View Full Version : Pete Stark (D) - Federal Government Can Do Anything
red states rule
08-02-2010, 06:42 PM
If ever there was an example of how liberals view the power and scpe of the Federal government - here it is
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
red states rule
08-03-2010, 04:07 AM
I would like to see the women who asked Stark that question run against him
Lets see on Pete does on a one on one debate with her
Monkeybone
08-03-2010, 06:49 AM
yah.. that is just.... wow. I like how he chuckles at the end... Like the lady said... him and those that think like him. They think that they do nothing wrong and of course the rules that they impose on us, they are conviently excluded from.
Palin Rider
08-03-2010, 02:52 PM
That's the most out-of-context headline for a thread that I've seen in quite a while. Weekly World News would be proud.
red states rule
08-03-2010, 06:13 PM
That's the most out-of-context headline for a thread that I've seen in quite a while. Weekly World News would be proud.
How is it out of context? That is what Stark said
It is a perfect example on how liberals view the power of government.
Palin Rider
08-03-2010, 06:20 PM
How is it out of context? That is what Stark said
Nope. Watch the clip again. What he said was that when it comes to personal privacy, the Federal government can do "pretty much anything."
Unfortunately, he's correct. Privacy was not a Constitutional right, and legally it's a fairly new concept. Whatever rights to privacy we may have had have been eroding since McCarthy. And Republicans are every bit as happy to walk over our privacy as the Dems are, if not moreso.
BoogyMan
08-03-2010, 06:22 PM
Out of context because it actually put what Stark said in the public eye instead of having it run through the liberal media positive spin machine first?
That's the most out-of-context headline for a thread that I've seen in quite a while. Weekly World News would be proud.
red states rule
08-03-2010, 06:25 PM
Nope. Watch the clip again. What he said was that when it comes to personal privacy, the Federal government can do "pretty much anything."
Unfortunately, he's correct. Privacy was not a Constitutional right, and legally it's a fairly new concept. Whatever rights to privacy we may have had have been eroding since McCarthy. And Republicans are every bit as happy to walk over our privacy as the Dems are, if not moreso.
Dems do view the Bill of Rights as excessive limitations on the power of government
I know libs were furious over Pres Bush walking over the "rights" and "privacy" of terrorists, Besides that, can you give any examples?
red states rule
08-03-2010, 06:26 PM
Out of context because it actually put what Stark said in the public eye instead of having it run through the liberal media positive spin machine first?
Seems like Palin Rider is doing that just fine
Given time, I am sure Chris Matthews will also step up to the plate
Palin Rider
08-03-2010, 09:48 PM
Out of context because it actually put what Stark said in the public eye instead of having it run through the liberal media positive spin machine first?
Let me guess: you didn't watch the clip, either.
Palin Rider
08-03-2010, 09:56 PM
Dems do view the Bill of Rights as excessive limitations on the power of government:lol: So why are most members of the ACLU Democrats?
I know libs were furious over Pres Bush walking over the "rights" and "privacy" of terrorists, Besides that, can you give any examples?
Of a Repub invading somebody's privacy, or of a Dem? They both do it.
LuvRPgrl
08-03-2010, 10:21 PM
utube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/QUOTE]
LuvRPgrl
08-03-2010, 10:22 PM
utube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/QUOTE]
wow, gotta LOVE THAT WOMAN AND THE AUDIENCE,
THEY KNOW THE CONSTITUTION BETTER THAN HE DOES
LuvRPgrl
08-03-2010, 10:25 PM
:lol: So why are most members of the ACLU Democrats?
Of a Repub invading somebody's privacy, or of a Dem? They both do it.
The ACLU only goes up against portions of the govt that try; to enforce laws, or have anything to do with Christianity.
When it comes to expansion of govt powers via programs and policies they never oppose it.
Palin Rider
08-04-2010, 12:22 AM
The ACLU only goes up against portions of the govt that try; to enforce laws, or have anything to do with Christianity.
When it comes to expansion of govt powers via programs and policies they never oppose it.
