Yeah, I was just going to let it slide, but screw it. The biggest perk of running your own blog is the ability to get the last word.
On the off chance that Blog Mad or Blog Explosion inflict my site upon PrivatePigg's delicate sensibilities, my response to his response:
1. No, you and Brian are trying to make the argument about FDR and not Bush, and I won't let you.
2. Again, no you don't get to switch the argument. And no lefty claims that every Muslim in the US is in internment - note that I didn't, either. I merely asserted that the populations of Gitmo and whatever other hellholes we're operating are exclusively Muslim. You could easily rebut this by listing all the inmates that aren't Muslims - not merely non-Arab, because they're not the same thing.
3. Let me enlighten you regarding this little concept we have here called freedom of association:
[While the]United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment itself does not make specific mention of a right to association. The United States Supreme Court jurisprudence names two distinct ways in which the right may be implicated: - 1. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected as a fundamental element of personal liberty when choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships are at issue.
- 2. Freedom of association is recognized and may be protected for the purposes of engaging in activities protected by the text of the First Amendment—speech, assembly, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. Because the role of these relationships is central to safeguarding individual freedoms, they may receive protection from undue intrusion by the State. Thus, there is a constitutional freedom to associate as a means of preserving other individual liberties.
This is not merely a conservative meme, it's a
libertarian one.
4. One thing we agree on is that this Administration has made the 4th
Amendment irrelevant. Apparently, you don't understand the concept of due process of law either.
And those "I'm sm
arter than you" quips apparently drew blood, hence your response. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Really read it - then come back here and tell me that ol
' Ch
impy is merely exercising his Constitutional powers. This would be one of the many reasons why his approval is at 33%.
Oh, and regarding your use of
liberal as an insult:
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]
If this is an insult, remind me to get insulted more often. Of course, I'm casually curious as to when fiscal re
sponsibility, constitutionalism, less intrusive fe
deral government, and personal re
sponsibility became liberal values, but whatever.
Yep, lots of wi
kipedia this time. Not the source I prefer, but you win arguments with the sources you have, not the ones you want or might wish to have.
PS: Regarding your refusal to patronize my site, Pr
ivatePigg - it's fair enough, as I have yours blocked as well. On the other hand, I
read yours first. You should think of doing the same next time, lest you find yourself once again accusing a libertarian whose idea of fine dining is a restaurant with metal silverware of being a liberal elite. Just sa
yin'.
