 |
|
Add to My Group
|
May 25, 2008 at 08:14:24
Joe Lieberman; Fascist Censor (with poll) by Rob Kall Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
Kudos to Google for refusing to bow down to Joe Lieberman's attempts to censor youtube. It's a slippery slope one starts down when one starts to censor and Lieberman seems happy to grease the slide with his efforts. The NY Times writes, today, The Internet is simply a means of communication, like the telephone, but that has not prevented attempts to demonize it — the latest being the ludicrous claim that the Internet promotes terrorism. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is trying to pressure YouTube to pull down videos he does not like, and a recent Senate report and a bill pending in Congress also raise the specter of censorship. It is important for online speech to be protected against these assaults.
Mr. Lieberman recently demanded that YouTube take down hundreds of videos produced by Islamist terrorist organizations or their supporters. YouTube reviewed the videos to determine whether they violated its guidelines, which prohibit hate speech and graphic or gratuitous violence. It took down 80 videos, but left others up. Mr. Lieberman said that was “not enough,” and demanded that more come down.
Earlier this month, the Senate homeland security committee, which is led by Mr. Lieberman, issued a report titled “Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.” The report identified the Internet as “one of the primary drivers” of the terrorist threat to the United States.
All of this comes against the backdrop of a troubling Congressional antiterrorism bill that also focuses on the Internet. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which passed the House last year by a 404-to-6 vote, would establish a commission to study the terrorist threat and propose legislation. The bill, which the Senate has not acted on, has a finding that the Internet promotes radicalization and terrorism.
The NY Times reports that the committee didn't call for restricting free speech, but did discuss the need for “what, if any, new laws” should be enacted. The Times concludes, "no new laws are needed — or justifiable — any more than it would be tolerable to enact laws restricting speech over the telephone, in a newspaper or a book, on a street corner, or in a church, mosque or synagogue."
Just as many right wing supporters are willing to give up their rights to privacy, usuall, with the explanation that they personally have nothing to hide, this approach to cutting into the essential right to free expression could be defended by suggesting that people who are not terrorists have nothing to worry about. This is incredibly dangerous. As the loyal opposition, in a time when opposition has been attacked as unpatriotic or even aiding the enemy, entering this slippery censorship slope could lead to the squelching of all protest.
TheTimes concludes,
Not only do these efforts contradict fundamental American values, it is not clear if they would help fight terrorism. Even if YouTube pulled down every video Mr. Lieberman did not like, radical groups could post the same videos on their own Web sites. Trying to restrain the Internet is a game of “whack-a-mole” that cannot be won, says John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Having the videos on YouTube may even be a good thing, because it makes it easier for law enforcement officials, the media and the public to monitor the groups and their messages.
Terrorism is a real concern. All Americans know that. They also know that if we give up our fundamental rights, the terrorists win. If people use speech to engage in criminal acts, they should be prosecuted. Cutting off free speech is never the right answer.
Lieberman is really going further and further in taking the place of neanderthalcon Zell Miller, the most toxic, offensive troglodyte faux "Democrat" the senate has seen in recent years. Unfortunately, there are plenty more of his type, not quite as bad, but almost equally willing to shed the values and principles of Democracy. In the house, they call themselves Bluedogs. Fortunately, there are many in the blogosphere who are taking these sellout right wing faux Dems on. Donna Edwards did it in Maryland and that should just be the beginning.
Unfortunately, the last three debacles for Republicans, where they lost long held Republican congressional seats, the Dems who won them are Bluedog types. Sure, it's an improvement, but it also changes the composition of the Democratic party, making it more conservative. It is, therefore, essential, that progressives take aggressive action to push the party to the left. Failure to do so will actually allow MORE people like Joe LIeberman gain influence in congress. That would be bad news in a year when there should be a lot of good news.
Please note: If you can't find your comment, you may have posted it on the POLL page. This is the article page. This is the first poll we've embedded in an article and we're still working out all the details to make it a seamless system. We're not quite there yet. The comments about censorship or comment removal are incorrect assumptions.
