Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Baitball Blogger

(46,756 posts) Thu Feb 1, 2018, 03:44 PM Feb 2018

Republicans haven't been concerned about American's civil liberties since the Patriot Act.

Ryan is trying to explain how Republicans can call themselves the party of law and order when they are trying to undermine the FBI's authority.

Isn't working for me.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Republicans haven't been concerned about American's civil liberties since the Patriot Act. (Original Post) Baitball Blogger Feb 2018 OP

Ryan Ohiogal Feb 2018 #1

"This is a demagogue, a mafia boss gone bad, BigmanPigman Feb 2018 #2

Correction: Republicans Haven't Cared About America's Civil Liberties Since The "WAR ON DRUGS" MagickMuffin Feb 2018 #3

Ohiogal

(32,047 posts)

1. Ryan

Reply to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Thu Feb 1, 2018, 03:45 PM

Feb 2018

defines hypocrisy. He is pure slime.

BigmanPigman

(51,626 posts)

2. "This is a demagogue, a mafia boss gone bad,

Reply to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Thu Feb 1, 2018, 03:50 PM

Feb 2018

the end of our democracy..." Brian Karem, a political strategist, just said on CNN.

MagickMuffin

(15,951 posts)

3. Correction: Republicans Haven't Cared About America's Civil Liberties Since The "WAR ON DRUGS"

Reply to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Thu Feb 1, 2018, 04:13 PM

Feb 2018

I believe their attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were a concern way back in the 80's, however, that went straight out the window with the "War on Drugs."

The 4th Amendment was the first to go.

No one ever expressed concern over losing the 4th Amendment

Reply to this discussion