Posted on 04/09/2005 9:38:38 AM PDT by jalisco555
really...
A government that is big enough to give you all you need is big enough to take it all away -Barry M. Goldwater
We all want less government here. I'm not a liberatarian but I want less government.
Goldwater opposed Civil Rights, because he felt it was a state's rights issue. Not, because he was racist. Some people here opposed Terri Shiavo on the basic of State's rights.
The purpose of State's rights is to give the individual more freedom and say in government.
Can we say.... Hillary?
I banged a few hippie broads. Does that count?
That was more than I needed to know.
Weatherman "liberals" did not exist. These were hard core revolutionaries who hated Liberals even more than they did conservatives. Their greatest fear was that Liberals would "coopt" the revolution.
Sarah Jane Olson with a degree.
She says she did not use terrorism to coerce a civilian population.
What response might she have if asked, did you use terrorism against our government?
There is absolutely no such thing as "States Rights" in the US Constitution. This concept is a word fabrication, like "Collective rights", that essentially mean nothing. Only individual human beings have the legal and moral standing of "Rights". The federal government and the states have "Powers, but "rights" are never mentioned in the text or context of the Constitution, nor are the terms used interchangeably. The Founding Fathers were specific as to what are rights and what are powers. Rights belong to the people only, the powers of government emanate from the people.
Furthermore, "Rights" are not a zero-sum game. That is, my "Right to Life" does not compel someone else to die, my right to Liberty does not compel another to slavery and my "Right to pursue Happiness" does not cause anothers sorrow. "Powers", however, are a zero-sum game. Powers granted the federal government are lost to the states. Powers residing with the state are not within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
This may all seem like so much semantics to you, but the word games played by the Left and the dogmatic right, depend upon the public being ignorant regarding these very real distinctions.
Goldwater did not oppose Civil Rights because he thought it was a "States Rights" (?) issue, but because the legislation proposed did not take into consideration the amount of social change that such legislation ignored. The fact that we still have racial problems today, 45 years later, is profound evidence of the ignorance of those times.
Exactly right.The Weatherfolks believed the "corporate liberals"were the REAL enemy.In fact,they welcolmed police repression because it would RADICALIZE the liberals.They wanted total polarization and eventual civil war in which the black ghetto dwellers,the student radicals and hippie lumpen would overthrow the system and then they would bring in a coalition of the third world from China,Cuba,Africa and Vietnam to rule as a prelude to establishing a communist-small"c"- society.
You might be surprised to know how many of these ex-radicals are comfortably ensconsed in the upper middle class they previously reviled.I remember one Leftist from Berkeley who at least LIVED his ideals-Frank Bardacke of the Oakland Seven-who quit it all to pick fruit for years in the Salinas area with Mexican farmworkers.He learned Spanish and became a union organizer.I may not like a lot of this man's politics but I RESPECT a man like this who LIVES his beliefs,unlike Dohrn and Ayers who are now The Establishment they so hated long ago!
Dohrn got her Law Degree way before she joined the Weathermen.She's from a very nice middle class Jewish family from Wisconsin but somewhere the sweet little girl got misled!I saw her in Berkeley in May,1969 wearing a yellow mini skirt and tight top.She was the unofficial sex symbol of the Movement back then!
My God. The 60s and 70s were crazy! Now, I'm not saying any of you were weathermen liberals. But how many people here were idealistic liberals in the 60s and 70s?
I was...then I grew up.
Stop Excusing these scum-bags.
Since I speak publicly about the war in Iraq, racism, children's rights, international law and human rights, Benson and all NU students are welcome to be part of the regular give-and-take I enjoy with students, audiences and activists. To clarify, I have never endorsed terrorism, the use of violence to intimidate or coerce a civilian (or any other) population.
I fought the illegal, immoral war against Vietnam and the organized terrorism of my government -- and I unequivocally oppose the terrorism of governments, individuals, and religious, political and irregular organizations. I believe we all have an obligation to speak up about what is being done in our name.
-- Bernardine Dohrn,
Shut up you lying GORGONITE.
Well, at the moment I was being very idealistic so I thought that might count. Sorry if I missed the boast.
Not sure about Illinois but I believe she was denied admittance to the Bar in New York because of her criminal activity. Amazing that she is teaching future lawyers.
Civil rights IS a state rights issue..
UNLESS we are a democracy and NOT a republic anymore..
The United States has ZERO citizens....
ONLY states have citizens... You are the citizen of a state..
The federal government is a mental construct..
Only states are real places with real citizens..
Suggestion: find out the difference between a democracy and a republic..
The U.S. Constitution has three important words completely missing from its text anywhere within it..
1) democracy...
2) democratic..
3) democrat..
Maybe you THINK the founders were more ignorant than you...
They were not.. those words are missing, ON PURPOSE.
Not flameing you, just posting this for lurkers..
Whom might think they are U.S. citizens and are NOT...
Democracy is a social disease.. and democrats are carriers..
Ayers was never anything but establishment. His father was the head of Commonwealth Edison, the electric company serving Chicago and its area, and very wealthy. He was educated at University of Michigan whereas Bernadine, sadly, went to one of my alma maters, the University of Chicago for her law degree.
They were typical of the bourgeoise which has always provided the core of communist leadership. It never was a party led by the working class. Lenin, Mao, Marx, Ho, Castro, Che none were workers.
Ne'er-the-less they are still revolutionairies. Revolutionairies being devoured by the Revolution is hardly a new nor unusual case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.