1 | 2
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 53 comments |
|
Rob...
by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 8:28:09 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks Steve
You did exactly what I said people would do. Marginalize the rights, crimp the constitution. Keep in mind, Google DID remove some clearly inappropriate videos. They just didn't satisfy Liebermann. The media should be the arbiters of content, not senators or legislators or police. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 8:39:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I am scratching my head right now...
I did NOT say to marginalize the rights of US Citizens, and since it is US Citizens that the First Amendment of the Constitution actually applies to, I am really struggling to figure out how you come up with the idea that I am crimping the Constitution. by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 10:00:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I am scratching my head right now too.
Steve, I hate to disagree with my fellow libertarian, but this time Rob, et al, got it right. The Constitution applies to the US gov, not the people. It's purpose is to limit the gov's power. Since the 1st Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The 9th Amendement: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The 10th Amendment specifies that the gov has no powers that aren't enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution give the gov the power to censor anything from anywhere. I'm sorry to say it, but I think this is something any liberterian would get. (That's why I'm scratching my head about your replies.) I hope you're enjoying your Memorial Day. by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 8:02:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: With respect, Steve, I doubt you would know a true fascist
...if you had one for a boss. Fascists are a creation of the marriage of money/power (the wealthy elite) and political power; as such, any usurpation of Constitutional Law, whether by corporations, the judiciary or the executive is serving the fascist agenda. Fascists are the creation of centuries of secret conspiracies that benefit only the "ruling class." Now the ruling class has its lackies in power to create a world order that serves their needs and desires. Everything in their lives tells them they deserve privilege and entitlement: evolution tells them they are the "fittest"; religion tells them they have "Divine Right"; the world monetary system is their creation and their property; the MSM praises their success and ignores their criminality. The Joe Liebermanns of the world carry their water, oblivious to the ramifications of their deeds; Joe, like most of us, also doesn't know what a fascist is, which is ironic since his ilk have been serving their kind for so long it's in his DNA. by Jay Farrington (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 236 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:10:11 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: So by your definition..
the Democrat and Republican Parties are both Fascist organizations, because they use their money and power to keep any third party candidates OFF of the Ballots wherever they can... that is good to know.. Did you know that you are more than likely a member of a Fascist organization? Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:49:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The Rights of Man vs Benefits of Citizenship
I am sick and tired of hearing how the Constitution "only applies to Americans." It totally goes against what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence stand for in the first place. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights that every human being on the planet has. In fact, it is in the very same sentence that pronounces that all men are created equal. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. How can anyone claim to possess rights that someone else is not allowed to possess? That's as un-American as it gets. By your reasoning, if freedom of speech belongs only to Americans, then our government can be like China and forbid American consumption of international news that they don't like. They can prevent domestic publication and distribution of books by authors of foreign countries, and films by foreign directors. By your reasoning, it's perfectly acceptable for Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia to censor news, radio and television broadcasts, and internet traffic that criticizes their governments or promotes democracy. There is a difference between the rights of man and the benefits of being a citizen. Rights belong to everyone, regardless of their place of citizenship. Things like free speech, assembly, and a fair trial before imprisonment are rights that belong to everyone on earth, even if their government does not acknowledge them. Rights are things that cannot legitimately be taken from someone, because they are born with them. They are not given to you by man, and even when they are violated, they still belong to you and everyone else. Benefits of citizenship are things like voting, representation, social security, unemployment relief, and public assistance. A foreigner has no right to these benefits except to the extent provided by laws and statutes. Laws do not give us our rights. They protect them. The American Revolution was fought for exactly this reason. The King said that Americans did not have the same rights as people in England. The Bill of Rights was almost not written because many of the members of the Constitutional Convention were worried that if some rights were enumerated, it could later be claimed that they were the only rights people had. They realized that it would be impossible to include all the possible rights of man. It was finally decided that they would list the rights that they considered to be the most important to sustaining a free, representative form of government, and to add a caveat that explicitly made clear that it could not be construed to exclude all the other rights belonging to the people. From the US National Archives and Records Administration: Q. Does the Constitution give us our rights and liberties? A. No, it does not, it only guarantees them. The people had all their rights and liberties before they made the Constitution. The Constitution was formed, among other purposes, to make the people's liberties secure-- secure not only as against foreign attack but against oppression by their own government. They set specific limits upon their national government and upon the States, and reserved to themselves all powers that they did not grant. The Ninth Amendment declares: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Furthermore, all this talk of foreign nationals not having the right to a trial by jury or Habeas Corpus is a bunch of Bush-dung. Even illegal aliens are protected by the Constitution, and they have the same rights as you and I. There is simply no foundation in our American history, or in basic human decency to support claims that Americans possess rights that do not belong to everyone else. In the interest of edifying more people who might not realize this, I will do a little more work on this and post it as an article. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 1:47:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Please write more on this subject!
