NationStates Jolt Archive

As a member of the ACLU I find it very desturbing the things that republicans are doing. Now with a second Bush term three things I fear:

1. Roe vs Wade being overturned

2. Only Christian Creationisum being taught in public school

3. A stricter Patroit Act

This is why the close minded conservitives must wake up and open their minds. Liberals like myself welcome change and accept it so why can't they?

As a member of the ACLU ...

There's no qualifying spelling test to become a member of the ACLU?

Really?

:upyours:

They are things to be concerned but this is how I view it.

1) Roe V Wade is underattack. However, it is not that simple . For all the Evangelistas arguments. Many women will get a tad upset if the option was lost. Even if he does somehow overturn it. It would get restored.

2) They aren't getting any closer to Creationism being manditory. Even if the shrub forces it, then it would backfire on them since another group can sue and say. "Hey You allowed them now you have to allow ours."

3) Now the patriot act will happen. They will spout the terrorist boogyman.

Forget about the closeminded conservatives. Once the mind is closed it rarely opens. The ones to worry about are the moderates.....

As a member of the ACLU I find it very desturbing the things that republicans are doing. Now with a second Bush term three things I fear:

1. Roe vs Wade being overturned

2. Only Christian Creationisum being taught in public school

3. A stricter Patroit Act

This is why the close minded conservitives must wake up and open their minds. Liberals like myself welcome change and accept it so why can't they?
I think that is questionable. The first two will probably never happen. Taht is one of those things said by the Democrats to scare votes away from Bush. It is a tactic of both parties.

Secondly, what do these civil liberties have to do with privacy and brainwashing (excluding the patriot act)?

There's no qualifying spelling test to become a member of the ACLU?

Really?

Nope, just like there isn't a reading test for conservatives. Don't need them since popup books cover most of their needs.

2. Only Christian Creationisum being taught in public school
I understand and share your other fears, but this one is unwarranted. What I am afraid of is creationism being taught in science classrooms. It is already begining. I am fine with it being taught in history, anthropology, and certain english classes, especially scripture. But it has no place in a science classroom. And we will not go back to a pre-Scopes situation in just four years. I am confident that evolution will continue to be taught in all public schools.

I understand and share your other fears, but this one is unwarranted. What I am afraid of is creationism being taught in science classrooms. It is already begining. I am fine with it being taught in history, anthropology, and certain english classes, especially scripture. But it has no place in a science classroom. And we will not go back to a pre-Scopes situation in just four years. I am confident that evolution will continue to be taught in all public schools.

If your going to teach creationisum teach all 26 major ones and Evolution as well.

If your going to teach creationisum teach all 26 major ones and Evolution as well.
What? What are "all 26 major ones"? And I want evolution to be taught...I don't get what you're saying.

Abortion is rather interesting. Judging from messageboards, it seems like people are either pro-life of pro-choice, no middle ground.

When the public is polled, roughly 20% support full unlimited abortion up to birth. That is why so many "restriction" measures pass, like the so-called partial-birth abortion ban. Then again, only 20% off the population supports overturning Roe v. Wade. That leaves 60%, an actual majority, somewhere in the middle! Based on how the question is asked, that 60% will split down on abortion. On the simple "pro-life" or "pro-choice", it roughly splits 50-50. But throw in catchphrases like "rape, incest, and threat to the mother's life", or "abortion on demand" and the scales tip either way.

Abortion is a very nuanced subject among the average American, unlike most of us who have made up our minds. :p

As for creationism, it won't hold up under court challenges. Times have changed since the Scopes trial.

The creation stories of all 26 major world religions is they want to teach it in school. Plus they must teach Evolution as well.

I am rather in favor of only evolution though, because it is science based and tested.

