Obama Says He Wants to Debate Civil Liberties With Romney LOL!!!!!

[rob19]

None. He's no different or worse than Obama. A civil liberties debate with Obama and Romney is one where we all lose. Both these guys believe government trumps liberty on every turn.

Spesh & The Walrus are right I believe, I think Romney's slightly worse, & I think you could make the argument that Republicans have historically been slightly worse about personal liberties than the Democrats. To you, gay marriage & birth control issues may not be important, but there's probably a few gay people & women that this election will affect greatly.

Personally I think it's probably a good move by Obama to debate him on gay marriage. I think a majority of the country at this point is probably sympathetic to gay marriage & recognizes having it be illegal is an archaic and dying stance. I don't think Obama's going to break his back trying to use his influence to help legalize gay marriage, rather leave that up to the states, but at least he won't be the guy up there repeating the phrase "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman", over and over. People do care about social issues as well.

I understand your point though, both candidates are fundamentally pretty bad in terms of civil liberties, with the most frightening example of which coming in the form of joint support of the infamous NDAA. I think any libertarian would blow both of them out of the water in this regard, & I'd give my left nut to be able to see Gary Johnson participate in the civil liberties debate. At least to me Gary would blow them out of the water, I'm very curious as to how the whole nation would react though. Libertarians are generally in favor of legalizing Drugs, Gambling, & Prostitution (which I am as well), but I don't know if the majority of America is ready for that kind of freedom just yet; I think most Americans are still inoculated with the notion that a Drug-War is in our interests. Nonetheless It's an idea I'd at least like to see permeate the lexicon of American thought.

[Valandui]

That's not the analogy I would choose, since both hanging and fire squad produce exactly the same results.

I think your points on this issue are generally well considered -- neither of them are good on civil liberties -- but at least in the case of abortion rights and marriage rights I don't think it can be argued that Obama's and Romney's positions are the same. Perhaps you consider these issues to be of relatively low importance but I think Spesh's basic point is valid here.

Ahh, but they were when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts. Of course, he's genuinely changed his mind on all of those positions now and I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's running for President as a Republican.

[Valandui]

Spesh & The Walrus are right I believe, I think Romney's slightly worse, & I think you could make the argument that Republicans have historically been slightly worse about personal liberties than the Democrats. To you, gay marriage & birth control issues may not be important, but there's probably a few gay people & women that this election will affect greatly.

Personally I think it's probably a good move by Obama to debate him on gay marriage. I think a majority of the country at this point is probably sympathetic to gay marriage & recognizes having it be illegal is an archaic and dying stance. I don't think Obama's going to break his back trying to use his influence to help legalize gay marriage, rather leave that up to the states, but at least he won't be the guy up there repeating the phrase "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman", over and over. People do care about social issues as well.

I understand your point though, both candidates are fundamentally pretty bad in terms of civil liberties, with the most frightening example of which coming in the form of joint support of the infamous NDAA. I think any libertarian would blow both of them out of the water in this regard, & I'd give my left nut to be able to see Gary Johnson participate in the civil liberties debate. At least to me Gary would blow them out of the water, I'm very curious as to how the whole nation would react though. Libertarians are generally in favor of legalizing Drugs, Gambling, & Prostitution (which I am as well), but I don't know if the majority of America is ready for that kind of freedom just yet; I think most Americans are still inoculated with the notion that a Drug-War is in our interests. Nonetheless It's an idea I'd at least like to see permeate the lexicon of American thought.

But even then, Obama will do nothing to make gay marriage happen and Romney will do nothing to stop abortion. There is no way either one of them would give up their campaign boogeyman issues.

[Dolphins9954]

That's not the analogy I would choose, since both hanging and fire squad produce exactly the same results.

I think your points on this issue are generally well considered -- neither of them are good on civil liberties -- but at least in the case of abortion rights and marriage rights I don't think it can be argued that Obama's and Romney's positions are the same. Perhaps you consider these issues to be of relatively low importance but I think Spesh's basic point is valid here.

When it comes to civil liberties all you're doing is voting for which form of big brother you want ruling your life. Granted Obama plays the rhetoric fiddle to gay marriage after being against forever. (conveniently right before the election). But the fact is neither candidate or party has a leg to stand on when it comes to civil liberties. The democrats will sign and even extend the patriot act. Obama specifically requested the indefinite detention of Americans provisions in NDAA. And continues to fight and appeal all court cases challenging that treasonous law. Voted for warrantless wiretaps and even immunity to tele-com companies that help spy on us for the government. Signed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which makes it a fedearl crime to protest anywhere near the president and congress. Believes he has the authority to kill Americans without due process or oversight. You can go on and on with Obama's attacks on civil liberties and Romney is no different. He's supported all big government interventions into our freedoms too. In the end we have no choice in the matter regardless of the classic wedge issues that the candidates use but never do anything about.

[Dolphins9954]

But even then, Obama will do nothing to make gay marriage happen and Romney will do nothing to stop abortion. There is no way either one of them would give up their campaign boogeyman issues.

Exactly. The classic wedge issues designed to fool people into thinking there is a difference between them. Meanwhile both parties agree every time to take away our liberties with things like NDAA, Patriot Act, Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 and the Drug War.