Well said, and I hope that when you write more on this subject, Op-Ed News headlines the article. Being an American is believing that all peoples have an inherent right to liberty and freedom, and that all were created equal. Christianity exists in America because of our belief in freedom of religion, yet radical right-wing Christians seem intent on turning the US into a theocracy. Forces within this nation have forgotten what we actually stand for and threaten to betray our constitution and Bill of Rights. Our schools are busy teaching everything except what our constitutional principles originally stood for and are now being watered-down by corrupt educators, especially in the state of Texas. Our constitution and Bill of Rights was the model for the entire world, written so well over 200 years ago that its principles are still the real model for democracy anywhere and everywhere - except in Washington, DC.... William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 7:25:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Irrelevant
Where videos are made is irrelevant. The right to post and view videos or commentaries originating anywhere is protected by the U.S. Constitution. by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 9:30:38 AM (0+)
|
|
It's Lieberman by a mouth.
Zell Miller was always a Republican at heart. I'm not sure what induced him to run as a Democrat, perhaps vestigal Dixiecrathood, perhaps he opposed someone already on the Republican ticket and had nowhere else to go. In any event, although he is a backstabbing turncoat, he always was in his naturally conservative element, properly representing his conservative constituency. Lieberman, whom I have heard described as a rare case of a rat swimming out to the sinking ship, is no Zell Miller. He presented himself as an "Independent Democrat" to his largely progressive constituency, mouthing the precepts and striking the pose until elected. That is when the true NeoCon Joe, smiter of brown people the world over, Senator from Tel Aviv, believer in common with fundamentalist worldviews emerged to take his place in the pantheon of murderous liars. There is no contest. Joe Lieberman is the Supreme Slitherer. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:29:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Screw Lieberman
Lieberman, as I have said before, represents Israel, not America, and the extreme Right-wing in Israel at that. There are plenty of progressive Jews and Israelis who are contemptuous of Lieberman. All he promotes is fear and loathing, hatred and misunderstanding. He wants endless Jihad against Islam and constantly demonizes Moslems protesting the attacks on their countries and religion. He is polarizing the world and promulgating endless violence. He belongs in a maximum security prison. by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:40:58 AM (0+)
|
|
What's Next, Burning Books?
Lieberman is a little neo Nazi troll who belongs in the dock at the Hague right along side the neocons who pulled off the coup d'etat on 9/11 and the Bushreich for their war crimes. Very fortuitous for the PNAC'ers that a made man like Lieberman was inside the Gore campaign in 2000 wasn't it? Lieberman is a treasonous rat and this latest attempt to censor, smear and bandy about insinuations of what constitutes 'terrorist' activity is Anti American on every level. Judas Lieberman's ass belongs in an orange jumpsuit in a 4 x 6 cell at Gitmo. Just my two cents EE by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 9:54:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Always has been a neocon
Joe Lieberman is and always has been a neocon. Unfortunately, unless there is a recall, he will be in the Senate until 2012. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 11:05:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Hey Rob
A few minutes ago I posted a comment. Yet...now it's gone. What's up? Did you remove it? If so, Why?? by Vincent Guarisco (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 11:39:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hi Vincent
Mine disappeared too. Not sure what is up. I just reposted mine. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 1:45:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: missing comments
You posted the comment on the poll page. This is on the article page. This was the first poll article and we're still working out the details of how to get them to work. It's not a flaw. We just have to fine tune things a bit. Same thing with John's comment. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 8:26:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Liberman
How has Liberman not been thrown out of office? It amazes me. Makes me wonder about his congressional district and the people in it. by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 583 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 11:58:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I belong to that district
aand what can I say: Money talks by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 2:52:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: HE IS A STATE SENATOR. IT TAKES A VILLAGE!
