govt need to be abolished.

 

[samsmart]

I personally feel that most parts of the Patriot Act need to be abolished.

I agree with you. Enough of these blatant infringements on our civil rights and civil liberties.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

Isn't Obama and co FOR the patriot act? :ssst:

No. Obama refused to sign the PATRIOT Act.

A robot signed it.


Let's make this perfectly clear.

A robopen's signature is not the signature of the man the robopen is copying.

The Constitution states:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, "

The Constitution in no way allows the President to delegate the signing of law to any other party.

A machine signing his signature is no different than a flunky signing his signature, and since the flunky's signature is not Constitutionally valid, neither is a machine.

Is a robopen's signature semantically different from a rubber stamp?

Nope.

Is the president's order to a flunky to have the robopen "sign" a document different from telling the flunky to use the rubber stamp? No. Is it semantically different from ordering the the flunky himself to sign the document? No. The President, under the Constitution, is REQUIRED to use his own hand, or whatever other body part he feels comfortable with, and physically make marks uniquely his own on the bill to make it law.

The PATRIOTAct expired, what is now in effect is an unconstitutional usurpation of freedom by armed thugs.

 

[xpiher]

Actually it wouldn't. But you get 10 points for irony, kudos to you. :thumbs:

Part of the reason why Dems lost in 2010 was because the fire that Obama sparked died due to the fact that hes a centrist and not a flaming liberal that some deluded liberals believed he was.

I personally feel that most parts of the Patriot Act need to be abolished.

Have you actually read it? I would say 90%-95% of the act is completely reasonable. There are only a very few things in the act that make it completely intolerable from a civil liberties stand point. Most of it deal with information sharing, allowing agencies to combine their efforts, and tracking finical tractions that go to suspected terrorist supporters over seas. The parts that crush civil liberties are MAJOR, don't get me wrong, but most of the act doesn't deal with those issues.

PS Rand misquoted Jefferson the correct quote was

"If man were angels, there would be no need for government"

 

[American]

No. Obama refused to sign the PATRIOT Act.

A robot signed it.


Let's make this perfectly clear.

A robopen's signature is not the signature of the man the robopen is copying.

The Constitution states:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, "

The Constitution in no way allows the President to delegate the signing of law to any other party.

A machine signing his signature is no different than a flunky signing his signature, and since the flunky's signature is not Constitutionally valid, neither is a machine.

Is a robopen's signature semantically different from a rubber stamp?

Nope.

Is the president's order to a flunky to have the robopen "sign" a document different from telling the flunky to use the rubber stamp? No. Is it semantically different from ordering the the flunky himself to sign the document? No. The President, under the Constitution, is REQUIRED to use his own hand, or whatever other body part he feels comfortable with, and physically make marks uniquely his own on the bill to make it law.

The PATRIOTAct expired, what is now in effect is an unconstitutional usurpation of freedom by armed thugs.

Now if the bill sat there for 10 days and he didn't sign it, it automatically becomes law.

 

[DashingAmerican]

Part of the reason why Dems lost in 2010 was because the fire that Obama sparked died due to the fact that hes a centrist and not a flaming liberal that some deluded liberals believed he was.



Have you actually read it? I would say 90%-95% of the act is completely reasonable. There are only a very few things in the act that make it completely intolerable from a civil liberties stand point. Most of it deal with information sharing, allowing agencies to combine their efforts, and tracking finical tractions that go to suspected terrorist supporters over seas. The parts that crush civil liberties are MAJOR, don't get me wrong, but most of the act doesn't deal with those issues.

PS Rand misquoted Jefferson the correct quote was

"If man were angels, there would be no need for government"

It's the 5-10% that bothers me, that being said, I did read the original, but I've not read this one, yet.

 

[xpiher]

It's the 5-10% that bothers me, that being said, I did read the original, but I've not read this one, yet.

I was talking about the original, and yes that 5-10% bothers me as well. Thats no reason to let the entire thing lapse, that is a reason to repeatably bring up amendments to it.

 

[DashingAmerican]

I was talking about the original, and yes that 5-10% bothers me as well. Thats no reason to let the entire thing lapse, that is a reason to repeatably bring up amendments to it.

The big problem with it is how loosely it's worded.

 

[digsbe]

I don't think libertarianism and liberalism intersect really. They have have a few common issues, but they arrive at their beliefs coming from different directions. I wouldn't say they intersect as much as it is a common belief based on different convictions.