1.) You realize that there are about 5,143,453,869,045,155,001 topics bashing the Republicans, and that this could easily have just been tacked on to any one fo them, right?
2.) Roe v. Wade should be overturned... but not for the closed minded reason you think. The federal government has no business deciding that issue. It is one for the states to decide on their own. The whole right to privacy justification is pretty thin.
3.) "Creationisum" or creationism as i call it, has never been suggested as the "only" thing to be taught in public schools. It was suggested by one small town in Wisconsin and was never even mentiones as being the sole theory to teach. Like it or not, education is still principally at the state's discretion, and this is no one's business but that one Wisconsin town.
4.) They've been talking about the Patriot II for some time now... i'm still waiting. Seems the Republicans aren't the only one good at scare tactics (speaking of things that never quite materialized, how's NY Democrat Charles Rangell doing on his proposal for a military draft?).
5.) The ACLU needs to buy A-C-L-U-E
6.) The definition of a conservative is one who does not like change.
7.) Don't like the way things are going? Then next time, maybe the opposition should make a real effort of it instead of ending with $15 million still in the bank.

The creation stories of all 26 major world religions is they want to teach it in school. Plus they must teach Evolution as well.

I am rather in favor of only evolution though, because it is science based and tested.
I see your point, but it shouldn't be taught in science classrooms at all. If someone's studying European history, they should be taught what European religions. If they are studying Japanese or Chinese history, they should be taught the corresponding religions. (go shinto!)

1.) You realize that there are about 5,143,453,869,045,155,001 topics bashing the Republicans, and that this could easily have just been tacked on to any one fo them, right?
2.) Roe v. Wade should be overturned... but not for the closed minded reason you think. The federal government has no business deciding that issue. It is one for the states to decide on their own. The whole right to privacy justification is pretty thin.
3.) "Creationisum" or creationism as i call it, has never been suggested as the "only" thing to be taught in public schools. It was suggested by one small town in Wisconsin and was never even mentiones as being the sole theory to teach. Like it or not, education is still principally at the state's discretion, and this is no one's business but that one Wisconsin town.
4.) They've been talking about the Patriot II for some time now... i'm still waiting. Seems the Republicans aren't the only one good at scare tactics (speaking of things that never quite materialized, how's NY Democrat Charles Rangell doing on his proposal for a military draft?).
5.) The ACLU needs to buy A-C-L-U-E
6.) The definition of a conservative is one who does not like change.
7.) Don't like the way things are going? Then next time, maybe the opposition should make a real effort of it instead of ending with $15 million still in the bank.

Don't like the ACLU? Well kiss my librial ass.

Funny. Orwell had leftists and communists in mind when he wrote 1984. Hehe.

The ACLU is responsible for some very horrendous defense of sickening acts.

The type of people who will launch an assault on a Christian's right to set up a nativity scene, but defend the stoner who wants to go on private property and rape the scene's sheep.

The ACLU isn't all bad, isn't all good. It's a necessary evil because the government is regulating far more of our personal lives than it should. Think of them as a necessary evil until major changes are made, or the gays will be drinking from different water fountains soon (and the blacks would be too if it wasn't for them).
To be fair, the economic liberals are just as bad as the Republicans (if not worse in the past) for enacting bills, programs and laws requiring Big Government. They both could use a clue.

The ACLU did defend your hero Rush Limbaugh against illegal invasions of privacy. ;)

I wonder if Rushie still bashes on them every chance he gets.

I will admit though, the ACLU could definately get more favor with the rightwingers if they stood up for the 2nd Amendment as often as the 1st.

Funny. Orwell had leftists and communists in mind when he wrote 1984. Hehe.
No, he had in mind fascists and authoritarians. Communism does not include social authoritarianism, which is what really is and was scarey.

The ACLU isn't all bad, isn't all good. It's a necessary evil because the government is regulating far more of our personal lives than it should. Think of them as a necessary evil until major changes are made, or the gays will be drinking from different water fountains soon (and the blacks would be too if it wasn't for them).
To be fair, the economic liberals are just as bad as the Republicans (if not worse in the past) for enacting bills, programs and laws requiring Big Government. They both could use a clue.

Vaild point, and yes it is true that the ACLU may be the only thing that keeps our country in check.

(Yet sometimes I feal that the US needs to colapse like the USSR and break apart)

I for one, am afraid of only #3. As a member of the small Christian Left, I believe that every human being ever created (meining conceived), should be allowed to live as free people. For that, I believe that Roe vs. Wade SHOULD be overturned (with cases of rape, incest, etc. excluded).