Get it! by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 3:45:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: My apologies, he is the Senator of Connecticut
Which makes it even worse, he is representing the Great State of Connecticut. But then look at the Representatives throughout the country, all part of the single "Money Party" doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a Democrat, the people are not represented. by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 583 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 6:47:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Oh, here's "edited" comment that was removed...
Gee, I didn't know we were so touchy using the "Z" word at OpED. Yes, traitor Joe is of the worst sort. And you can take this to the bank: I'm sure he'll deliver a stinging (Zell style) speech at the next Republican National Convention. by Vincent Guarisco (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 1:04:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Vincent...
Joe Lieberman has one allegience, and that is to Israel. He not only makes speeches and gives interviews that we must use "military force" against Iran to protect Israel, but he pens op-eds in the mainstream media, especially in the Wall Street Journal, advocating violence. Attempting to whip up support for even more slaughter of innocents -- destroying thousands more US military -- because Iran might be thinking of someday maybe getting a nuclear weapon -- to "protect" Israel may not be Zionism, but it is definitely anti-American. As to the removal of your comment, any editor doing so would post the reason he/she had done so. I suspect that some person who did not agree with you just hit the "delete" button. by Sheila Samples (54 articles, 6158 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 597 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 2:10:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sheila
I totally agree with your comment about Israel promoting their own agenda using our America as their military pawn. And...in regards to my post being removed (and others), i'm still waiting for a direct reply from Rob Kall. For the record, I am not anti-semantic, nor do I agree with anyone stereotyping people either. Having said that, it is still a known fact that certain people associated with "Zionism" has had an adverse affect on foreign policy abroad. And the question remains, why is the word "Z*****t" taboo at OpED? It does afterall...have it's proper usage in some text. by Vincent Guarisco (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 2:38:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Joe Lieberman;
It's well documented that traitor Joe has many Z-ties with AIPAC. by MIUWS11 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 1:32:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: TRAITOR JOE! THAT IS WUNDERBAR.
Leiberman does not represent Jews nor Is Re Al . He represents those who created The Balfour Document and the Neo-Conservatives. These are the powerful Illuminati. What do I mean Ill-uminati? These sickos are the wealthy, inbred monsters that want to rule over us dogs. So far they have done too well a job. by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 3:52:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Dual Citizenship?
Is there any non-web source for the dual-citizenship claim? That Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby are dual citizens of the US and Israel? Not to mention secretary of homeland security Michael Chertoff? Not that I have anything against Israel per se, but it seems to me that a US official holding citizenship in another country should raise as many questions about his loyalty to the US as, say, whether he wears a flag lapel pin. I just haven't been able to verify it anywhere but obviously partesan web sites like OEN. Biographical dictionaries found in libraries seem to be silent on the dual citizenship issue. by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 3:31:25 PM (0+)
|
|
John, thank's for the info...
Free speech is a crucial ingredient in a free society. I guess I expected a little more "latitude" in their discretion for omitting posts. Yes, I reposted mine as well. But...I am saddened by such tactics. I guess I expected a little more in this alternative forum? Why is the Z-word considered taboo here at OpED? Curious... by Vincent Guarisco (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 2:00:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Free the 'Z' word, but end the Lou Dobbs type dumb polls.
No censurship please. by James Cordray (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 56 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 3:42:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Vincent
I think because the word, "Zionism," is thrown around to encompass anything having to do with Jews. It is used far too many times as an ad hominem attack on anybody who is Jewish. This is very wrong and few people realize that there are millions of orthodox Jews against Zionism. Here is a good example of that. Last month, a group of orthodox Jews demonstrated against Zionism, and although there were no crowds there, it sent a very clear message. I mean, it's like jumping to the conclusion that, just because I live in Oklahoma, I'm a barefoot, pregnant "trailer-trash" Republican. Let me assure you that I am not a Republican...LOL by Sheila Samples (54 articles, 6158 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 597 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 4:11:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The "Z Word" nd my understanding of it.