If programs or policies don't threaten civil liberties, the ACLU as a group would have no reason for opposing them.
red states rule
08-04-2010, 04:20 AM
Let me guess: you didn't watch the clip, either.
We all watched it, we heard what he said - and you are the only one with the spin cycle set on Turbo
Gaffer
08-04-2010, 07:49 AM
If programs or policies don't threaten civil liberties, the ACLU as a group would have no reason for opposing them.
It's not called the American communist lawyers union for nothing. They don't have anything to do with protecting civil liberties. They are about harassment of conservative groups and shaking down of businesses. If they were about civil liberties they would have been all over the DOJ after the black panther incident.
The aclu is just a training ground for upcoming shyster trial lawyers.
revelarts
08-04-2010, 09:41 AM
ACLU goes off the rails to many times but has it moments of clarity.
"I believe that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal gov't from creating rules that effect your private life. the rule for that is how it would affect other people."
he could have said POTENTIALLY affect other people or yourselves as well.
PalinRider, what EXACTLY is private life? what's not covered under that? is that compared to public life? Work life? or recreational life? religious life? family life? TV watching life? internet life?
He says "how it affects affect other poeple life" . it some one is Offended maybe?
The woman is right
but we've given, over many years, the authority away. making gov't mamma and daddy. ANd a good parent will go through all your crap, tell you when to get up, when to go to bed and what you eat and everything else, with limited freedoms, "for your safety".
Rather than a servant that we hire to simply warn us about potential dangers and move out of the way for us to make decisions.
revelarts
08-04-2010, 11:14 AM
constitutional bounds
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bLJgPuNAh60&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bLJgPuNAh60&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
LuvRPgrl
08-04-2010, 12:02 PM
If programs or policies don't threaten civil liberties, the ACLU as a group would have no reason for opposing them.
ODDLY enough, you dont conisder men showing up with guns and taking money from my wallet to spend on their social programs an infringement on my civil liberties, do you?
How often do the ACLU defend gun ownership rights?
Palin Rider
08-04-2010, 03:23 PM
ODDLY enough, you dont conisder men showing up with guns and taking money from my wallet to spend on their social programs an infringement on my civil liberties, do you?
The alternative is to do away with all taxation. Think you can get that to work? :laugh:
How often do the ACLU defend gun ownership rights?No clue; I'm not a member. I agree with revelarts that they get too extreme too often.
Palin Rider
08-04-2010, 03:26 PM
ACLU goes off the rails to many times but has it moments of clarity.
"I believe that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal gov't from creating rules that effect your private life. the rule for that is how it would affect other people."
he could have said POTENTIALLY affect other people or yourselves as well.
PalinRider, what EXACTLY is private life? what's not covered under that? is that compared to public life? Work life? or recreational life? religious life? family life? TV watching life? internet life?
He says "how it affects affect other poeple life" . it some one is Offended maybe?
For the moment, I'm willing to define private life according to how the existing privacy laws define it. If you have a case for changing the legal concept as defined in the US, I'll be happy to hear it: fire away.
Kathianne
08-04-2010, 03:26 PM
ODDLY enough, you dont conisder men showing up with guns and taking money from my wallet to spend on their social programs an infringement on my civil liberties, do you?
How often do the ACLU defend gun ownership rights?
They have: http://reason.com/blog/2007/04/06/the-aclu-defends-gun-rights
red states rule
08-05-2010, 04:35 AM
If programs or policies don't threaten civil liberties, the ACLU as a group would have no reason for opposing them.
Chalk up another defeat son
O'Reilly vs. Attorney Over CIA Drone Attacks
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4302694/oreilly-vs-attorney-over-cia-drone-attacks/?playlist_id=86923
revelarts
08-05-2010, 05:29 AM
I agree with revelarts that they get too extreme too often.
I don't think they get too extreme. I think they get it wrong A LOT, way to often to call themselves nonpartisan in most cases. but from time to time surprisingly they do do get it very right.
