Where does AO lie on the Political Compass?

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Because the Patriot act A) does not violate democracy in any way, B) was voted on by members of both houses and won with huge margains, and C) is supported by the majority of Americans.

The myth of the patriot act is beginning to annoy me. For the most part all it does is extend police powers that were already in affect for mob prosecutions to terrorist prosecutions.

I'm getting tired of people overreacting to it without cause.

sorry about doing this in 3 posts

I only have a slight problem, with the Patriot act in its current state. mainly the invasions of privacy.

But what I fear is this bill will slowly give the government more and more power. Until alot of the civil liberties you used to have are either gone or severly diminished.

Kind of like how in the Holocaust, it was at first just having some Germans soldier in their neighborhoods. But later they were moved into ghettos, and forced to wear the stars. Then they were shipped off to concentration camps. etc etc...

And during this time most of them were extremely optimistic, and didn't take notice until things got bad.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
I only have a slight problem, with the Patriot act in its current state. mainly the invasions of privacy.

A lot of the "invasions" that people gripe about really aren't though. And they all require some sort of judicial consent, and congressional oversight. It is not a "blank check" to violate freedoms. Some of the powers are pretty significant, which is why the oversight is also.

But what I fear is this bill will slowly give the government more and more power. Until alot of the civil liberties you used to have are either gone or severly diminished.

Unlikely, but not impossible. Unlikely because of the oversight involved. It would take a lot for something to go that direction. Now, can it be abused? Sure, I suppose so. But if our new rule is we only do things that can't be abused then what exactly are we allowed to do?

Kind of like how in the Holocaust, it was at first just having some Germans soldier in their neighborhoods. But later they were moved into ghettos, and forced to wear the stars. Then they were shipped off to concentration camps. etc etc...

It wasn't like that though. The Jews were rounded up (or at least scapegoated) basically from the beginning, just nobody knew what was happening with them. In this case the oversight prevents that sort of thing from happening.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


No. Other states will not have to conduct marriages but would have to honor the marraiges from Mass.

Homophobe is a loaded term. You are implying that we a bigots, etc... Maybe some of us believe in the rule of law. Don't like the law, change it! Don't circumvent our Democracy to force your will on us. Democracy is about majority rule, not minority tyranny.

the judicial branch of the government was created to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. i guess you could say they're discovering the unconstitutionality of marriage laws, considering this government is to make no law regarding RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. marriage itself shouldn't be a governmental license, IMO, because marriage itself is (*usually*) founded in religion.

i'm done w/ this thread for the night, so i'll get back to you tomorrow.

[ramenjames]

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.56

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by impostal22
the judicial branch of the government was created to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. i guess you could say they're discovering the unconstitutionality of marriage laws, considering this government is to make no law regarding RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. marriage itself shouldn't be a governmental license, IMO, because marriage itself is (*usually*) founded in religion.

The problem with the courts is that the activist judges no longer with what's legal and illegal, but what with they think is right and wrong, which isn't the same thing. That's why the courts can issue an opinion on quotas that basically says "they're illegal but we think it's important, so they stay".

And the problem with that is now we've ceded control of our very way of life to a handful of people that have no accountability. Short of actually murdereding the justices (something I am not suggesting and whole heartedly condemn) there is no way to hold a justice accountable. And that's my problem with judicial activism. The whole point of the constitution was to have a system of checks and balances so no single person (or group of persons) could amass too much power over the government. But that's exactly what activist judges have done.

And like I always say, it's VERY short sighted of democrats to allow this behavior because it currently benefits them. What will they do in 20 years when the roles are reversed. The Republicans will do the same thing the Democrats are doing now because of the awefull precedent set.

Judicial activism is one of the biggest problems facing our country today.

[InexactMelissa]

Originally posted by impostal22



the judicial branch of the government was created to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. i guess you could say they're discovering the unconstitutionality of marriage laws, considering this government is to make no law regarding RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. marriage itself shouldn't be a governmental license, IMO, because marriage itself is (*usually*) founded in religion.

i'm done w/ this thread for the night, so i'll get back to you tomorrow.