Maybe I have this all wrong, however, my perception of the so-called "Z-Word" is that it is used to describe those who pursue a right-wing agenda, just as the word "Neo-con" describes the American parallel of what we call a "Zionist Agenda." What is the difference? In each case, the word is used to point-out their political and idealistic affiliations - or at least, when I use it, that's my intent, not slandering the Jewish people. When we use "Neo-con" as a description of those who are pursuing a right-wing agenda, I fail to see the difference in using "Zionist" in the same context. Bush is a "Neo-con" and describing Lieberman as a "Zionist/Neo-Con" seems perfectly legitimate to me, and in no way is meant to slander Jewish people in general. Perhaps when we use that terminology we should append our use of the word with a footnote that carries a detailed analysis of the intent when we use the word so no feelings will be hurt except those who actually pursue that agenda. (Although that seems to be walking on eggs when most of us are aware of why we actually use it as a descriptor of those who actually fall into that category…) William Cormier by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 9:15:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Joe joe joe
And his kind will keep trying to regulate US to death. He certianly has something in his eyes. Now he sounds like a front man trying to sell US a war with Iran. Lots of his kind are going to be in for a rude awakening in our lifetime; when the days come that men beg god to kill them for for 5 months, but won't be able to die. by Michael Dewey (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 245 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 4:28:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Blue Dog "Democrats"
Hi Rob, by L.M. Arndt (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 4:43:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Damn right!
Blue Dogs make my blood boil. Take my money, my support, my endorsement, and make me look like a fool? They should all be 'road kill' come their re-elections. by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 6:40:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Please no attacks on decendents of Neanderthals (neuroatypic
Please no attacks on decendents of Neanderthals (neuroatypicals) They were victims of National Socialists, not perpetrators. The Neanderthal theory by William Haught (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 5:16:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: DON'T BE SO HAUGHTY
A new Ander's thrawl is okay with me. Whoever this Ander guy is! by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 5:30:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Link does not work
FYI by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 6:42:08 PM (0+)
|
|
TNR
has some similar comments about Lieberman by Jonathan Chait: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/20/more-on-lieberman.aspx by Laudyms (0 articles, 1142 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 708 comments [138 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 7:30:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Flawed Poll - Rob
Sorry, I couldn't pick either, it was like asking which poisonous snake would you most like to get bitten by? Right now I'm still raging about Sen. Landrieu's, LA. (D) continued betrayal. There are so many snakes in this snake pit. Louisiana might not be as worse as whatever State is the worst, but when not in 1st, this State is always running a close 2nd. Having a hard time understanding why anyone would still be giving money to a proven incompetent at best, raging war-mongering megalomaniac at worst, for continuing carnage is not just inexcusable - it is the depths of darkness in some one's soul one would pray they never have to dwell. This vote kills babies - children - women - men - young - old - theirs - ours - and effects a 1,000 times more lives in so many harmful ways it's hard to comprehend without whithering in despair ... this vote does all that. I have visions of being able to ask Landrieu to her face to defend, not just this vote, this piece of work has voted consistently with those war-criminals occupying the White House, but all those votes. I want to ask at what point do we stop this carnage? How many more millions need to die? And it is millions now. Death on a scale not matched since Hitler's "Final Solution", and what amazes me is everyone can say it now and it's easy as ordering ice-cream, no one gets sick, enraged, they just eat their ice-cream and move on, lick, lick licking, waiting for 09' to save them. But, what if 09' doesn't turn out to be what they think it will be? Did Hitler hand power over when all prudence dictated he should? Did Al Capone go to jail willingly? Well, kids, no matter what happens between now and then it's not going to erase millions of people we've killed. When we fall, and we are falling as we speak, the rest of the world isn't going to treat us so kindly on our way down the mountain of skulls we've created. Not even Obama, not a thousand Obama's could even begin to scratch the surface of contrition we're to suffer. Pity us fat folks, we got a lot to lose. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 10:05:52 PM (0+)
|
|
It's coming down the pike....