About creationism, I'm not worried about that. I actually integrated scientific theory and creationism into one belief. The christian creationism said God created the world in 7 days... but it never said how long each of those days were. For all we know, these "days" could have been a billion years long apiece. When God said, "Let there be Light", the light that was created could have actually been the Big Bang.

Then there's the Patriot Act. Some people have been saying that Bush is Satan or AntiChrist. However, Bush is only a dumbass puppet. The real Satan/AntiChrist is the Patriot Act. It takes away the rights of free people. Anything that abridges rights of free people, I am against, 2nd amendment and pro-life included. Note: If crimes are committed, such as theft, murder, assault, rape, etc., then the criminal's status of a free person is forefit. However, If people are being imprisoned with no charges brought up against them and no trial, that is WRONG!!!! :mad:

(Yet sometimes I feal that the US needs to colapse like the USSR and break apart)
And leave China to become the new world superpower? Bad, bad idea.

No, he had in mind fascists and authoritarians. Communism does not include social authoritarianism, which is what really is and was scarey.
You are both wrong. It was a combination of both that created the world of Oceania.

I for one, am afraid of only #3. As a member of the small Christian Left, I believe that every human being ever created (meining conceived), should be allowed to live as free people. For that, I believe that Roe vs. Wade SHOULD be overturned (with cases of rape, incest, etc. excluded).
The Christian Left still exists? ;)

About creationism, I'm not worried about that. I actually integrated scientific theory and creationism into one belief. The christian creationism said God created the world in 7 days... but it never said how long each of those days were. For all we know, these "days" could have been a billion years long apiece. When God said, "Let there be Light", the light that was created could have actually been the Big Bang.
I went to a Catholic school. We were taught that evolution was guided by God. Another example of the Church changing to meet the times.

And leave China to become the new world superpower? Bad, bad idea.

China and soon the EU.

I will admit though, the ACLU could definately get more favor with the rightwingers if they stood up for the 2nd Amendment as often as the 1st.
I've been asking the same thing for a while. This is why I'd say they're just a necessary evil, not a celebrated universal good. Any organization that claims to uphold the constitution should do so completely, not pick and choose as they please among it's passages. The Christians do the same thing with their Bibles, and everyone tears them a new one for it.
Consistency across the board would be nice, but they do have a pretty good track record compared to most organizations (as you mentioned with the Rush example) on balanced representation in our courtrooms.
They defended the rights of NeoNazis to protest. That's pretty unbiased, considering.

You are both wrong. It was a combination of both that created the world of Oceania.
It brings up a valid question, does economic authoritarianism lead to social authoritarianism? Would a forceful redistribution of wealth lead to other restrictions of personal freedom? Maybe I'll make a thread on that sometime...

I will admit though, the ACLU could definately get more favor with the rightwingers if they stood up for the 2nd Amendment as often as the 1st.
But we all know that the Second Amendment is not nearly as hot and sexy as the First.

SNIFF SNIFF emmmmm

I think there be liberterians about.


2.) Roe v. Wade should be overturned... but not for the closed minded reason you think. The federal government has no business deciding that issue. It is one for the states to decide on their own. The whole right to privacy justification is pretty thin.

The Feds interfering is just fine. They interered in other things like that love fest in Mississippi.

The hypocracy about States rights.....it intrestion to hear that claim but everybody said California and Mass was out of line for allowing gays to be married.

Are the Liberts going to fight the federal amendment defining marriage?


3.) "Creationisum" or creationism as i call it, has never been suggested as the "only" thing to be taught in public schools. It was suggested by one small town in Wisconsin and was never even mentiones as being the sole theory to teach. Like it or not, education is still principally at the state's discretion, and this is no one's business but that one Wisconsin town.

Wrongo bongo.

There is a base of subject matter that is tought for a reason. College. If every state went on the whimisical way of deciding what is right then college entrance requirements would be a nightmare. Heck PE would be cut. After all they are there to learn not exercise. Arts? Waste of time. After school sports? another waste. Music nahhh.

A core base requirement is a good thing.



(speaking of things that never quite materialized, how's NY Democrat Charles Rangell doing on his proposal for a military draft?).


