Serenity AS Constitution?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 15:15
VIEWED: 6300
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 27, 2006 5:10 PM

Serenity (the Constitution) is besieged by the Alliance (the Bush administration, or any other that seek to weaken it) and Reavers (Corporate raiders and of course terrorists- some of which are of the U.S. government's making).

Love keeps her in the air when she ought to fall down.
Love of freedom. Love of justice.

Serenity (Constitution) takes a beating, but keeps on flying...

Anybody else make this connection?

Patriotic Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, January 27, 2006 5:14 PM

ME! ME! ME!

A few years ago I said on this Board was that the Alliance was like the United States (under Bush). I was metaphorically beaten about the head and shoulders until someone came up with a quote from Joss- of all people- saying the same thing. A lot of people STILL don't get it!

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 27, 2006 5:37 PM

SignyM, technically I'm still a newbie, or I would have just added to you comment long ago.
But I was watching Firefly lat night, and as I was going to sleep it hit me: Serenity's not a means of escape so much as home to family values (the real kind) and lawful beliefs, staying off worlds 'till such time as it's core values are once again embraced.
It's our Constitution that can be shot down for a while, but not killed. It's real beliefs for real people, not bureaucratic words for corporate expediency and big-government control.

I just love this show/movie more and more.

Enemy of would-be Constitution-weakeners everywhere Chrisisall

GEEZER

Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Serenity (the Constitution) is besieged by the Alliance (... or any other that seek to weaken it)

You mean like the 2nd Amendment-hating Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, et al? Yep. Evil Alliance bastards, every one.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:28 AM

Hmm. Interesting theory. Could be.

I need to needlessly nitpick everyone's arguments.

> "Serenity (the Constitution) "

Yes, I can see this, he does say several times "serenity is freedom," so serenity is freedom, but the constitution is the document which grants that freedom, so one and the same, sure.

> "is besieged by the Alliance (the Bush administration, or any other that seek to weaken it)

Like Clinton. Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush. I'm not just saying this because it's what I believe. I strongly believe that Joss believes this. I think the whole "Ben is Glory, Glory is Ben" thing was about Bush is Clinton, Clinton is Bush.

> and Reavers (Corporate raiders and of course terrorists- some of which are of the U.S. government's making).

Okay, I gotta nitpick half of this. Reavers are terrorists, created by the alliance (of Bush and Clinton) so this much, sure.

But corporatocracy is represented by Blue Sun. Two by two, hands of blue are evil out of control corporates in league with the supreme executive.
Signym,

I'm gonna keep saying it, even if no one's listening. The alliance is the alliance because they are. They could have been the oligarchy, the monarchy, the theocracy, the aristocracy, or the totalitarian military dictatorship. The fact that they are the alliance says something about who they are supposed to be, and alliance, I believe to be of Clinton and Bush. There is a parliment, so there are probably elections. Does anyone know for sure? Are there two parties? I guess the point is it doesn't matter because there's one unchecked objective of federal power.

If Joss meant this to be specifically partisan, he might have been kinder to Hillary.

Geezer,

Chuck Shumer isn't evil. He's unreliable, but not evil. I used to think he was evil, but he steps out of line sometimes. He's okay, I guess. I'm not joining the Shumer for president campaign, but I'm not giving a yay vote to putting him in with DiFi. Kennedy is a party pet, which I guess is his choice. I mean the GOP has party pets too, that just is what it is. DiFi is evil. She's evil with a candy coating. She plays the part of being Boxer, but isn't. But, since I have two senators, and the other one is Hillary, and I listen to them speak up in the senate, Mr. Shumer actually does stand up for civil liberties and limited govt. on occassion, which is pretty big of him since they're not on his party's platform. I think he's trying to do the right thing, he just gets it wrong sometimes. I would bid you swap him out for Hillary, who does, according to canon apparently, drink virgins blood.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:01 PM

I think some folks need to take up a new hobby. Or get outside more.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Saturday, January 28, 2006 3:15 PM

AURaptor, if I believed all that you seem to, I would hate Firefly as lefty-liberal-libertarian bull***t, full of contempt for authority, and not give it a second viewing.
Why is it, exactly, that you say you like it?
I'm not kidding here, I really don't understand.
I know that I, myself, cannot watch Airforce One because I could never believe that we could have a president that courageous and fair, and see the flick as being so much fairytale nonsense set in today's real world that I can't stomach it....

????Chrisisall????

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
AURaptor, if I believed all that you seem to, I would hate Firefly as lefty-liberal-libertarian bull***t, full of contempt for authority, and not give it a second viewing.
Why is it, exactly, that you say you like it?
I'm not kidding here, I really don't understand.
I know that I, myself, cannot watch Airforce One because I could never believe that we could have a president that courageous and fair, and see the flick as being so much fairytale nonsense set in today's real world that I can't stomach it....

????Chrisisall????

As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it. Well, not any more than I saw under the previous Administration( Waco, Elian Gonzalez, for example ) ...in fact, far less so now.

I'll eagerly agree that our Fed Gov't is too large, and that it has become a behemoth unto its own, regardless of who sits in the White House. And also there are those from both the Left and Right who'd use the Gov't to intrude further into our lives, whether by ignoring the US Constitution w/ imminent domain laws or the 'Friendly Customer' law which would have banks report to the Feds any unuusal account activity of a customer.

But also, who could not love the whole Hookers - in - space thing ?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:23 PM

Chris,

I think Firefly is right wing extremism, or at least libertarian extremism, so I would ask the same of Fletch. I think that the reality is, we're all libertarians here, and everything else is a combination of posturing and baggage.

I'm pretty deeply committed to a lot of conservative ideals, and I think libertarianism is one of those ideals. Others here view it as part of classic liberalism, and are likely committed to other ideals of the political left.

But, overall, I see you're point. There are a fair number here who are pretty pro-big-govt., whether they be left or right, and that they still do love firefly, which they do, I think shows an inconsistancy.

When I posted this idea earlier, Fletch shredded me for it, but I think it's true. People haven't worked out this inconsistancy.

Joss is not stomping for the political left. I'm not about to claim he's stomping for the political right, he's his own animal, but that portrayal of Hillary in the final few eps of Angel was stunningly anti.

