Pete Stark (D) - Federal Government Can Do Anything

[red states rule]

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>

[-Cp]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

: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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

constitutional bounds

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bLJgPuNAh60&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bLJgPuNAh60&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.