If marriages primarily based in religion, then shouldn't the government not be able to base laws on marital status (ie tax filing, health care benefits, testifying against a spouse, community property, polygamy, etc.)? Shouldn't everyone be considered non-married?

And what about couples married by judges, captains at sea, or in other civil services? Since their ceremony wasn't officiated by a religious leader is it invalid?

What about my boyfriend - should he not be allowed to share my health insurance even though we share the rest of our household just because a priest or minister hasn't blessed our union?

Sorry, I guess I just see the issue being more related to how people run their households on a day to day basis and their commitment to helping each other get through life's obligations than in what method they 'get it on' in the bedroom.

[davidb]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


It really isn't forcing this belief on the religions. As long as it is a completely governmental union.

And you also must remember are country is based on seperation of church and state.

Liberals have a convenient way of forgeting that Sep. of Church and State was designed to protect the church.

Seperation of Church and State was designed to prevent the existence of an American version of the Anglican Church, not to ensure that a Bible Belt courthouse wouldn't oppress some poor atheist with a visual representation of the ten commandments.

[dropkick1]

the patriot act is the biggest form of official invasion of privacy and human rights ever, and turning the country futher and further into a fascist state, so we're well on our way to a dictatorship and/or fascist state. atleast thats how i see it.

kenny

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by dropkick1
the patriot act is the biggest form of official invasion of privacy and human rights ever, and turning the country futher and further into a fascist state, so we're well on our way to a dictatorship and/or fascist state. atleast thats how i see it.

kenny

Do you even know what the Partiot act is? I deal with it every day. It is simple stuff like know your clientele for financial institutions before doing business with them. The 9/11 hijackers funneled a few hundred thousand dollars through Sun Trust bank because no one did their job.

Here is the USA Patriot Act.

Please review it. It is almost like an expansion of RICO to hunt terrorists.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by davidb


Liberals have a convenient way of forgeting that Sep. of Church and State was designed to protect the church.

Seperation of Church and State was designed to prevent the existence of an American version of the Anglican Church, not to ensure that a Bible Belt courthouse wouldn't oppress some poor atheist with a visual representation of the ten commandments.

It was also implemented so the US would not turn into a theocracy, and thus putting religious values infront of what is fair.

And the fact is gay activity, is not completely set in stone as being a sin. There are some verses for and some against it.

[shartley]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
And the fact is gay activity, is not completely set in stone as being a sin. There are some verses for and some against it.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by shartley

Can I see some verses which say homosexuality is a sin, just curious?

and I will do better with acceptance and tolerance,

and creative interpretations are fun

[shartley]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
Can I see some verses which say homosexuality is a sin, just curious?

and I will do better with acceptance and tolerance,

and creative interpretations are fun

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by shartley

I wholeheartidly agree with you, and the fact is I am not very familiar with the Bible.

I was just going by what my brother in law has told me on this issue.

and I didn't plan on making any creative interpretations on this topic.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by davidb


Liberals have a convenient way of forgeting that Sep. of Church and State was designed to protect the church.

Seperation of Church and State was designed to prevent the existence of an American version of the Anglican Church, not to ensure that a Bible Belt courthouse wouldn't oppress some poor atheist with a visual representation of the ten commandments.

uh..if we're going to go that route, we should do it with all of the constitution. like the right to bear arms was to protect citizens from british invasion, not to allow people to have fully automatic weapons. but, that won't work. why? because the argument will be "it says blablabla, doesn't matter what was implied."

hey sam- sure, christians believe that homosexuality is bad. but who's saying the christians are any more right than any other religious sect? basing laws on one set of religious beliefs is dangerous especially when there are more than just christians in the world. too bad most christians don't realize that, and none of them like it

1de- what about the president's newfound right to subvert the right to habeas corpus, by declaring people "enemy combatants"? you're going to tell me that isn't an invasion of our "certain unalienable rights"? the list goes on.