That was just an elections thing. Many "patriots" would have a change of heart if they or their children had to fight.


5.) The ACLU needs to buy A-C-L-U-E

The fact the Christians, the conservatives and or Republicans hate them; says they are doing something right.


7.) Don't like the way things are going? Then next time, maybe the opposition should make a real effort of it instead of ending with $15 million still in the bank.

And how much did the winners have left in the bank?

The type of people who will launch an assault on a Christian's right to set up a nativity scene, but defend the stoner who wants to go on private property and rape the scene's sheep.

And not all my fellow Left-wingers do that. If a stoner came into my house and tried to rape MY nativiy scene's sheep, lets just say I would have him arrested for trespassing, among other things.

For the record, the one set of rights I do wish to abolish forever are the right to do any kind of drug that is not FDA approved, plus tobacco and alcohol. They are all bad, but Booze is worst by far. All people who have ever had a BAC of higher than .15 should be lined up an executed . (I know, I know, I am a hypocrite, but then again, I can't be perfect. I'm only mortal, aren't I?)

EDIT:
The Christian Left still exists? ;)
You better believe it! Our numbers have been ravaged by Bush's Baked Bean Crusaders, but Benevolent Christians isn't entirely an oxymoron yet.

They defended the rights of NeoNazis to protest. That's pretty unbiased, considering.

One of the few things I have never liked that many of my fellow ACLU members allow.

I do feal that some drugs like pot and opiom should be legal.

China and soon the EU.
Technically the EU is not a country … can not be in the running for super power (if you include treaty groupings the UN could be considered a superpower possibly then)

The ACLU is responsible for some very horrendous defense of sickening acts.

The type of people who will launch an assault on a Christian's right to set up a nativity scene, but defend the stoner who wants to go on private property and rape the scene's sheep.

Aww poor bunky. They offend your wittle Christian philosophy?

Come on no present a decent arguement.....

It brings up a valid question, does economic authoritarianism lead to social authoritarianism? Would a forceful redistribution of wealth lead to other restrictions of personal freedom? Maybe I'll make a thread on that sometime...
Yes and yes. That would be a good thread. Why don't you draw it up?

As a member of the ACLU I find it very desturbing the things that republicans are doing. Now with a second Bush term three things I fear:

1. Roe vs Wade being overturned

2. Only Christian Creationisum being taught in public school

3. A stricter Patroit Act

This is why the close minded conservitives must wake up and open their minds. Liberals like myself welcome change and accept it so why can't they?
Um ... are the three things you fear not changes? Seems to me you fear change just as much as anyone. I suspect it depends upon WHAT changes are being suggested as to how receptive you might be of them.

I think it's highly interesting that I fear the far left for exactly the same reasons you fear the fari right ... for wanting changes which I find unacceptable. From my perspective, it's the far left who want to be "big brother:"

1. Sorry, but the second amendment no longer means what it states on the face of the language used, so we're taking away your gun and will lock you up if you defend yourself against a criminal who uses one.

2. Sorry, but we're going to take a big slice of your money to give to those who didn't work to earn it.

3. Sorry, but you can't keep your own children from viewing pornogrophy or using drugs or deciding to adopt the gay lifestyle, since all of these things are going to be legal.

Get the picture?

So people are actually angry that neo-Nazis were allowed to march? I may disagree with them, but the First Amendment is about supporting unpopular expression. It isn't needed for speech that most people agree with. They ahve the right to their freedom of expression just as much as someone putting a nativity scene on private property.

So people are actually angry that neo-Nazis were allowed to march? I may disagree with them, but the First Amendment is about supporting unpopular expression. It isn't needed for speech that most people agree with. They ahve the right to their freedom of expression just as much as someone putting a nativity scene on private property.
Actually the only guy I heard grumble about that was the ACLU guy himself... haha

I may not like it, but I do also see where they do have the right to do so.

America is not the true home of the free anymore, The Neatherlands and the Scandanavian nations have more freedoms that us.

2. Sorry, but we're going to take a big slice of your money to give to those who didn't work to earn it.

Ahhh this is what compasionate conservatism means!