If Dirty Joe and his ilk have their way, we will not be speaking so freely on this site come this time next year. The fascists wish to control all access to information and they will contrive any excuse, any rationale for accomplishing that goal. Total control is the endgame. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 10:10:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Progressive Inconsistency
Rob, You wrote: Very well put. Trusting the gov is the last thing we should do. You, & the other progressives seem to understand this when it's convenient. However, when it's inconvemient the gov suddenly becomes the source of all that's good. To the progressive the gov creates wealth, it helps the poor, the children, the climate. Until it does something you don't like, then you start sounding like a libertarian writing about the evil gov taking us into tyranny. You can't have it both ways. Some thoughts from the Founders: "Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence." --Thomas Jefferson Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?...It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt. "…against this species of despotism, proceeding on through an endless labyrinth of office till the source of it is scarcely perceptible, there is no mode of redress. It strengthens itself by assuming the appearance of duty, and tyrannizes under the pretence of obeying." by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 8:25:44 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hey, Genius
Why is it that Republicans always take the words of founders and patriots out of context? I'll tell you why: because if they ever quoted honestly, their arguments would only support liberal principles. Patrick Henry was upset because he liked having a confederation instead of a consolidated government. He didn't like the idea of a "hybrid" government. Henry lost the argument. Everybody else agreed that the loose confederation that was formed by the Articles of Confederation was unworkable, and that there had to be a strong, "energetic" central government along with individual state governments. The government Henry was describing is the exact government that was established by the Constitution. You know, the one that has stood us in good stead for, like, more than two centuries? Henry was just plain wrong on that one, and history has proven it. And Paine wasn't talking about the US government at all. He was talking about the government of FRANCE! He was saying that not only was the King of France a despot, but he had populated his government with family and friends, making up offices for them to hold, and because of that there were also little despots in the King's numerous departments. Just like George Bush, who appointed people to high positions of government without regard to their competence. Cronies who weren't capable of wiping their own behinds, like Brownie, Gonzo, Yoo, Miers, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bremer, and scores more than I can count. If you're gonna try to argue that your dead ideology really meant something at some time long ago, at least take an 8th grade history class so you will know what you're talking about. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 11:41:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ummm tenet was appointed by Clinton....
Just thought I would mention that. Also, It does not matter who someone was talking about when a quote was originated, if the circumstances are the same here and now as to the subject of the quote, at the time, I can't understand why it is that you would discount it.. Truth is truth no matter WHEN it is uttered... By the way, your subject line pretty much spells out exactly how tollerant you are when it comes to opinions that differ from your own... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 6:14:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hey, Genius who's a Republican?
Not me. Next time check the bio before you make a fool of yourself. Why is it that Republicans always take the words of founders and patriots out of context? I'll tell you why: because if they ever quoted honestly, their arguments would only support liberal principles. None of the Founders would support the monstrosity that the government has become Patrick Henry was upset because he liked having a confederation instead of a consolidated government. He didn't like the idea of a "hybrid" government. Henry lost the argument. So far you're right. Unfortunately, Henry's side the Anti-Federalists lost. Everybody else agreed that the loose confederation that was formed by the Articles of Confederation was unworkable, Not so fast, there was considerable debate on the Constitution back then. The picture you paint is too one sided. and that there had to be a strong, "energetic" central government along with individual state governments. Jefferson warned us about energetic government: "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. It places the governors indeed more at their ease, at the expense of the people." The government Henry was describing is the exact government that was established by the Constitution. You know, the one that has stood us in good stead for, like, more than two centuries? Henry was just plain wrong on that one, and history has proven it. Sure, I just love the gov we have now. I didn't think you were such a Bush fan! Seriously, the Constitution has failed to keep the gov under control. It has grown into the imperial monstrosity we now have to endure. Thank you, progressives: “We are the first Americans to hear our own countrymen ask whether the Constitution is still adapted to serve the purposes for which it was intended; the first to entertain any serious doubts about the superiority of our institutions as compared with the systems of Europe.” --Woodrow Wilson, 1885 And Paine wasn't talking about the US government at all. He was talking about the government of FRANCE! He was saying that not only was the King of France a despot, but he had populated his government with family and friends, making up offices for them to hold, and