It was also a great re-assurance to me, that my whole team-evil idea, which may be a wacked out conspiracy theory, is at least very in tune with the way Joss views the situation.

I think other interesting questions could be asked, not to sway anyones attachment to the show, or Joss. But, because I'm a wacky vampire, I just gotta toss this out here:

Are Mal and the gang terrorists? I believe that Al Qaeda is more or less represented by Reavers, and that negativity reflects that, since Reavers in the western parallel are the indians, and I don't think Joss wanted to be that negative on indians. But to what extent are the Serenity crew influenced by the terrorists. We aim to misbehave. I think there may be a subtle message here, which is comparing Al Qaeda to our founding fathers. I don't think for a moment that Joss is that radical, but I think he may be trying to say something here, in this direction, about the whole situation. Something that's not "hey kids, do like Bin Laden" but, I don't know, I don't have the answer here, but I saw this, and I thought I'd run it up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes it.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:25 PM

And Auraptor, I get out occassionally, into the zero degree weather, the sometimes several feet of snow and the hundreds of square miles of nothing. I live *outside* the city.

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 28, 2006 5:39 PM

Geezer, Auraptor

Quote:
You mean like the 2nd Amendment-hating Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, et al? Yep. Evil Alliance bastards, every one.

And the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure), First Amendment (freedom of speech) and habeas corpus (Constitution Section 9) -hating Bush Administration?

Geezer, I agree with you on the Second Ammendment, but you are utterly blinded by your biases. I know you would say the same about me, except I voted AGAINST Clinton and I hate Feinstein.

Quote:
As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it. Well, not any more than I saw under the previous Administration( Waco, Elian Gonzalez, for example ) ...in fact, far less so now.

Does this mean that just because we got f*cked over by the previous Adminsitration we should hand Bush the vaseline? Or are you really OK with the government snooping on your business and conversations with no oversight and detaining US citizens indefinitely w/o charges? I mean, whatever happened to the concepts of personal liberty, due process, checks and balances? I was not entirely thrilled about Waco- I thought at the time it was mishandled terribly. (I simply would have w/drawn all forces from around the compound area and let them simmer in their own paranioa. Instead, they fell right into acting just like Koresh's doomsday predictions and gave him credibility w/ his own people. Stupid, stupid, stupid.) AFA Elian Gonzales- Turn the situation around: A mom illegally takes her son from America to Venezuela on a trip in which she is killed. The dad on Seattle asks for him back. What would you say if Hugo Chavez refused to return him to Seattle?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:02 PM

Quote:
I think some folks need to take up a new hobby. Or get outside more.

This is why conversations with Auraptor tend to deteriorate. He just can't resist these little (ad hominem) zingers.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:02 PM

Quote:
Auraptor, I guess you're OK with the government snooping on your business and conversations with no oversight whatsoever? Also, you're OK with the government detaining US citizens indefinitely w/o charges? I mean, whatever happened to the concepts of personal liberty, due process, checks and balances? I was not entirely thrilled about Waco- I thought at the time it was mishandled terribly. (I simply would have w/drawn all forces from around the compound area and let them simmer in their own paranioa. Instead, they fell right into acting just like Koresh's doomsday predictions and gave him credibility w/ his own people. Stupid, stupid, stupid.)

Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing. When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives, I have no delusions in thinking that means me. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that is what the Gov't is wasting its time w/ random searches of any/every American. That'd be ridiculous.

How Janet Reno wasn't at the very least sacked for the Waco debacle, I'll never know.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:08 PM

Quote:
When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives...

Did you believe everything Clinton "said"? I doubt it. So why would you believe Bush? If Bush was really monitoring "known terrorists" why didn't he just go and present his "reasons" for monitoring these people to FISA? Then he could have shown that it wasn't UNreasonable search and seizure and the Fourth Amemdment would have been upheld. As it is, we just have his "word" on the topic. So, I take that "word" and pose it against his OTHER public statements that searches and wiretaps would always be conducted with a warrant and I'm left with the impression his word doesn't mean much because of ingorance or mendacity.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives...
Did you believe everything Clinton "said"? I doubt it. So why would you believe Bush? If Bush was really monitoring "known terrorists" why didn't he just go and present his "reasons" for monitoring these people to FISA? Then he could have shown that it wasn't UNreasonable search and seizure and the Fourth Amemdment would have been upheld. As it is, we just have his "word" on the topic. So, I take that "word" and pose it against his OTHER public statements that searches and wiretaps would always be conducted with a warrant and I'm left with the impression his word doesn't mean much because of ingorance or mendacity.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

Until I'm given a reason to believe otherwise... As Reagan said... "Trust....but verify".

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:24 PM

I just gave you a reason- Bush's word contradicting Bush's word. Hey, when someone disagrees with themselves ONE of them is going to be wrong and BOTH of them lose credibility about their "word"! Clearly, you have a serious need to believe Bush and you hold him to a far lower standard than, say, Clinton.

And well... I REALLY need to get out. Not "more", just "get out" So I'll TTUL.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

STDOUBT

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing.

Yes it is.
It's called the PATRIOT Act, and it lets Law
Enforcement enter your home or business, search,
find, and NEVER have to tell you about it, all
without a court order.
Waah Waah Waah, they're not using it on ME so why
should I care? First they came for the Gypsies, then
they came for.... oh what's the use.
The fact is that it's ON THE BOOKS and IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and people we "elected" Right and Left want to keep it there........

Best we can do is VOTE the ISSUES, not the PARTIES
and keep our powder dry.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I just gave you a reason- Bush's word contradicting Bush's word. Hey, when someone disagrees with themselves ONE of them is going to be wrong and BOTH of them lose credibility about their "word"! Clearly, you have a serious need to believe Bush and you hold him to a far lower standard than, say, Clinton.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

I just don't see any reason to get all wrapped up in semantics here. The goal is to detect communications between those who would pull off another 9-11-01 type attack. And also, I'm not certain that you're not comparing apples and oranges here. Partial comments taken out of context don't really sound the alarm for me. Seems you have a serious need to NOT believe Bush. After the hollow cries of WOLF! from the far Left about the so called lies of Bush, I have become numb. Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing.

