Republicans Versus Freedom

[Chris]

So why are Republicans enemies of freedom?

Republicans Versus Freedom (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/laurence-m-vance/rabid-enemies-of-freedom/)


The Republican Party claims to be the party of the Constitution, limited government, fiscal conservatism, economic freedom, government reform, free enterprise, private property, and the free market.

Is it?

The latest edition of the Freedom Index (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/pdf/Freedom_Index_113-3.pdf) was just published in The New American. The Freedom Index is “a congressional scoreboard based on the U.S. Constitution” that “rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” This edition of the Freedom Index is the third for the 113th Congress. The previous editions of the Freedom Index for the 113th Congress can be seen here and here.

Looking at this latest version of the Freedom Index, there is only one conclusion we can draw about Republicans: they are enemies of freedom.

This edition of the Freedom Index tracks congressional votes in the Senate on the following: budget agreement, Yellen nomination, omnibus appropriations, farm and food programs, debt limit suspension, child care, Ukraine aid, unemployment benefits extension, minimum wage, Burwell nomination. In the House, it tracks votes on the following: budget agreement, omnibus appropriations, abortion funding, farm and food programs, debt limit suspension, EPA regulations, enforcing existing laws, Ukraine aid, indefinite military detention, use of military force.

The average Senate score was 28 percent; the average House score was 39 percent.

No senator received a perfect score. The highest score in the Senate was the 89 of Jim Inhofe (OK), Mike Lee (UT), and Rand Paul (KY). Inhofe and Lee would have had a perfect score had they not voted for aid to Ukraine—something that is clearly unconstitutional. Paul would have had a perfect score had he not voted to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant program—an unconstitutional welfare program.

Seven representatives in the House achieved a perfect score: Justin Amash (MI), Paul Broun (GA), John Duncan (TN), Tim Huelskamp (KS), Walter Jones (NC), Mark Sanford (SC), Steve Stockman (TX).

So, why are Republicans enemies of freedom?

...

[Stoney]

Too many Republicans think they have to vote like Democrats to get re-elected. I don't think that's true.

Too many politicians don't think about the country. Their first consideration is getting re-elected. Second they are loyal to their party. If we're lucky they still have enough time left to think about the country.

[Blackrook]

You're using McCarthyite tactics when you declare that everyone who doesn't hew to your line of thinking on every issue is an "enemy of freedom."

Also, I disagree that the Constitution requires an isolationist foreign policy. That is not written anywhere in the Constitution, and you know it.

This thread is just dirty pool, and I don't like it.

[Chris]

You're using McCarthyite tactics when you declare that everyone who doesn't hew to your line of thinking on every issue is an "enemy of freedom."

Also, I disagree that the Constitution requires an isolationist foreign policy. That is not written anywhere in the Constitution, and you know it.

This thread is just dirty pool, and I don't like it.

No one's trying to blacklist anyone, just put them up against a measuring stick of whether they stand for freedom.

Not sure where the isolationist thing comes from, the scores result from voting for unconstitutional policies, policies the Constitution doesn't empower Congress to legislate.

I don't like what the Republican Party has become. Note, the Index measures Democrats as well but they're too far off the scale to count.

[Stoney]

Its not a matter of what I think or what you think. There are rules long established on how our government works. I think its fair to have ideas to change those rules and work within the system to do that. Those who would take action outside of those rules are enemies of the system we have. Too many or those people are representatives of us in government and have sworn to abide by those rules, and have not.

[Blackrook]

People don't appreciate what we have in America, all they do is bitch and whine.

I used to be an immigration lawyer, and my clients came from all over the world to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that home-grown Americans shit on.

A man from Guatamala told me he was a fruit picker, and it would take him one month of wages to earn enough to buy a pair of shoes.

For him, working at a sweatshop in the garment district for $200 a week was more money than he could possibly ever use, so he sent most of it home to his family.

And he was grateful for the fact that he was in America.

We are deporting the wrong people.

[Stoney]

People don't appreciate what we have in America, all they do is bitch and whine.

I used to be an immigration lawyer, and my clients came from all over the world to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that home-grown Americans shit on.

A man from Guatamala told me he was a fruit picker, and it would take him one month of wages to earn enough to buy a pair of shoes.

