Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
It is a character attack if it is used to attack the points being made by attacking the person. Truth of the charge has nothing to do with it. We are supposed to accept, by your charge, that since Jefferson owned slaves and that since slavery is viewed as abhorent and is now unconstitutional that his thoughts on liberty have no merit?
|
Talk about missing the point. NO, that's not what we are supposed to accept. We are supposed to accept that the notion of liberty THEN and the notion of liberty NOW can be and are COMPLETELY different things.
Quote:
|
And why is it when I disagree it is assumed that I "missed the point". I got the point. I disagreed with the point.
|
Because you missed the point.
Quote:
|
It is a violation (not an interpretation), of the constitution, IMO, for the "commerce clause" to be used as the open door for damn near anything the Congress wants to do.
|
At least you include IMO in there. Yes, this is your opinion. Doesn't make it gospel. Many will disagree with your assertion here.
Quote:
|
The ridiculing of the "right to privacy" by some conservatives as not being in the constitution is something I strongly disagree with. For sure, the words are not there, but it is impossible for many of the other rights to exist without it.
|
Good for you. I applaud it, being a liberal myself. But we don't live in the same world we did 200 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 8 years ago. We liberal minded can close our eyes to reality and insist that ANY infringement of rights, even for the public good, is bad. Or we can be realists and see that in SOME cases (and as an aside, I DO believe that the government has overstepped here in several cases ... just not this one), the giving up of certain privacies IS helpful to the overall protections of our way of life.
I'm all for protecting a person's right to privacy, right up to the line where that right infringes on the safety or rights of others, especially those unable to protect themselves. How can we, in good conscience, invite children to participate in an organization, and tell them to respect authority, without at least doing the very minimum in ensuring that those in authority deserve to have it and are not likely to abuse it?