Yes it is.
It's called the PATRIOT Act, and it lets Law
Enforcement enter your home or business, search,
find, and NEVER have to tell you about it, all
without a court order.
Waah Waah Waah, they're not using it on ME so why
should I care? First they came for the Gypsies, then
they came for.... oh what's the use.
The fact is that it's ON THE BOOKS and IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and people we "elected" Right and Left want to keep it there........

Best we can do is VOTE the ISSUES, not the PARTIES
and keep our powder dry.

Sorry, but that is not an factual description of what the Patriot Act does.

Lincoln freeing the slaves was also 'UnConstitutional' but I'm not about to advocate we overturn the Emancipation Proclamation.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

STDOUBT

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:50 PM

Quote:
Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack.

You must be one of the ones who "deserves neither".

News flash: it ain't about intercepting
communications. It's about control. I promise you,
there are perfectly simple ways to comminucate
without any government intercepting it. You think
an Al Queda plan is going to be 'intercepted'?
What you are seeing, and what you purport to be
supporting is our government GRASPING AT STRAWS.

STDOUBT

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:53 PM

Quote:

Lincoln freeing the slaves was also 'UnConstitutional' but I'm not about to advocate we overturn the Emancipation Proclamation.

Please explain how slavery was upheld by the Constitution.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Quote:

Lincoln freeing the slaves was also 'UnConstitutional' but I'm not about to advocate we overturn the Emancipation Proclamation.

Please explain how slavery was upheld by the Constitution.

Way to twist the topic now. Sorry, I'm not going to waste time with this.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:40 PM

Quote:

Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing.

It isn't?

Quote:
When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives, I have no delusions in thinking that means me. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that is what the Gov't is wasting its time w/ random searches of any/every American. That'd be ridiculous.

I'm not sure what your saying here. If you're saying that this is about Al Qaeda, you're sadly mistaken. If the president wanted to snoop on Al Qaeda, not one federal court, secret or public, would deny him the warrant. *That* is absurd.

The govt *is* spying on peace groups, leftists and in general, the opposition. While there are a lot of folks over there I disagree with, I don't think that anything will be gained other than the silencing of first amendment rights, in particulr, the right to peaceably assemble. I think this is an infraction of a fairly serious nature. I don't think it's the end of the world, but I am absolutely beyong a shadow of a doubt sure that it has zippo to deal with Al Qaeda.

Quote:
How Janet Reno wasn't at the very least sacked for the Waco debacle, I'll never know.

Hear, hear.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:56 PM

The govt *is* spying on peace groups, leftists and in general, the opposition. While there are a lot of folks over there I disagree with, I don't think that anything will be gained other than the silencing of first amendment rights, in particulr, the right to peaceably assemble. I think this is an infraction of a fairly serious nature. I don't think it's the end of the world, but I am absolutely beyong a shadow of a doubt sure that it has zippo to deal with Al Qaeda.

How is *spying* , or keeping them under surveillance, in any way infringing on their 1st Amendment rights ? Hell, John Kerry was a member of a group who had planned to assassinate members of Congresss and the Senate, and that was over 30 years ago! I'll pardon the Feds for not turning a blind eye to some of these PEACE groups. They can monitor them all they want, imo. Of course, once they take action to silence or disrupt their right to freely assemble w/ out due cause...THEN come talk to me.

There are al Qaeda groups in Columbia getting busted for fake Passport rings. Tunnels under the US/ Mexico border, running drugs and who knows what else. Humvees w/ 50 cal machine guns and men in Mexican Army uniforms getting caught trying to run bales of weed into the country. I'm more than a bit pissed a ALL POLITICIANS for not doing more to protect our borders, North and South.

While folks are bickering about the wither- tos and why-fors, real bad folk are actually out there waiting to do very real bad things.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:56 PM

Quote:
Did you believe everything Clinton "said"? I doubt it. So why would you believe Bush? If Bush was really monitoring "known terrorists" why didn't he just go and present his "reasons" for monitoring these people to FISA? Then he could have shown that it wasn't UNreasonable search and seizure and the Fourth Amemdment would have been upheld.

Okay, time for me to get reactionary and quibble. FISA, and in particular, the 1995 Clinton FISA extensions, are *against* the fourth amendment. I think we should consider a course of action that goes like this:

1. Consider whether Bush is out of line, and file a court order to stop it.
2. Consider whether the 1995 Clinton extensions are unconstitutional, and if so, ban them.
3. Consider whether FISA itself is unconstitution, and whether or not it should be repealed.

At the very least we should try step one, and I'd be pretty happy with step two. I think, given how FISA has been abused, it should maybe be killed altogether, but that would take some thinking about first.

A couple things about the extensions for those who don't know them.

1. Retroactive warrants. If a warrant is not obtained in 72 hours, the evidence is in admissable in a court of law. So what? If what you are doing is spying on the Bob Dole campaign headquarters, then there's nothing that is ever intended to reach a court. Bill Clinton made it *legal* for him to watergate Dole. It's not a crime, he just can't use the information in a court of law. He can use it in an election campaign though. I strongly suspect he did just that.

2. Black bag searched. This is when the feds come into your home and search it without a warrant while you are not there. It also applies to anything you own which is unattended, your car at work, etc. This is pretty blatantly a violation of our 4th amendment rights. This sort of search is capable of determining if you are a terrorist, but if you were a suspected terrorist, I say again, no federal court in the country is going to deny them that warrant. But what else could be gained from this search? Your political affiliations, notes on strategies, groups you belong to, the names of people you work with, know, or what work you are working on, what products your company is developing. It could know who was at the head of alternative energy research and how to buy them, stop them or kill them. I'm not saying that Bush wants to do these things, but why would you even want to make it possible?

It strikes me that if this is someone's position, it's not just avidly anti-us, it's avidly anti-them.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:05 PM

Quote:
The goal is to detect communications between those who would pull off another 9-11-01 type attack.

Usually you state things less directly than this. I'm not sure what to call this, but I'll be nice and say it's an error. This is undeniably *not* the goal. That was the goal of FISA, in it's original, unaltered form. Whether or not it can do that without developing into what it's become is something that ultimately should be discussed. But without question, any of the subsequent deviations have something else as their goal.

Finally. I'm sick of this fear. I am not afraid of Osama Bin Laden. If Osama came knocking on my door, I wouldn't be quaking in my boots. It's not just that I don't think he's going to bomb a village of 200 year old stone cottages in the middle of nowhere, it's that I really don't think it's that scary. Al Qaeda is the enemy, and a reasonably working America can handle that.