For him, working at a sweatshop in the garment district for $200 a week was more money than he could possibly ever use, so he sent most of it home to his family.

And he was grateful for the fact that he was in America.

We are deporting the wrong people.

I understand and appreciate that we are the land of opportunity. My goal is that we not become a government so big that its more like the government of Guatemala than what we used to have. Somebody will always try to take what we have to enhance their power and prestige. If we become complacent (and many will say we're there) we will lose what we have.

[1751_Texan]

I understand and appreciate that we are the land of opportunity. My goal is that we not become a government so big that its more like the government of Guatemala than what we used to have. Somebody will always try to take what we have to enhance their power and prestige. If we become complacent (and many will say we're there) we will lose what we have.

You have what you have. Your concept of what America was, is, and will become... is your concept. I'm sure the generation before yours thought your generation's American experience was a horrible way to live...A loss of "their America".

Your vote can drive legislation on social and economic issues, but you can not legislate warm and fuzzy feelings or nostalgia.

[Mainecoons]

It seems that most measures these days show that, thanks to government, the U.S. is no longer THE land of opportunity. In fact, it is struggling to stay in the top 10.

The U.S. has become a government state.

[lynn]

Limiting freedom generates income for those that don't obey the rules.

[Mainecoons]

Hence, the label of the "Donkephant" is pretty appropriate for these two parties.

[Green Arrow]

The Republican establishment limits freedom just as much as the Democrats because they like power. It's human nature to like power and seek more of it, even subconsciously, and you can't actively seek power if you have a free populace.

[Chris]

You have what you have. Your concept of what America was, is, and will become... is your concept. I'm sure the generation before yours thought your generation's American experience was a horrible way to live...A loss of "their America".

Your vote can drive legislation on social and economic issues, but you can not legislate warm and fuzzy feelings or nostalgia.


This is part of the problem. We have a Declaration and Constitution written in plain simple English yet some want to use moral relativism to make it vague and ambiguous to justify doing whatever the hell they want.

[The Sage of Main Street]

So why are Republicans enemies of freedom?

Republicans Versus Freedom (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/laurence-m-vance/rabid-enemies-of-freedom/) What does the Constitution have to do with freedom? RWNJs treat it as some kind of Bible, trying to humiliate Americans by making them subservient to some 18th Century political philosophy.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Its not a matter of what I think or what you think. There are rules long established on how our government works. I think its fair to have ideas to change those rules and work within the system to do that. Those who would take action outside of those rules are enemies of the system we have. Too many or those people are representatives of us in government and have sworn to abide by those rules, and have not. The Constitution established the very things its supporters are always whining about. Representation is merely a re-presentation of aristocratic tyranny.

[Stoney]

What does the Constitution have to do with freedom? RWNJs treat it as some kind of Bible, trying to humiliate Americans by making them subservient to some 18th Century political philosophy.
It is our set of rules. If we just abandon them and not replace then then what takes their place?

BTW those rules were adopted as a means of minimising the loss of liberty. That's what they have to do with freedom and to date they've done a pretty good job.

[Stoney]

The Constitution established the very things its supporters are always whining about. Representation is merely a re-presentation of aristocratic tyranny.
Please convince me by citing the offending sections and how they accomplish "aristocratic tyranny."

[Chris]

What does the Constitution have to do with freedom? RWNJs treat it as some kind of Bible, trying to humiliate Americans by making them subservient to some 18th Century political philosophy.

It was written to, while the people gave government certain enumerated powers, protect the remaining freedom of the people.

The part following your question makes no sense.

[Chris]

It is our set of rules. If we just abandon them and not replace then then what takes their place?

BTW those rules were adopted as a means of minimising the loss of liberty. That's what they have to do with freedom and to date they've done a pretty good job.

More properly, imo, its our government's rules that we need to stick government to but aren't doing a very good job of it.

[Stoney]

More properly, imo, its our government's rules that we need to stick government to but aren't doing a very good job of it.

Of course you are right. Its a set of rules put together by representatives of the people to keep representatives of the people from taking too much power.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is our set of rules. If we just abandon them and not replace then then what takes their place?

