Are modern Republicans the biggest cowards in American history?

Question

All I've been hearing about lately is Republicans like Romney trying to justify infringing on civil liberties and human rights by saying that "the most important human right is the right to life." Don't idiots like this realize that THOUSANDS of Americans gave their lives defending our liberties and freedoms? Our founding fathers who fought in the Revolutionary War were labelled traitors by the British and risked being hanged, drawn and quartered if they were captured. But they fought anyway because liberty and freedom meant more to them than their lives. Around 250,000 American troops died in WWII protecting our freedom and the American way of life. And here we have these Republican cowards willing to throw it all away and trample on the Constitution so many died for just to protect their wretched necks. If you want to protect our country, fine, more power to you, but there is a line we must NEVER cross.

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

Answer 1

Do Democrats have any common sense???? Or are they just book smart?

Answer 2

our founders of this country weren't fighting the same war- they never anticpated deadly viruses being sent through mail, planes deliberatley crashing into buildings. if that means i have to get patted down before a flight, have my internet transactions monitered, phone calls monitered- whatever- i'm sure my life is very boring to anyone paying attention- the one's that huge civil liberties are coming into play are those that the gov't have reason to believe are a danger to the rest of OUR civil liberites. if you ask me, it's all the red tape that has gotten us into more trouble than necessary. men and women of centuries have loved their countries so much that they put their lives on the line to ensure our lives and our futures. Yes it was to protect the constitution and freedom, but i bet if you asked current troops why the were fighting- would they say to protect our constitution, or would they say to protect our families and their futures. that their futures be bright and full of promise- that our country not be plaged with homefront war and bleekness and devastation that it brings with it. Infringing on some civil liberties that were founded before things of today were even comprhendable to ensure that we don't have to make bomb shelters, and be woken up sirens in the middle of the night and hours of bombing wondering if you will be next- seeing cars and children being blown up for no good reason- not living in fear of a nuclear devastation or terrorist attack- that is what we are fighting today- that is what is at stake and that is what we are trying to protect. Excuse me if i think giving up some privacy and some "constitutionaly correct" point of views is trivial when in comparison to what can happen if things don't change.

Answer 3

Out Founders also wrote the Constitution which guaranteed no UNREASONABLE searches but not ALLsearches.

They also wrote a very clear and easily understood exception to the writ of habeas corpus within the original 5th amendment. It's easy to find as it is preceded by the words, "except in cases arising ".


Here is Henry's full quote:

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Patrick Henry


For me, he may as well have been speaking of socialism when he spoke of chains and slavery. I have little doubt that many socialists are well intended and view socialism as necessary, but....


"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

William Pitt, 18 Nov 1783


"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial ... the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928

Answer 4

Well stated. And for the most part, I agree.
But the more important issue is the long term one It is not unusual to restrict rights during war time - for instance, I'm sure you're familiar with WWII rationing and the unreasonable fervor and intrusion into personal rights that resulted over our subsequent fear of communism.
Paramount is the safety and security of the American people and the preservation of the foundations which our forefathers fought and died for. If preserving these rights involves the temporary infringement of civil rights during war time, then it is both reasonable and necessary.
The bottom line is that when the immediate threat has passed - America will (as it has in the past) return to the full restoration of our rights and privileges, as intended by the founders. Under no circumstance should the constitution be undermined for any purpose other than the ultimate goal of assuring its survival - intact.

Answer 5

Don't be fooled by the partisanry of american politics. We have been presented with the illusion of choices in our current primary election, which will then go on to spawn our next set of ''choices''. In fact there is no real choice. Each one of those candidates will do whatever it takes to get to that position of power because from there they can suck directly from the teat of the corporate power that is the real machinery of decision making in this country. Whats worse is that the populace is letting it happen. Did anyone else realise that third parties were excluded from national debates after Clinton beat Bush Sr. because a third party stole his votes?
Does anyone else see the billions of corporate dollars going to line the pockets of politicians, legally?
Does anyone else see the revolving door that leads from Washington to corporate executive positions?
No currently visible politician WANTS to change the system, they just want to be the one that gets to use it. As soon as someone comes along that wants to actually change it, they're outcast by the rest of the gang.
WHAT are our real choices?

Answer 6

Isn't it just so convenient to ignore what the cowardly democrats are doing? Is this a great country or what? We can pick on one side while pretending the other side doesn't exist.

Answer 7

Shhhh . . . The jokes on the Republicans this year. . . Rudy and Mitt are actually Democrats (see voting history). I think the two of them are just trying to say the dumbest thing possible to appeal to the 10% base of the Republican party which will believe and support anything as long as you promise to over turn Roe V. Wade a make school prayer mandatory.

Answer 8

George Carlin said it best. He said all this security is here to make people feel safe. And that Americans are soft people who are willing to give up a little of their freedom for the feeling, the illusion, of safety.

You make a good point but people these days would never vote for something they think would make them feel less secure. They can say anything they want about civil liberties but when it comes down to it they will vote for the illusion of safety and big government.

Answer 9

Not unless Jimmy Carter is considered a "modern republican"


"democrats are taking over"

the impressive 20% approval ratings of their congress shows that

Answer 10

Is this a question or a hateful rant?

What about the cowardly Democrats that don't have courage, to stand up to the other cowardly Dems, when Amnesty is brought up. These cowards KNOW Americans don't want amnesty! But, they still tried to show it down our throats. They didn't even have the guts to call it amnesty!

They spent so much time on idiotic things like blasting Rush for something he didn't say. Wow, that was useful!?

Based on the lack of action for reasonable changes that Americans hired these bozos to do, the Democrats take the cake for being total @ssholes!

Answer 11

Was he talking about abortion? Abortion is not a constitutional right in any way, shape or form.