And has done so for 200+ years. The British, the indians, Mexico, Germany, Japan. The USSR. Any of this ringing any bells? The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had 6000 nuclear weapons pointed at us. Spies everywhere. They had capabilities on some outlet in bumphickistan that Osama Bin Laden hasn't even begun to dream about.

And the USA can't handle this? Give me a break.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:22 PM

Quote:
I'll pardon the Feds for not turning a blind eye to some of these PEACE groups. They can monitor them all they want, imo. Of course, once they take action to silence or disrupt their right to freely assemble w/ out due cause...THEN come talk to me.

Okay, fair enough. But I guess my point is, it's not up to us. This is something which is aimed not at protecting lives, but protecting a political idea: the war in the ME. But I guess that's not the point. The point is, These laws and constitutional provisions exist so that no one will monitor John Kerry unless he leads a groups of lunatics with M16s to crawl up the capitol steps - which he most certainly did, I read his book, the first one. He was quite proud of that. At this point, it's perfectly fine, there's no one going to stop you from getting a warrant. But *someone* *somewhere* has to know who is being spied on and why or we *become* joseph stalin and soviet union.

Quote:
There are al Qaeda groups in Columbia getting busted for fake Passport rings.

Sorry to do this, but a statement like this needs a link. I've read of commie groups doing this, but that's the enemy we ignore. I've read nothing about Al Qaeda doing it. In Columbia.

Quote:
I'm more than a bit pissed a ALL POLITICIANS for not doing more to protect our borders, North and South.

Again, I agree with this. It's not as bad as in Europe, where the open door policy has allow Bin Laden to assemble an army. Remember the 40,000 cars? That was meant as a show of strength, by mr. Bin Laden, saying "Hey, we have an army, inside your borders..|.." And, sure. I would be quite happy if that didn't happen here. I don't want to read about schools blowing up because the bombs were built into the foundation. Talk about living on the hellmouth. But anyways, you surely can't be happy with *Bush* for this. He seems to want to mimic the European open door policy. Revolving jihad while you wait.

Quote:
While folks are bickering about the wither- tos and why-fors, real bad folk are actually out there waiting to do very real bad things.

Because, as I said in my last rant, we've been through worse, much much worse, without sacraficing our freedom. If we, wait there's a quote here. I think it was "He who sacrafices liberty for safety deserves neither." as Mr. Ben Franklin said.

I think if you look at this country as a religion, Constitution is the new testament, DoI is th OT, Jefferson is Jesus and Franklin is God. Or at least Moses. I don't quibble with their take on it, founding fathers were very clear on this point. This is what America is. According to them, that invented America. If you change that, you don't have America any more. You have something else. I think you have the CCCA. Soviet Socialist Republic of America.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:23 AM

Quote:

Sorry to do this, but a statement like this needs a link. I've read of commie groups doing this, but that's the enemy we ignore. I've read nothing about Al Qaeda doing it. In Columbia.

K, here's your link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060127/terror_pa
ssport_ring_060127/20060127?hub=World
Seems D.C. is contradicting the story now, I wonder why.

Colombia busts fake passport ring with terror ties

Updated Fri. Jan. 27 2006 10:16 AM ET

Associated Press

BOGOTA — Colombia has dismantled a false passport ring with links to al Qaeda and Hamas militants, the acting attorney general said Thursday after authorities led dozens of simultaneous raids across five cities in collaboration with U.S. officials.

In Washington, however, Justice and Homeland Security officials were surprised by the announcement of the investigation, which they said involved people posing as members of Colombia's largest rebel army, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC — not al Qaeda or Hamas.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it.

AURaptor, thanks for that. That was a fine answer, a lot more to it that the "Because it's good" you gave me last time I posed the same question.
It seems the only place we differ is the perception of what is possible, and what is actually occurring concerning big government trying to control our lives, and it's role in planetary corporate domination.
I see Big Brother; you see Wally Cleaver

Time, as always, will tell.

Satisfied Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:25 AM

Fair enough. I suppose there is a Bin Laden Opium connection. Now Morales has cocaine, the socialist all over SA, heroine, cocaine. I hadn't really made this connection, all our enemies are on drugs.

I was just reading about Clinton's brother's mafia drug connections. Hmm. I wonder if there's anything in this. Pirate News, you have a theory?

Anyway, thanks for the link, auraptor, I concede the point.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pirate News, you have a theory?

DT, are you NUTS?!? Don't go visiting his long-winded ramblings unless you want this thread to end!!

Uh-oh, I hear him coming, gotta jet.

Skee-dadelling Chrisisall

PIRATEJENNY

Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:11 AM

the only problem with that is that most people in the united states know very little about the constitution, some know nothing so our constitution being killed is a real possiblity!!

PIRATEJENNY

Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:11 AM

double post

JUMPER

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:54 AM

As far as I'm concerned, the America I grew up in died on 9/11.

The terrorists won. They got exactly what they wanted. We live in fear, in terror, a terror that is perpetuated by the media, the Administration, the Congress. The checks and balances in the government are breaking down as we allow our fear to blind us to what is really going on in DC.

We have an Executive branch that is convinced that it can do whatever it wants because Congress authrozied it to use force in a "war on terror" that they say will never end.

We have Americans held as 'enemy combatents' without legal representation, and the Supreme Court prevented from commenting on the issue.

Did you know that the law/federal regulation which states you need to show ID to get on an airplane is secret? Yes, we have secret laws that apply to American citizens, laws that none of us are allowed to inspect.

We have a Congress that is not willing to stand against these actions, and a court system which is unable to rule on the actions because they take place covertly.

The Founding Fathers never intended the Executive branch to have these powers.

There are bad people in the world. I accept that. I do not see it as a valid reason to make a single compromise in our freedoms. The moment that happens, they have won.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it.
AURaptor, thanks for that. That was a fine answer, a lot more to it that the "Because it's good" you gave me last time I posed the same question.
It seems the only place we differ is the perception of what is possible, and what is actually occurring concerning big government trying to control our lives, and it's role in planetary corporate domination.
I see Big Brother; you see Wally Cleaver

Time, as always, will tell.