BTW those rules were adopted as a means of minimising the loss of liberty. That's what they have to do with freedom and to date they've done a pretty good job. We replace them with all subsequent legislation, so as usual, Constitutionazis make up things about people who want democracy instead of their authoritarian and exclusivist system. It's like if someone says we need to recruit better policemen and his opponent says, "So you want us to fire all the policemen we have now and let criminals run wild?"

The Constitution has obstructed American progress from the very beginning. As usual, flunkies of the ruling class preach that it's been responsible for everything good that's happen.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Please convince me by citing the offending sections and how they accomplish "aristocratic tyranny." The whole thing ties us down to laws we never made and can't change except through the intentionally obstructive process of Amendments. The fact that we first have to ask whether a proposed bill is Constitutional, rather than only ask whether it is good for the country, proves that the Constitution is not good for the country.

[Stoney]

The whole thing ties us down to laws we never made and can't change except through the intentionally obstructive process of Amendments. The fact that we first have to ask whether a proposed bill is Constitutional, rather than only ask whether it is good for the country, proves that the Constitution is not good for the country.
The founders recognised that in a democracy people can vote themselves into bondage and wanted to keep people from doing that.

I'd be interested in what progress you'd like to make that is not Constitutional.

[Peter1469]

We replace them with all subsequent legislation, so as usual, Constitutionazis make up things about people who want democracy instead of their authoritarian and exclusivist system. It's like if someone says we need to recruit better policemen and his opponent says, "So you want us to fire all the policemen we have now and let criminals run wild?"

The Constitution has obstructed American progress from the very beginning. As usual, flunkies of the ruling class preach that it's been responsible for everything good that's happen.

Oh!

That is the point bonehead.

[The Sage of Main Street]

That is the point bonehead. I'd rather be a bonehead than a Boehnerhead.

[The Xl]

You're using McCarthyite tactics when you declare that everyone who doesn't hew to your line of thinking on every issue is an "enemy of freedom."

Also, I disagree that the Constitution requires an isolationist foreign policy. That is not written anywhere in the Constitution, and you know it.

This thread is just dirty pool, and I don't like it.

Considering how you go after the left, this post is pure hilarity.

[Peter1469]

I'd rather be a bonehead than a Boehnerhead.


Oh sure.

[Alyosha]

The whole thing ties us down to laws we never made and can't change except through the intentionally obstructive process of Amendments. The fact that we first have to ask whether a proposed bill is Constitutional, rather than only ask whether it is good for the country, proves that the Constitution is not good for the country.

The SCOTUS does it for Dems all the time. Who needs amendments anymore?

[Green Arrow]

Considering how you go after the left, this post is pure hilarity.

What's even better is Blackrook is the biggest McCarthyite out there.

[Libhater]

It seems that most measures these days show that, thanks to government, the U.S. is no longer THE land of opportunity. In fact, it is struggling to stay in the top 10.

The U.S. has become a government state.

Yeah, thanks in total to the dems/progressives.

[Libhater]

It was written to, while the people gave government certain enumerated powers, protect the remaining freedom of the people.

The part following your question makes no sense.

Yeah, the first part--his question made little to no sense as well, unless it comes from a freedom hating enemy of America, which I suspect he is.

[Chris]

It seems that most measures these days show that, thanks to government, the U.S. is no longer THE land of opportunity. In fact, it is struggling to stay in the top 10.

The U.S. has become a government state.


Yeah, thanks in total to the dems/progressives.

In total would be Dems and Reps, the Donkephant.

[Chris]

It seems that most measures these days show that, thanks to government, the U.S. is no longer THE land of opportunity. In fact, it is struggling to stay in the top 10.

The U.S. has become a government state.


Yeah, the first part--his question made little to no sense as well, unless it comes from a freedom hating enemy of America, which I suspect he is.


I think Stoney meant the same, I just said it differently, put different emphasis on it. It is our set of rules, the rule we made.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

In total would be Dems and Reps, the Donkephant.
Moo?

[Chris]

Moo?

More like a parrot, of each other.

http://i.snag.gy/AJIQh.jpg

[Gerrard Winstanley]

More like a parrot, of each other.

http://i.snag.gy/AJIQh.jpg
Why has the Donkelephant got a club foot? Can I call it Goebbels?

[Chris]

Why has the Donkelephant got a club foot? Can I call it Goebbels?

I could think of worse but Goebbels would do.