Palin Rider
08-05-2010, 02:46 PM
Chalk up another defeat son
O'Reilly vs. Attorney Over CIA Drone Attacks
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4302694/oreilly-vs-attorney-over-cia-drone-attacks/?playlist_id=86923
What are you babbling about now? I thought this was a Pete Stark thread.
red states rule
08-05-2010, 06:14 PM
What are you babbling about now? I thought this was a Pete Stark thread.
You brought up the ACLU in post #12. If you do not like getting beat up, try another board where their are more children like you posting
Kathianne
08-05-2010, 06:18 PM
You brought up the ACLU in post #12. If you do not like getting beat up, try another board where their are more children like you posting
You know that I don't like picking on newbies. I liked how PR started out, but he's developing into some other type of poster. I'm not quite ready for ignore, but am getting close.
red states rule
08-05-2010, 06:22 PM
You know that I don't like picking on newbies. I liked how PR started out, but he's developing into some other type of poster. I'm not quite ready for ignore, but am getting close.
The problem with PR he posts crap that is easily proven wrong. He is a thin skinned kind of guy who does not like having his errors pointed out
Palin Rider
08-05-2010, 09:41 PM
You brought up the ACLU in post #12. If you do not like getting beat up, try another board where their are more children like you posting
Bringing them up doesn't mean I'm going to defend everything they do. And if you're so sure about your victory, why stoop to personal attacks?
avatar4321
08-05-2010, 10:49 PM
He is the perfect example of why the French used the Guillotine. Hopefully we can get rid of him without resorting to violence. Because if we have to use violence, this nation wont be the same.
Palin Rider
08-05-2010, 11:06 PM
He is the perfect example of why the French used the Guillotine. Hopefully we can get rid of him without resorting to violence. Because if we have to use violence, this nation wont be the same.
He's been voted both in and out several times in that district. So I think you can stop panicking: I'm sure he's not that far from retirement.
avatar4321
08-05-2010, 11:10 PM
He's been voted both in and out several times in that district. So I think you can stop panicking: I'm sure he's not that far from retirement.
Not panicking at all. If I panicked every time an unqualified politician said something stupid, I'd be in an insane Asylum.
Until he retires, I am not going to be silent if he says arrogant things.
Palin Rider
08-05-2010, 11:18 PM
Not panicking at all. If I panicked every time an unqualified politician said something stupid, I'd be in an insane Asylum.
Until he retires, I am not going to be silent if he says arrogant things.
Fair enough. Although you might want to read post #7 in order to keep your lack of silence from embarrassing you. :)
red states rule
08-06-2010, 04:09 AM
The ACLU only goes up against portions of the govt that try; to enforce laws, or have anything to do with Christianity.
When it comes to expansion of govt powers via programs and policies they never oppose it.
and do not forget they also defend terrorists who are out to kill as many Americans as possible
LuvRPgrl
08-07-2010, 12:48 PM
They have: http://reason.com/blog/2007/04/06/the-aclu-defends-gun-rights
the article actually states the ACLU does NOt support gun ownership rights,
Kathianne
08-07-2010, 01:19 PM
the article actually states the ACLU does NOt support gun ownership rights,
The TX chapter joined with the local NRA.
Here's another in FL:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/22/aclu-rethinking-second-amendment/
BTW, change in most organizations comes from the bottom up. It's what many of us are saying regarding the government.
LuvRPgrl
08-09-2010, 02:40 AM
The TX chapter joined with the local NRA.
Here's another in FL:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/22/aclu-rethinking-second-amendment/
BTW, change in most organizations comes from the bottom up. It's what many of us are saying regarding the government.
Dont confuse what the ACLU is actually defending in some of these cases.
For example, they are defending the rights of people to have their "legal" possesions returned to them from the police, regardless of whether it is a gun or not, and not defending the right to own the gun.
Also, your own link states that the ACLU is opposed to private gun ownership rights as a constitutional right.
Maybe there have been a few instances where they have defended people in cases involving gun ownership, but that doesnt automatically translate into an overall support of 2ND amendment rights that allow private citizens to won guns.
The official ACLU posistion is that gun ownership rights is directed at society as a whole, not individuals.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.