Satisfied Chrisisall

I missed the 1st time you posed that question, so there was no intent on my part for any glib response I may have given. My bad. And that's exactly it, we DO differ greatly on our perceptions of what is going on. Or, as Obi Wan Kenobi says, truth depends greatly upon our point of view. I'm not naive enough to pretend that everything is hunky-dorie and that nothing could be better, but we're forced to take the best which is offered. Not always a good choice,

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:01 PM

Jumper, Jenny,

Well said.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:07 PM

Quote:
Did you know that the law/federal regulation which states you need to show ID to get on an airplane is secret? Yes, we have secret laws that apply to American citizens, laws that none of us are allowed to inspect.

I'm pretty sure that's an airline policy, and not a law. But then again, it's the airlines prerogative, so unless you want to charter your own flights, it doesn't matter.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:03 PM

And then there is media complicity. Apparently nobody has read 1984 by George Orwell or the phrase "permanent war for permanent peace" would leap into mind.

Auraptor- It's law, not airline policy. Just google: secret airline security law.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Auraptor- It's law, not airline policy. Just google: secret airline security law.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

Since 9/11, and clearly things have changed. I stand corrected. For years, airlines would tell passengers they needed a photo ID to get on board, citing that it was the LAW, when in fact it wasn't, but only airline policy. They used the LAW excuse to avoid bad P.R. w/ the flying public. Now they can tell the public the truth.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As a conservative libertarian, and a Southerner too, I can identify w/ Mal's plight and the concept of letting folk do as they please, as long as they don't hinder or deprive anyone else of their freedom through force or fraud. Yet despite the yammerings of our personal freedoms being taken away, I simply don't see it. Well, not any more than I saw under the previous Administration( Waco, Elian Gonzalez, for example ) ...in fact, far less so now.

I definitely don’t see Firefly as being Left-wing. I don’t see anything Left-wing about a guy who opposes a “progressive” (Joss’s word) Alliance and fights for his right to be the king in his own castle, instead of being another cog in a huge centralized political machinery.

And as far as rights being taken away, the last time any real rights were taken away from me, was when the Liberals on the Supreme Court voted away my property rights. It seems to me, that I don’t see a lot of outrage coming from Liberals over that, but they certainly love to preach doom and gloom about hypothetical or theoretical losses of rights. This makes me believe that the “rights” that these Liberals claim are being lost is just a stunt to attack an administration they don’t like. In fact, I think there are many Liberals who simply don't realize what Liberalism is.

Do you suppose Mal would have been for or against the government taking the power to disavow him Serenity if it suited the “greater good?”

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:00 PM

Hey, I bitched and moaned to my Senators about that, and I bitched and moaned about that here on the board. Not that the Senate is the right forum to complain, but the Supreme Court Justices are pretty immune to public dissuasion. (Which is why we have to be pretty careful about who gets on in the first place.) But fortunately a number of states have since passd laws preventing that kind of travesty. So contact your state Legislators. Fortunately, this is still w/in the purview of the States.

BTW- Do you suppose Mal would have been for or against the right of the government to snoop into anyone's business?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

FLETCH2

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:26 PM

Then pass a law and fix it.

The Supreme court only reviews a law and sees if it is Constitutionally consistant. Guess what, you are a Common Law country right of Eminent Domain is in your Constitution. Further the case law that the decision was based on was extrablished over 20 years ago. If anything the more conservative justices were being reactionary and trying to overturn that ruling which was simultaiously

1) the morally right thing to do and
2) not the established legal principle.

Politicians could solve this in a heartbeat with a law that defines the limits of eminent domain, they choose not to. They could solve the Roe vs Wade issue with legislation, again they chose not to. The supreme court isn't the one taking your property, your (local) government is.

JUMPER

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Did you know that the law/federal regulation which states you need to show ID to get on an airplane is secret? Yes, we have secret laws that apply to American citizens, laws that none of us are allowed to inspect.

I'm pretty sure that's an airline policy, and not a law. But then again, it's the airlines prerogative, so unless you want to charter your own flights, it doesn't matter.

No, it's a TSA regulation. It is passed down orally to each airport, and varies from airport to airport, and is updated weekly. John Gilmore just sued over not being able to see the regulation - the circuit court judges looked at it in private and promptly determined that it is A-OK to have secret laws that bind US citizens.

Check it out here: http://papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html

I wonder what other secret laws there are?

"We need to take you to jail now sir."
"Why? I want to see a lawyer."
"We can't allow that sir."
"Under what law?"
"That's classified sir."

FLETCH2

Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:39 PM

It's not a law it's a regulation or order.

If it's a law you can be arrested for violating it, in this case if you don't show ID you just aren't allowed to fly. You have no constitutional right to fly just like you have no constitutional right to drive (despite what PN appears to think)

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper:
No, it's a TSA regulation. It is passed down orally to each airport, and varies from airport to airport, and is updated weekly. John Gilmore just sued over not being able to see the regulation - the circuit court judges looked at it in private and promptly determined that it is A-OK to have secret laws that bind US citizens.

It’s not the regulation requiring identification that is secret but rather the CAPPS, which is a Decision Architecture for discriminating potential terrorists/hijackers. This is secret because if the criteria by which a person is identified as a potential threat were public, that information could be used as a countermeasure against it, indeed it could render it impotent, thereby providing terrorists with an avenue to hi-jack airliners and use them as precision bombs to cripple US defensive network and kill tens of thousands.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey, I bitched and moaned to my Senators about that, and I bitched and moaned about that here on the board. Not that the Senate is the right forum to complain, but the Supreme Court Justices are pretty immune to public dissuasion. (Which is why we have to be pretty careful about who gets on in the first place.) But fortunately a number of states have since passd laws preventing that kind of travesty. So contact your state Legislators. Fortunately, this is still w/in the purview of the States.

BTW- Do you suppose Mal would have been for or against the right of the government to snoop into anyone's business?

I was on the phone within hours of hearing about that case, and Alabama was the first state to pass such laws. In fact, if I remember correctly, I think a whole month went by before we had enacted protections against this Left-wing Supreme Court ruling. I’m not sure if I had anything to do with that, but I certainly put my 2 ¢ in.