[Dolphins9954]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Spesh]

When it comes to civil liberties all you're doing is voting for which form of big brother you want ruling your life. Granted Obama plays the rhetoric fiddle to gay marriage after being against forever. (conveniently right before the election). But the fact is neither candidate or party has a leg to stand on when it comes to civil liberties. The democrats will sign and even extend the patriot act. Obama specifically requested the indefinite detention of Americans provisions in NDAA. And continues to fight and appeal all court cases challenging that treasonous law. Voted for warrantless wiretaps and even immunity to tele-com companies that help spy on us for the government. Signed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which makes it a fedearl crime to protest anywhere near the president and congress. Believes he has the authority to kill Americans without due process or oversight. You can go on and on with Obama's attacks on civil liberties and Romney is no different. He's supported all big government interventions into our freedoms too. In the end we have no choice in the matter regardless of the classic wedge issues that the candidates use but never do anything about.

I dont think anyone in here has disagreed with that.

But, as you stated, both candidates are for that. So doesnt that just serve to highlight things like the abolishment of "Dont ask, dont tell"? Being against the defunding of Planned Parenthood? Being able to watch porn in our homes? Etc, etc, etc, on various "little" issues.

We're not talking about the election, we're talking about a debate setting. If one candidate is 90% restrictive, wouldnt he beat the candidate that is 95% restrictive? All things being equal in their debate performance, id say he would. As i stated earlier, what exactly would Romneys defense be? "All those regulations on how you live your life are part of American Exceptionalism!!!"....?

[TheWalrus]

Ahh, but they were when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts. Of course, he's genuinely changed his mind on all of those positions now and I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's running for President as a Republican.

Okay. So you're saying Romney is a liar whose positions have changed for the worse. No disagreement here.

When it comes to civil liberties all you're doing is voting for which form of big brother you want ruling your life.

That seems unnecessarily grandiose. In the book 1984 everyone has a TV in their house with a camera on it that watches them constantly. The abuses of civil liberties in this country troubles me greatly but I think it's important to keep some perspective on these matters and recognize just how truly free this country is. That's not an excuse not to agitate, and to fight every abuse. But still, let's keep our brains inside our heads.

Granted Obama plays the rhetoric fiddle to gay marriage after being against forever. (conveniently right before the election). But the fact is neither candidate or party has a leg to stand on when it comes to civil liberties. The democrats will sign and even extend the patriot act. Obama specifically requested the indefinite detention of Americans provisions in NDAA. And continues to fight and appeal all court cases challenging that treasonous law. Voted for warrantless wiretaps and even immunity to tele-com companies that help spy on us for the government. Signed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which makes it a fedearl crime to protest anywhere near the president and congress. Believes he has the authority to kill Americans without due process or oversight. You can go on and on with Obama's attacks on civil liberties and Romney is no different. He's supported all big government interventions into our freedoms too. In the end we have no choice in the matter regardless of the classic wedge issues that the candidates use but never do anything about.

So you recognize that Obama's positions are at least somewhat (or marginally, or however you want to phrase it) better, but just don't believe there will be any follow through. Is that a fair summary?

If so, why trust the libertarian party or any party candidate? What reason do you have to believe they would do any different? Or is it simply a vote registered in protest of the status quo and for a certain ideology?

[Dolphins9954]

I dont think anyone in here has disagreed with that.

But, as you stated, both candidates are for that. So doesnt that just serve to highlight things like the abolishment of "Dont ask, dont tell"? Being against the defunding of Planned Parenthood? Being able to watch porn in our homes? Etc, etc, etc, on various "little" issues.

We're not talking about the election, we're talking about a debate setting. If one candidate is 90% restrictive, wouldnt he beat the candidate that is 95% restrictive? All things being equal in their debate performance, id say he would. As i stated earlier, what exactly would Romneys defense be? "All those regulations on how you live your life are part of American Exceptionalism!!!"....?

Obama would win by default not because he and the democrats are champions of civil liberties. It's really about which candidate is least tyrannical. In the end though voting for Obama or Romney results in liberties lost and total disregard for the constitution.

[Dolphins9954]

Okay. So you're saying Romney is a liar whose positions have changed for the worse. No disagreement here.



That seems unnecessarily grandiose. In the book 1984 everyone has a TV in their house with a camera on it that watches them constantly. The abuses of civil liberties in this country troubles me greatly but I think it's important to keep some perspective on these matters and recognize just how truly free this country is. That's not an excuse not to agitate, and to fight every abuse. But still, let's keep our brains inside our heads.



So you recognize that Obama's positions are at least somewhat (or marginally, or however you want to phrase it) better, but just don't believe there will be any follow through. Is that a fair summary?

If so, why trust the libertarian party or any party candidate? What reason do you have to believe they would do any different? Or is it simply a vote registered in protest of the status quo and for a certain ideology?

Voting records and actions usually means a ton. That's why I would never vote for Obama or Romney. My vote is going to Johnson this year. IMO both these candidates won't hesitate to take our freedoms away and will have no regard for the constitution at all. That's the fact. Now we could agrue tactics and who's less tyrannical but at the end of the day we have less freedoms and more government no matter who wins. A better analogy would be with or without lube because make no mistake we're taking it in the a$$ when it comes to liberties in this country. With Romney it's expected but with Obama shouldn't you expect more from a constitutional lawyer???