3. Sorry, but you can't keep your own children from viewing pornogrophy or using drugs or deciding to adopt the gay lifestyle, since all of these things are going to be legal.

Get the picture?

Pornography will never be legal for children. Get over it. Even liberals don't like children looking at it. The same for drugs.

Adopting the gay lifestyle? Whoops you let the ignorance dial turn a little to far to the right. Shift it back.

Oh and just so you know; homosexuality != pedophillia....

Finally the left as big brother? Hmmm who is doing all the bitching about privacy?

Finally the left as big brother? Hmmm who is doing all the bitching about privacy?
Libertarians.

Libertarians.

I happen to be one.

I happen to be one.
So, am I but I am a conservative one. I guess you could call that a capialist.

I may not like it, but I do also see where they do have the right to do so.

America is not the true home of the free anymore, The Neatherlands and the Scandanavian nations have more freedoms that us.
Acts of bestiality and other things that simply go way out there were NEVER what the Founding Fathers meant with 'freedom.' Anyone who thinks so has a seriously skewed view of history. The purpose of the American revolution was simply to have self ruled small regions under a centralized federal government with defined powers. This example can be taken from The Federalist: #45 that, “The powered delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined” said by Madison himself.

Well excuse me if I am the most desenitized person here.

Ahhh this is what compasionate conservatism means!

Pornography will never be legal for children. Get over it. Even liberals don't like children looking at it. The same for drugs.

Adopting the gay lifestyle? Whoops you let the ignorance dial turn a little to far to the right. Shift it back.

Oh and just so you know; homosexuality != pedophillia....

Finally the left as big brother? Hmmm who is doing all the bitching about privacy?
"The Left" has been portrayed as "big brother" by numerous noted writers, most notably by George Orwell in the dystopian "1984."

On this very board there have been many liberal and/or far left posters who advocate the legalization of drugs.

As usual, your lack of clarity leaves the rest of us wondering what you're trying to say. What does this mean ... "Adopting the gay lifestyle? Whoops you let the ignorance dial turn a little to far to the right. Shift it back."

(Qoute from Gnostikos: I am confident that evolution will continue to be taught in all public schools.)

There's plenty of places where evolution is not taught. They make special textbooks for these fear-of science-stricken, ignorant people.

On this very board there have been many liberal and/or far left posters who advocate the legalization of drugs.

Yes for adults.


As usual, your lack of clarity leaves the rest of us wondering what you're trying to say. What does this mean ... "Adopting the gay lifestyle? Whoops you let the ignorance dial turn a little to far to the right. Shift it back."

Sorry don't have to draw a picture for you.

You are a homosexual, bi, or hetro. A gay man doesn't wake up one day and say "Hey I am going to start wanting men"

(Qoute from Gnostikos: I am confident that evolution will continue to be taught in all public schools.)

There's plenty of places where evolution is not taught. They make special textbooks for these fear-of science-stricken, ignorant people.
I bet the schools would save money and keep using the same books. They would just skip over the chapters.

And in what states do they not teach evolution?

Yes for adults.

Sorry don't have to draw a picture for you.

You are a homosexual, bi, or hetro. A gay man doesn't wake up one day and say "Hey I am going to start wanting men"
My children do not cease to be my children when they reach the mystical age of 21. I do not want them to grow up in a Country where the legal system says it is ok for them to use drugs ... period!

"Sorry don't have to draw a picture for you." - how very helpful to your previous argument.

Please quote me where I said anything remotely indicating that I believe homosexuality is a choice.

Libertarians.
Well, finally someone's got it right. Nobody else is taking a stab at it.
The type of people who will launch an assault on a Christian's right to set up a nativity scene
So close, but no cookie. They would defend the Christians right to have a nativity scene wherever they'd like. Just not on public property purchased and maintained with our tax dollars.
but defend the stoner who wants to go on private property and rape the scene's sheep.
Again, gross misunderstanding. They would not defend their right to do it, but they would defend their right to talk about it. What wrong with that? I've told farmer-sheep jokes. Should I be imprisoned? Unless you can show me this case, you've made it up and failed miserably to make your point because you chose to use metaphor as fact. There's a difference.