The government has always snooped, and it always will. But clearly the lines between individual property rights and central authority over property falls cleanly on ideology within the Supreme Court. So the choice may be as simple as encouraging the ideology within the government that most assures us protection from centralization. Snooping will always come with the deal.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

JUMPER

Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
It's not a law it's a regulation or order.

If it's a law you can be arrested for violating it, in this case if you don't show ID you just aren't allowed to fly. You have no constitutional right to fly just like you have no constitutional right to drive (despite what PN appears to think)

We do, however, have the right to assemble and associate without government interference.

Quote:
It’s not the regulation requiring identification that is secret but rather the CAPPS, which is a Decision Architecture for discriminating potential terrorists/hijackers. This is secret because if the criteria by which a person is identified as a potential threat were public, that information could be used as a countermeasure against it, indeed it could render it impotent, thereby providing terrorists with an avenue to hi-jack airliners and use them as precision bombs to cripple US defensive network and kill tens of thousands.

I'm pretty sure the regulation itself is secret as well. Since that was the entire point of the lawsuit. He wasn't asking to see the CAPPS criteria, just a copy of the regulation which states 'you are required to show ID to fly.'

The whole thing came about in 1996 after TWA 800 went down. For a while they thought it was a bomb, so to make it look like something was actually being done they asked airlines to start asking for ID. After 9/11 it was formalized and made permanent.

I highly doubt that the passengers of a plane would allow such a thing to happen again.

I'll be honest every time I fly I feel like I'm taking a step into Soviet Russia. It's like as soon as I step into the airport, it's not America anymore.

FLETCH2

Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:14 PM

That's only an argument if you planned to assemble on the aircraft and that was the only place you could assemble. You can drive anywhere you can fly within the US so you are not prevented from travelling pa see

JUMPER

Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
That's only an argument if you planned to assemble on the aircraft and that was the only place you could assemble. You can drive anywhere you can fly within the US so you are not prevented from travelling pa see

But as you stated earlier, I don't have a right to drive. Amtrack requires ID to buy tickets with cash. Amazingly enough, the Greyhound website says that I can still buy a Greyhound ticket with cash and doesn't say anything about requiring an ID. So it looks like if I want to move within my own country without showing an ID, I can either take a bus or take a cab. Sweet.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jumper:
I'm pretty sure the regulation itself is secret as well. Since that was the entire point of the lawsuit. He wasn't asking to see the CAPPS criteria, just a copy of the regulation which states 'you are required to show ID to fly.'

No, it’s not secret. As far as I know there is no law that says you need an ID to fly. So there is no way to show Mr. Gilmore that law since I don’t think it exists. The information that Mr. Gilmore is trying to get exposed is indeed the CAPPS program, because that is what is requiring identification. Although I don’t think that it is even mandatory. And Mr. Gilmore proved that, when an airliner was willing to allow him to fly without identification as long as he was willing to submit to an inspection. The secret CAPPS program is a convenience to allow a majority of people to make use of the airline industry with as little intrusion and as much efficiency as possible. The issue here is purely about maintaining security on airlines, nothing more. Anyone, not flagged on a no-fly list, can legally(federally) fly without an ID, but it is much easier to just show your ID.

Mr. Gilmore has too much money and too much time on his hands. And all he’s doing is feeding conspiracy fruitcakes and potentially putting us all at risk.

In fact, my guess is that what might happen as a result of Mr. Gilmore’s crusade will be that a law will be crafted that will indeed legally require identification to fly thereby mandating the CAPPS program and airline security, and Mr. Gilmore will get his law.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 30, 2006 1:33 AM

Only thing worse than a Liberal Looter is a Neocon Hawk.
Most of us here are more to the middle, I reckon.
I used to think Liberals were the good guys, Finn, you and Dreamtrove have shown me the errors of my ways.
Mal would moon 'em both.

Independent Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 30, 2006 3:34 AM

Finn,

I agree completely.

The major rights violation that will possibly effect my life is actually not that I will be swept to guatanamo, though that concerns me, torture, execution, no trial. But the new emminent domain law is an absurd violation. The liberals on the court just handed Alito the nod with that decision. This court, too conservative? are you nuts? Okay. So, a little rightward shift might be a little more towards balance. Anyway, I agree with Finn on the Joss stuff too.

That ruling has already turned into ethnic cleansing in New Orleans. Gee, that didn't take long. Now they say 80% of black homeowners will not be allowed back in the city and will lose their property. Home owners. People who own their own homes. Or used to. These were employed folk with lives and homes that they purchased with their own labor and WTF has the govt. done? I think we're now officially living in a kleptocracy.

Telephones and airplanes are passe anyways.

Quote:
Only thing worse than a Liberal Looter is a Neocon Hawk.

Amen to this. The only thing i would add is that there are Liberal Hawks and Neocon Looters also. Or is it Neolib? Can we a agree on a term here. Is neolib a word? No one likes my "Team Evil" declaration, but there gotta be a word for what Hillary and all is. I'm up for Neolib if everyone's in.

FLETCH2

Monday, January 30, 2006 7:14 AM

Panderer

SIGNYM

Monday, January 30, 2006 2:13 PM

Dreatrove- I respect your opinion greatly but this "Team Evil" thing is off-base. If you want to know whether people have a common agenda, just follow the money. The Clintons (both of them) are very much pro-international capital: big supporters of NAFTA and international banks, supporters of the UN, supporters of publically-held businesses. Thus, they had the support of corps like Microsoft and IBM, and the support of shareholders. I think Bill Clinton had a heartfelt belief that international trade would advance the human condition. I think it's a stupid belief and one of the many points I disagreed with him on, but the internationalists liked him because he stabilized the dollar and didn't rock to boat.

The Bush famiy is very much pro-privately-held business and pro-family business: Halliburton, Blackwater, KB&R, GE, oil companies, the Saudis etc. Many internationalists dislike Bush. He foments war and destabilizes the dollar, which is bad for everyone except specific businesses like military contractors and oil speculators. He has not been successful in realizing many international trade agreements, and has appointed one of the most abrasive people you can find in DC to the UN and to the World Bank (Bolton).