because of that there were also little despots in the King's numerous departments. OK, that sounds like a description, in many ways, of our great gov. Just like George Bush, who appointed people to high positions of government without regard to their competence. Cronies who weren't capable of wiping their own behinds, like Brownie, Gonzo, Yoo, Miers, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bremer, and scores more than I can count. Oh, thanks, you make my point for me. If you're gonna try to argue that your dead ideology really meant something at some time long ago, at least take an 8th grade history class so you will know what you're talking about. Come back when you even know what ideology I'm talking about. BTW, the only dead ideology around here is the progressive one. Us libertarians are the cutting edge of the new way of thinking. by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 11:13:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The Constitution is not to blame
Patrick Henry - Federalist I apologize for calling you a Republican. Usually, you can tell them by their stripes. Your denunciation of "progressive" views is definitely in lock-step with all the Republican talking points. And I must say that your suggestion that the Constitution we have now is inadequate is somewhat surprising coming from a Libertarian, since I happen to subscribe to most libertarian positions. Ron Paul and most other prominent politicians with libertarian views are adamant in their belief that the problem is that the Constitution is not being followed. That's Paul's signature line and primary platform. Patrick Henry was an anti-federalist at the time, but eventually was satisfied when a Bill of Rights was added. He later saw the light, realized the need for a strong national government, and basically abandoned much of his earlier rhetoric. He subsequently "campaigned vigorously as a Federalist—the political faction that supported a strong federal government—and in doing so alienated most of his former supporters. Henry was motivated by his opposition to the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, which gave states the authority to determine the constitutionality of federal laws. He won the election after delivering an eloquent plea for national unity." It is also interesting to note that Henry opposed "measures favoring commercial interests," and believed that the public good was the most legitimate government interest, and that the people should receive the benefit from their tax dollars. At this point, let me say that I am no believer in "big government." In fact, I am an active member of the largely conservative group "Downsize DC," which is nonpartisan and works for change in the way Washington does business. While I don't support all of their positions, I see eye-to-eye with most of them such as repealing REAL ID and the PATRIOT Act, permanently disposing of the treasonous Protect America Act, and passing the Read the Bills Act and the One Bill at a Time Act. But just as most everyone believes the government has the responsibility for things like building roads and many other things in the public interest, I believe our tax dollars should be spent in ways that the public gets the most benefit from them. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare do just that. And how anyone could say that health care is not one of the most important needs of the public that is not being satisfied, at present, is beyond me. Wouldn't you rather see that most pressing public need taken care of than wasting our money on all the stupid stuff we spend it on now? "Progressive values" means to me simply doing the right thing. Prosecute government corruption, tax capital gains and corporate wealth instead of wages, spend tax dollars in ways that the public receives the most benefit, cut spending where it is wasteful, ensure equality among all citizens, help those who can't help themselves, avoid wars when they are avoidable, never pass a law that isn't absolutely necessary, obey the Constitution, and leave everybody the hell alone. Let me make one thing clear. Our problem is not that George Bush is King. Our problem is not that the Constitution is flawed. It provides all the means necessary to remedy the situation we presently find ourselves in, and it provides a clear way to alter it if for some reason it becomes impractical (by amendment). The problem is that the Congress and the courts have allowed Bush to act like a King. Those appointments that he made were not the arbitrary appointments of cronies and incompetent suck-ups that the King of France was able to effect with no oversight. Most of them had to be approved by the Senate. The Senate, which was controlled at the time of most of those appointments by a Republican majority, neglected their duty. They approved those cronies and incompetent suck-ups. They failed to fulfill their Constitutional role. They did the same thing when they substituted a spineless permission slip for a declaration of war. The Congress has capitulated in almost every instance to the whim of the President, and has for all practical purposes, made the President a King. The Constitution provides the necessary checks and balances to keep all three branches in check. It is not the problem. The problem is that the Constitution has been ignored. The problem is that the Constitution has not been "protected and preserved." The solution is to make sure that those we elect have actually read the Constitution, know what it means, and will do everything in their power to see that it is obeyed. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 10:04:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Constitutions Don't Work