Um ... are the three things you fear not changes? Seems to me you fear change just as much as anyone. I suspect it depends upon WHAT changes are being suggested as to how receptive you might be of them.
You've scored a good point. Liberals are just as afraid of change as conservatives. Just different changes.

Sorry, but you can't keep your own children from viewing pornogrophy or using drugs or deciding to adopt the gay lifestyle, since all of these things are going to be legal.
You're talking about public schooling right? It's a complicated issue, just what should be taught in public schools. Some parents believe that evolution is a lie and that God made the Earth in 6 days...should they have the right to impose their views on public education? Some parents believe homosexuality is wrong, should they be able to change public education?

Basically, parents complain that their children are taught things in school they disagree with, but are powerless to change as they cannot afford to send their child to a private school of their choice. It's a very valid complaint. But letting parents mold public education to their whims is rediculous. Perhaps a parent denies the Holocaust...should they be able to change history class to prevent their child from learning something they disagree with?

1. Sorry, but the second amendment no longer means what it states on the face of the language used, so we're taking away your gun and will lock you up if you defend yourself against a criminal who uses one.

2. Sorry, but we're going to take a big slice of your money to give to those who didn't work to earn it.

3. Sorry, but you can't keep your own children from viewing pornogrophy or using drugs or deciding to adopt the gay lifestyle, since all of these things are going to be legal.

1. Awful mistake. This was pointed out in a post above and I agreed.
2. Another bad mistake. Government ain't now and never will be a good Robin Hood (they were the bad guy in the fable).
3. Nobody is trying to take away your right to parent. This isn't the government's job, this is YOUR job as a parent. If you don't pay attention, your kids will get into all of these things without the ACLU or a Republican in the White House. But it's just ignorant to assume that you could force your adult children not to view porn, take drugs, or adopt a gay lifestyle.
If you don't like it though, you could disown them. And the ACLU would support your decision too.
And 2 out of the 3 you mentioned are already legal everywhere.

My children do not cease to be my children when they reach the mystical age of 21. I do not want them to grow up in a Country where the legal system says it is ok for them to use drugs ... period!


Please quote me where I said anything remotely indicating that I believe homosexuality is a choice.

Drugs like marajina and Opiom should be legal for those 18 and older like tobacco is.

humans are not the only animals on this planet that express homosexual behavior.

My children do not cease to be my children when they reach the mystical age of 21. I do not want them to grow up in a Country where the legal system says it is ok for them to use drugs ... period!


Ahh but if you raised them "proper" then you would not have to worry.

Mom was a hippy at heart and did them. I was around them and only tried pot out of curiosity. Doesn't interest me as I was the major athlete in my day.

There is no way to eliminate drugs in this country. Prohibition proves this.

If your children are going to do drugs(god forbid) they will find them.


"Sorry don't have to draw a picture for you." - how very helpful to your previous argument.

Please quote me where I said anything remotely indicating that I believe homosexuality is a choice.

Ahhh well this "or deciding to adopt the gay lifestyle,"

It suggests you think that way.

If you don't; then comment withdrawn.....

Drugs like marajina and Opiom should be legal for those 18 and older like tobacco is.

humans are not the only animals on this planet that express homosexual behavior.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just two weeks ago, I was finally able to kick the nicotine habit after innumberable unsuccessful tries. Yayyy for me! But I definitely don't want my children ( whatever their ages ) to use tobacco or any other addictive substance. Sorry, but the "legalize drugs" crowd are just plain wrong.

Please quote me where I said anything about humans being the only animals on this planet which express homosexual behavior.

"The Left" has been portrayed as "big brother" by numerous noted writers, most notably by George Orwell in the dystopian "1984."

Wrong novel. The Government in 1984 wasn't "leftist" by any definition. They wee totalitarian and authoritarian. You're thinking of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. But close.

On this very board there have been many liberal and/or far left posters who advocate the legalization of drugs.

There are actually many on the right that believe the War on Drugs has failed and causes much more damage to our society than decriminalization would. Think of the Right's favorite pet currently, Bill O'Reilley (A man I respect but don't always agree with). Ever read any of his books? He's pretty clear on this issue. And he's hardly standing alone. Just catch up a little. Nancy Reagan isn't still handing out "Just Say No" balloons.