I truly dislike Hillary and I would probably be vehemently against most of her plans. Were she to be in power, you would hear me griping long and loud. And I truly dislike Bush -I think he's one of the few unmitigated disasters in our history. But except for the fact that I think they are both disasterous in their different ways they have no connection to each other bc their backers are very different and in some ways antithetical. I think what you're seeing is not Team Evil but the internationalists and stock-holders pulling the plug on the Bush admin.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 30, 2006 3:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:

Dreatrove- I respect your opinion greatly but this "Team Evil" thing is off-base. If you want to know whether people have a common agenda, just follow the money. The Clintons (both of them) are very much pro-international capital: big supporters of NAFTA and international banks, supporters of the UN, supporters of publically-held businesses. Thus, they had the support of corps like Microsoft and IBM, and the support of shareholders. I think Bill Clinton had a heartfelt belief that international trade would advance the human condition. I think it's a stupid belief and one of the many points I disagreed with him on, but the internationalists liked him because he stabilized the dollar and didn't rock to boat.

For once I totally disagree with everything you just said.

1. I thought I laid out the Team Evil thing very well. Hillary, DiFi, Lieberman and Ben Nelson are *not* corrupt politicians. They are Shachtmanite ideologues with close personal ties to the republican Shachtmanite ideologues currently in office.

2. NAFTA and international banks, the UN and publically-held businesses are *all* socialist institutions that Max Shachtman thought were essential to a global social revolution, ie. new world order. None of these have any interest in advancing trade, and they are all completely unnecessary towards that end. In fact, they directly conflict with that end.

3. Clinton's support Microsoft and IBM? I'm sorry, I respect your opnion, I don't mean this to be hostile, but 1. Microsoft anti-trust suit. Not to mention Chrysler sale. Carter Chrysler bailout it yay America, go Carter. Carter sale to Daimler is WTF? Now I can't blame Clinton for this because Bush OK'ed it, but I think they're the same aministration, minus some corrupt energy policiy, but: Lenovo bought IBM PC. Lenovo is a 'favored company' which is Chinese for a 'defacto arm of the govt.'

4. Clinton had no heartfelt beliefs. He had good economic policy because of his deal with Perot, and possibly some good sense of his own to hire talented people. I think Perot particularly pushed for many of these people. Everyone does know that Clinton made the deal with Perot to let Perot set economic policy in order to get in to office, right? I hope this doesn't fall into the realm of conspiracy theory.

5. All you need to find the connection is to read back on each of these people personally, and on some of their friends. Then look at statements where they said the same thing, even if that idea was way outside the mainstream.

Everyone makes deals, and some people, like the Bushes and the Clintons sign those deals in blood. This is what advances them to power. Neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush is in a direct way a member of an evil conspiracy for global domination. But they are career people. They got a reputation for keeping to the secret deals they signed, and so evil people used them.

Both put into effect a whole series of things concocted by the wolfowitzes of the world. I don't think either president really cares about the NWO at all. But, they are men of their secret word. What made Clinton not an economic disaster was his secret deal with Perot, and his own not being a moron thing. Bush has the being a moron thing, and no Perot.

But again, and this is where it's worth digging into, the people make deals. Hillary has reworked the Bill deal, and this time it's pretty much pure Bush. If you look at the military agenda of Bush/Clinton there's not really a lot of change. Or any.

None of these people are internationalists. You mean globalists. It's subtle, but the internationalists believe in a table. T.Roosevelt/Taft created the doctring on internationalism, and it was based on the idea that there was a global table at which all disputes could be resolved. This table, by itself has no power. Ideally, it's a place where Osama Bin Laden can sit opposite Vladimir Putin and discuss the Russian school bombing without more than a chucked shoe. Globalist philosophy is almost 180 degrees away from tha

FLETCH2

Monday, January 30, 2006 4:53 PM

SIGNYM, you made the mistake of assuming he's willing to listen.

Team Evil is attractive to him because it means that none of the bad stuff is actually being done by "good conservatives" or "true Republicans" it's all part of a socialist/capitalist conspiracy put together by a man that seems to have been so unable to work with others that he factionalised American Trotskyism into nothing (and that was the nicest thing I could find about him.)

It's like PN's absolute belief that "Jews" are reseponsable for everything. In the same was that PN will invent a Jewish link or Jewish lineage to fit with the "theory" DT will find some link to "Team Evil."

I believe that there are jokers in the pack when it comes to US politics, it can be proven that some of the same money backs both presidential canidates to ensure they have "access" no matter who wins. If you look at what Bush appointees have done at the UN you can not see anything that forwards a Globalist agenda, in fact I suspect that will cost the GOP down the road because international capital needs a stable world.

If DT's theory were correct it would be a conspiracy of dunces because what they DO actually goes against the TE theory. DT would probably suggest a double or tripple fake. My advice is to stop looking to creat a boogie man you can blame your own party's degenerate tendencies on, accept your new faith includes the same kinds of crooks your old one did and fix it.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 30, 2006 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
I definitely don’t see Firefly as being Left-wing. I don’t see anything Left-wing about a guy who opposes a “progressive” (Joss’s word) Alliance and fights for his right to be the king in his own castle, instead of being another cog in a huge centralized political machinery.

Actually traditionally Liberals are anti centralised big government and pro personal freedoms and a secular state.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 30, 2006 8:11 PM

Quote:
Actually traditionally Liberals are anti centralised big government and pro personal freedoms and a secular state.

Citizen. Sorry. You can't just redefine the word liberal here. I understand the confusion, we're not from the same country, so there's a confusion. Maybe you're right and we're wrong, but you need a qualifier, like I have often used things like "the American left" to describe a position.

The Liberal Democrats are a right-wing party. Liberal democrats in America are a left wing branch of a left wing party. In england, the Left wing is Labor.

To us, here in the us, liberal is a word meaning generous, and not a word meaning free. If we use a word to mean the political ideology of free, it's libertarian. Everyone on this forum is more or less a libertarian, which is why firefly appeals to us. Even people who come out and stomp for Bush have occassionally identified themselves as libertarians.

In particular, and this is the point, it was in reference to Finn's comment.

Finn here is completely correct. The court is divided into two camps, one called 'liberal', and the other called 'conservative'. This vote came to a left-right split. The conservative right said 4th amendment property rights were a guarantee and the liberal left said that local govts. should have the power to seize land. This not a mater of opinion, it's what happened.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 30, 2006 8:24 PM

On the contrary dreamtrove, I am not the one redefining anything, the right owes it's roots to the Monarchists, that is where the term came from, they were pro- central government and church. I realise the right has changed.