...I must say that your suggestion that the Constitution we have now is inadequate is somewhat surprising coming from a Libertarian, since I happen to subscribe to most libertarian positions. Ron Paul and most other prominent politicians with libertarian views are adamant in their belief that the problem is that the Constitution is not being followed. That's Paul's signature line and primary platform. Let me make one thing clear. Our problem is not that George Bush is King. Our problem is not that the Constitution is flawed. It provides all the means necessary to remedy the situation we presently find ourselves in, and it provides a clear way to alter it if for some reason it becomes impractical (by amendment). The problem is that the Congress and the courts have allowed Bush to act like a King. Those appointments that he made were not the arbitrary appointments of cronies and incompetent suck-ups that the King of France was able to effect with no oversight. Most of them had to be approved by the Senate. The Senate, which was controlled at the time of most of those appointments by a Republican majority, neglected their duty. They approved those cronies and incompetent suck-ups. They failed to fulfill their Constitutional role. They did the same thing when they substituted a spineless permission slip for a declaration of war. The Congress has capitulated in almost every instance to the whim of the President, and has for all practical purposes, made the President a King. The Constitution provides the necessary checks and balances to keep all three branches in check. It is not the problem. The problem is that the Constitution has been ignored. The problem is that the Constitution has not been "protected and preserved." That's what I mean, Constitutions can be ignored, that's why they don't work. The solution is to make sure that those we elect have actually read the Constitution, know what it means, and will do everything in their power to see that it is obeyed. It would be nice if it were possible to do what you suggest above, but ultimately it's just a fantasy. Governments always seek to expand their power. Constitutions are just bumps in the road for them. BTW, here's another pov on the Constitution, " The Prophetic Antifederalists". by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 3:22:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It is now the 21st Century
It seems to me that there are lots of issues out there like this one. Most all of them good. But they seem to distract US from solutions. That's why I want a Constitutional Convention. Mainly to give power back to the Cities and States. I don't know the exact numbers here: but why send money to D.C. only to get maybe half back? When "We" have nothing to fear; "We will have no enemies. by Michael Dewey (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 245 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 26, 2008 at 4:57:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No inconsistency
Empowering the federal government to collect taxes to be used to help the poor, the children, the climate, whether or not you think these causes are worthy, has almost nothing to do with empowering the federal government to imprison people without due process, conduct searches without probable cause, etc. in specific violation of the Bill of Rights. by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 3:48:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: (No Inconsistency)
The above comment was in response to Daren Wolfe's entitled "Progressive Inconsistency", but it isn't obvious from the way it posted. by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 3:54:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Minority opinion
Is this the poll page or the article page? Whatever, I guess I'm writing the minority opinion. As far as I know, Lieberman still hasn't said anything even remotely as offensive as Zell Miller's speech at the 2004 Republican convention. Though, it's hard at this point to recognize Lieberman as Al Gore's running mate in 2000. by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 9:21:52 AM (0+)
|
|
ACCOUNTABILITY = TERRORIST
I have been beating this drum for quite a while on my youTube channel and even put together a mash up video on S 1959 - the homegrown terrorist act. What we are witnessing is frightening. There is a GROWING class of people who DO NOT WANT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Lieberman seems to be LEADING that group of people. Now he attacks Google. What S 1959 REALLY does is allows people to cause harm and NOT be HELD accountable. ANY attempt to hold these people accountable is met with the LABEL of TERRORIST. If S 1959 passes the Senate then these people will have a blank check. THIS is what is REALLY going on in this country beneath the media blackout of S 1959 and Joe Lieberman seems to be at the HEART of it. Look at his funding sources on Project Vote Smart and you will see what I mean. Accountability is NOT optional. by AdvocacyCorporation (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 7:18:00 PM (0+)
|
|
That's why I want a Constitutional Convention.
The first Constitutional Convention was attended by educated people. Men like Dr. Benjamin Rush, who at age 14 completed the 5 year program at Princeton (then the University of NJ) FLUENT in Latin and Greek (as per requirement) He went on to found the PA School of Medicine. Be VERY careful what you advocate, because you just may get it! Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 9:53:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Amen
Today, we have people who can not say the word "Nuclear.." My wife gets tired of me pointing that out every time the idiot butchers it. If you wanna put someone in charge of nuclear weapons, he should at least be able to pronounce it. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 10:22:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Don't forget Mini-Lieberman
Let's not leave out NY Congressman Eliot Engel, also scheduled to speak at Hagee's conference, also working as hard for Israel as his American constituents -- and also working hard for George Bush, from war funding to the Columbian "free" trade deal. This mini-Lieberman is another Democrat that acts like a right winger (or an Israeli MP), depending on the issue. How badly is Engel representing his district? Click here by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 8:26:23 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
