Defending CIVIL LIBERTIES and THE CONSTITUTION makes me less electable???

Am I the only one that finds the reactions from Rudy Gulianni THE MOST disrespectful and appalling ever from one of our PUBLIC SERVANTS????

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Why
• should
• we
• not
• be
• defending
• CIVIL
• LIBERTIES

[RedWhiteandBetrayed]

POWNED!!!!

[AStarSpangledGirl]

@RedWhiteandBetrayed BIG TIME!!!

[Mauhadeeb28]

It absolutely makes him less electable! Why would the people vote for him if the majority of politicians and the media laugh at his stance on liberty? It only makes sense. Which makes me sick to my gut.

I love how the majority of the crowd was cheering him on yet he was last in the polls; which also makes sense why the majority of Congress wants electronic voting booths.

America..........Can you smell the freedom?

[AStarSpangledGirl]

@Mauhadeeb28 EXACTLY!

[jbutte]

Pwned, indeed. I never get tired of watching this clip.

If I remember correctly, Fox cut this out of what was televised.

[StarchildSF]

Bryan - By this logic, the California government should also police California's borders and limit the number of immigrants allowed into this state, so that Californian culture won't be replaced by the culture of people from places like Texas and New York.

Why view our world through the eyes of nation-states, when national governments deriving their power and legitimacy from this system are responsible for the worst oppression in the world?

If we don't aim for ideals, we'll get mediocrity.

[BRYAN351]

@StarchildSF, it's called the Constitution of the United States, not the Constitution of humans. In the perfect world, your philosophy would be correct, but we still live in a world where humans are tribal by nature.

The U.S. government could, and should, police the borders, and limit the number of immigrants allowed into this country. Otherwise, the American culture will be replaced by the culture flooding in, as is happening in So-Cal and the SW.

Sorry, but I'm biased towards my culture.

[straighttalkwithlar]

The document wasn't perfect but a great and ever lasting foundation for the greatest country in the world. These and many other human errors were corrected. But in your previous statement you said that you didn;t care about the success of the the US. That is my real concern.

[StarchildSF]

"Our founding fathers... weren't thinking about any other country or people except those in this country."

I agree, they were quite nationalist and mostly concerned about "their own" people. But it's a shame, because less nationalism might have helped them see others, such as Africans and indigenous Americans, as fully human and deserving of legal equality.

The Articles of Confederation were more libertarian than the Constitution, so the "founders" actually took a step backward for liberty.

[StarchildSF]

I realize the Constitution doesn't say "human", that's why I put it in parenthesis. But if it did say "human beings" instead of "men", it would be a better document. Legal equality for women is important, don't you agree?

I consider myself a sovereign individual; so I do not recognize the U.S. government (or any other) as having sovereignty over me. Except for protecting life, liberty, and property, and arbitrating disputes, these entities called governments should stay out of our lives.

[straighttalkwithlar]

Wow the one I read doesn't need to use or have the word "human" in it. So that statement alone is indicative of your belief system and being concerened about the "universal freedom is exactly the problem. We ar a soverign country. Our founding fathers, I believe, weren't thinking about any other country or people except those in this country. I believe it is sad and unfortunate when people like yourself are not concerned about the success of the United States. God help this country.

[KutWrite]

Universal freedom starts with individual freedom. No one can give you that. You are born free. Others take it away.

We, one by one, should begin to live freely, below the radar, as much out of the Federal Reserve-run economy as possible.

Over time, our current masters will slowly lose the funds and bodies they need as slaves to provide their riches and power.

"To change the world, change yourself." Gandhi

"None are as hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe

[KutWrite]

Ron Paul speaks sense. That is why he will never be supported by the two "parties" who have carved up the wealth of this group of people called the United States.

The Demonrats and Regurgitans want two things:

1. Everything you own or produce;

2. Never to have to get a real job.

We the Sheeple have lost control over "our" government decades, if not scores of years ago.

The only way to be free is to drop out.

[StarchildSF]

P.S. - I believe as the Declaration of Independence says, that (humans) are created equal (in the eyes of the law). Therefore the law should not violate these inalienable rights or put one group of people over another by discriminating on the basis of nationality or where a person was born, any more than by discriminating on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability status. As a libertarian my goal is not success for the United States -- my goal is universal freedom.

[StarchildSF]

Well, *my* borders delineate my personal space and possessions. So when you say "our" borders, I presume you really mean the borders of the entity called the United States. Conflating the personal with the national is one of the hallmarks of the nationalist paradigm. Why is it *legally* wrong to defend U.S. borders? It's unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to regulate *naturalization* (the process of becoming a citizen), not *immigration*, except for the importing of slaves.