However I said traditionally Liberal and this is thoroughly correct, if you don't believe me look up classical liberalism.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

FLETCH2

Monday, January 30, 2006 9:08 PM

Bullshit!

You will NOT start this "liberal means generous, Libertarian means free" bullshit any more. 5 people told you that was rubbish, people who actually know latin explained to you in detail that it has the same root, we showed you the dictionary definitions from something that wasn't wiki and therefore is a credible source and you still ignore it.

Stop it right now.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 30, 2006 9:11 PM

Are you talking to me?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

FLETCH2

Monday, January 30, 2006 9:20 PM

No to DT again.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:00 AM

No, one fletch did it over and over again. This time, Finn is right, ti was the liberals on the court and for Christs sake, Fletch, give it a rest.

You are never going to let go of your "conservatives are evil, all hail the socialist revolution, just give us the one ring, it's our precious, we needs it" stance, are you?

Words fail me.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:06 AM

And Fletch, as I already said, in English, Freedom and Freely both come from free, and yet mean generous and liberty correspondingly as well, so your same root word idea is bogus. I posted all the dictionary definitions I could find. I'm not wrong here. But that isn't really the point, is it? This about you and your alliance, your one ring, your all-seeing eye.

We, on the right, are not the enemy. I, am not the enemy. You don't ever seem to get it, and you don't ever give an inch. You have to win unconditional surrender on every point don't you, protecting the purity of your utopian ideal. I've had it, I really have.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:55 AM

Once again,

Liber - a roman God of wine merriment, generosity, the giver.

Liber, roman word for book, or free, and it's derivations (From ubc.ca University of British Columbia, the first hit I got on google for a latin dictionary)
liber libri : book.
liber libera, liberum : free, independent, unrestricted.
liberalis : courteous, generous, gentlemanly.
liberalitas : courtesy, kindness, generousity / a grant.
liberaliter : courteously, generously, honorably.
liberatio : release, liberation, acquittal, setting free.
libere : freely, openly, frankly.
libero : to liberate, set free.
libero : to lift (an obstacle), raise.
libero : to set free, deliver, liberate, release / exempt
libertas : freedom, liberty, independence / frankness, candor. Liberalis,

Liberal, from dictionary.com

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Tending to give freely; generous.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

From the same latin dictionary,

conservo : to preserve, conserve, maintain, keep, hold to.

Conservative as it opposite of liberal, to keep vs. to give.

I recall you lost that argument before, no wonder you don't want it coming up again. Anyway, I didn't start it, citizen posted liberal as being libertarian.
My point here is that we are all libertarians. I am certainly NOT going to let you claim the freedom is a partisan issue.
You would love a world in which liberal meant freedom loving and by opposition conservative meant freedom hating, which would nicely suit your propaganda machine.
But this is simply not the case. Particularly, as the words are used in opposition, there is only one derivation in which they are in opposition, and that is the meaning intended.
We are the keepers, you are the givers. If you prefer to paint it negatively, feel free, we're uncle scrooge, and you are santa claus. So be it.
But you simply cannot turn things on their head to make us the enemies of freedom, and your side it's natural heirs.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:12 AM

I say we start an international BROWNCOAT party, sort of middle-of-the road libertarian, and vote the scum on either side of the divider away.
(of course, the very act of creating a new party will inevitably invite new opportunistic scum to seep in to take new advantage...)

ARGHHHH!

Forget it, just vote on issues...

Hard burn Chrisisall

FLETCH2

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:36 AM

I didn't argue it at all Finn did and he actually won it. You don't "win" an argument by refusing to acknowledge when you lose it. As I recall the root of both words was Liberous (?) meaning "good enough for a free man." Free in this case being a citizen freed from slavery as opposed to one born free.

We also showed that anywhere in English that "liberal" was used to mean generous you could replace it with a variation of "free" and still be accurate.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:13 AM

Quote:
You don't "win" an argument by refusing to acknowledge when you lose it.

Precisely what I was saying.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:15 AM

Chris, the third party would split whoever it was closest too, causing it's worst enemy, whichever that was, to always win. I like my be-our-own conspiracy idea, left and right working together to get better left and better right.

I also propose that pirate jenny is pirate news' new recruit to make him seem less alone. Maybe she's his wife.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:32 AM

Anyway, my apologies Fletch. I was really annoyed, I didn't mean to go off like that, or if I did, I don't mean to now.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:57 AM

Well since Finn was the one you were arguing with if you really believe you won you need him to conceed. You can't claim victory in an argument with me if you had it with him. I can't concede for him (and incidentally he was right.)

For your information the reason I remember it so vividly is that it was in that argument that my opinion of you seriously fell. You argued that if the Oxford English dictionary didnt agree with your definition then it had obviously been "nobbled" by liberals, which is so out there as to seriously hit your credibility.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:19 PM

tsk tsk. Fletch, Dreamtrove- You're both too bright to be engaging in trivial debate. Like many English words, "liberal" has multiple meanings.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:15 PM

I apologzie for the OED comment, which was out of line, but I think also this may be one word where the word's meaning is different across the atlantic. Liberal to mean free just never showed up in my lifetime, my school studies, any dictionary or encyclopedia until someone posted it. I think it was you I was having the argument with and then Finn butted in. I don't remember and I can't find the thread now.

Anyway, at the time I thought that it was political spin to redefine to the word to claim freedom as belonging only to the political left, and I guess I still do. I guess my point, and I want to make it clear so that we don't continue this feud, is that 'liberal' as it opposes 'conservative' is generous and giving, as opposed to preverving and keeping. Conservative is not the opposite of freedom, which is my point, and the natural conclusion of liberal as the party of freedom.

As goes to the point of Kelo vs. the City of New London, which is what was at issue, the so called liberal judges of the supreme court did rule in favor of New London. I know it's not the proudest hour for liberals, esp. on the libertarian end of things, and I by no means are trying to dance around the fire and say look what you did! But, as re: Sam Alito, and the rightward shift of the court, the New London ruling is some sort of pro-govt. extreme leftism, as is the right to die ruling, maybe the court needs a rightward shift. What concerns me, the only thing that concerns me about Alito, is that the court maybe needs an anti-executive shift.