Activists say civil liberties have eroded under Barack Obama’s presidency

View Comments (12)

• Lately all high level elections have come down to the lesser of 2 evils, or the infamous "Who's going to screw me the least" vote. In reality we should send them all packing, and establish term limits.

  • This is number 13 on the Intolerance Party platform:

    "All elected positions limited to two terms - total. Two terms in the House means no terms in the Senate. Two terms in the Senate means no terms in the White House. Our Founders had no tolerance for the political dynasties and neither shall we."

  • I was told term limits is voting. That just ain't gitten' 'er dun! I was also told ( this is where my ignorance shines) that the enacting of the 17th amendment is the problem here. We need to change or repeal the amendment in order to bring our politicians accountability back to the people who put them in office in the first place. I hope you all will let me know what you think here.

  • Unfortunately, expecting politicians to legislate term limits is like trusting thieves to limit their own stealing. Who watches the watchers? No one, apparently.

• It is Bush's fault. He teed the ball up and Obama drove it down the fairway. Bush set up a lot of the precedent to erode civil liberties, than a freakin' Marxist got elected. If it's okay for our guys to have unprecedented power over the lives of the American people, than it has to be okay when the other side gets in office, or it's not okay for any of them to be able to do such things.

  I knew who Obama was in 2008 and I could have told you this would happen. (I know y'all knew who Obama was as well) But that's why I'm not that shocked or upset by what has happened, because it was obvious he would drag us down the path we are on, and the American people chose that option in a free election. But he woke me up to the fact I let Bush slide on a lot of things I didn't believe in because he was 'my guy' so to speak.

  Now we have a Republican candidate who does not talk about this issue because he believes in running things like Bush and Obama. Sure the economy is a big issue, but so are the fundamental freedoms that define our country. I look on Mittens site, click on issues, and what I don't see listed are either freedom or liberty. He dabbles in it a little bit under the courts and Constitution (which he fixed since the Obamacare ruling) but apparently doesn't see much wrong otherwise with Obama's policies of stripping away every Americans rights of liberty granted under the Constitution.

  So why did I turn this around from being a hit piece about Obama to attacking Bush and Romney? We on the right have a huge thorn in our eye when it comes to this issue. We talk a good game... liberty... freedom... Constitution... but then I hear to many Republican talking heads willing to give up those very things in the name of nation security and they honestly don't see the contradiction. I know the Democrat party can't be saved, I'm told we don't need a third party, rather we need a revitalized second party, yet that second party wants to continue doing the same damn thing and expects everyone to be on board.

  • Honestly Joe, do you really think absence of the Bush precedents would have changed the way Obama has been usurping our Constitution? Even with the precedents, he has been legislating by executive fiat since the beginning.

    Next month is September. I encourage you to re-watch the horror that will play in documetaries across the cable and satellite spectrums. Listen to the discussions of the breakdown in intelligence. Then tell me if you think Bush had viable options other than the ones he chose.

  • Joe, we aren't shocked or surprised, but we sure as hell are upset!

    • No doubt. I can't say I've never been upset over the last 4 years, but at this point I think we need to fix our own party (personally, I'd rather start a new one) before it's even worth getting emotional over what the Democrats are doing. I'm not shocked by this current administration, you're not shocked, I don't think any Conservative who pays a lick of attention has been surprised or shocked by anything this administration and party as done. I'm not upset with them because it's not like I was bamboozled, I seen it coming. I'm upset with the Republican party because now more than ever we need to right our wrong, we need to be the adults, and we have to do the job that needs to be done. Our job as citizens is to promote, vote, and support the people who are going to do the right thing and make those difficult decisions. On this issue I'm upset with Romney because I've seen him during one of the Republican debates support this presidents actions in taking away our liberties. It's my major holdup on Romney, and I'm not familiar with Ryan's record on this issue at this time, (although I don't know how much it would matter since it's Mitts call at the end of the day).

      • I'm upset about 2 things,
        1. That we let it get this bad.
        2. That the Reps didn't do anything to stop Mr Exec Order.

  • I couldn't agree with you more. I have felt this way a long long time. Wondering why Romney. Why? Now I feel utter desperation for my country's future, myself, my family, etc.. I have for years hated the notion of always entering the ballot box not to vote for somebody but to vote against somebody else. Here I am, about to do it again. I just hope Romney doesn't do any more damage to our country and maybe has the temerity to stop or reverse the damages done these past 16 years. I just can't believe this is the best we can produce, but apparently it is or maybe it's the best with balls. Lord knows it would take a big bucket of 'em to run for that office. We are such a mess...

• Shh. There's a drone overhead.

  • Now that was a new one on me, LMAO.