Homosexualty isn't a choice, it is biological programing gone wrong. That was the point I was making.

Wrong novel. The Government in 1984 wasn't "leftist" by any definition. They wee totalitarian and authoritarian. You're thinking of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. But close.

Once again, the authoritarian goverment in "1984" had qualities of both fascist and communist nations. Also, according to the politcal spectrum, totalitarianism is not at the right but either up or down.

There's plenty of places where evolution is not taught. They make special textbooks for these fear-of science-stricken, ignorant people.
This is a half-truth. In private schools they can teach whatever they want beside the state's mandatory curriculum.
Currently, evolution isn't off the shelves, they've just been forced to teach it as an alternative *science* alongside the usual curriculum.
And some textbooks now have stickers inside acknowledging evolution as a theory (stemming from a gross misunderstanding of the word), and that creationism is also (sic) another possibility.

Homosexualty isn't a choice, it is biological programing gone wrong. That was the point I was making.

And shall the master race correct that someday?

Ahh you are from Colorado. Odd coincidence; but I know 4 other people from there and they all have nasty things to say about homosexuality.

Is that the norm there?

And shall the master race correct that someday?

Ahh you are from Colorado. Odd coincidence; but I know 4 other people from there and they all have nasty things to say about homosexuality.

Is that the norm there?

Not in Denver, In Colorado Springs and most of the sothern part of the state it is.

And shall the master race correct that someday?

Ahh you are from Colorado. Odd coincidence; but I know 4 other people from there and they all have nasty things to say about homosexuality.

Is that the norm there?
You sure are one that is quick to attack anyone and make poor generalizations. How do you know that was an attack?

And shall the master race correct that someday?

When the world becomes like the Novel "Brave New World" We are heading that way like it or not in my opnion.

You sure are one that is quick to attack anyone and make poor generalizations. How do you know that was an attack?

;)

It's nothing more then shaking the tree and seeing what falls out!

If my comments weren't warrented I usually withdraw them in a followup post.

But you have to admit that a biological mistake does sound like a rather harsh thing to suggest.

I don't know maybe I get a little agressive about such talk after hearing my relatives talk about the Nazis(one of my great uncles liberated a camp).

;)

It's nothing more then shaking the tree and seeing what falls out!

If my comments weren't warrented I usually withdraw them in a followup post.

But you have to admit that a biological mistake does sound like a rather harsh thing to suggest.

I don't know maybe I get a little agressive about such talk after hearing my relatives talk about the Nazis(one of my great uncles liberated a camp).
Yeah, I can see that. To me, it felt like he was saying that because it was a biological mistake, that it should be accepted by society. Also, he was the one that created this thread where he expressed his fear of losing civil liberties.

:confused:

Bush is the most dangerous terrorist in the world today and the only world leader who approves of using napalm on all Iraqis

Bush is the most dangerous terrorist in the world today and the only world leader who approves of using napalm on all Iraqis
1)Why hasn't he done that then?
2)Terrorists attack everyone to prove their point. Soldiers attack military targets. Which has Bush done?
3)Off topic.

1)Why hasn't he done that then?
2)Terrorists attack everyone to prove their point. Soldiers attack military targets. Which has Bush done?
3)Off topic.
Bushs lies killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians

Bushs lies killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians
Possibly, based off of a questionable survey. What about the napalm though?

2 things:

I always love the "homosexual agenda." I mean really. You seem to think that people recruit. "Common Billy, try the cock! Everyone's doing it! You know what they say-once you suck a dick, you never go back!"

And secondly, if you're so afraid that your kids will do drugs that you want to make them illegal-and you're so controlling that you refuse to think of them as sapient beings who can make their own decisions-then you are a shitty parent.




Oh yeah, and good to see you TRA :p

Interesting thread, much to say...


I will admit though, the ACLU could definately get more favor with the rightwingers if they stood up for the 2nd Amendment as often as the 1st.

Yeah, they should get behind the creation of organised militias ASAP, IMHO.

And leave China to become the new world superpower? Bad, bad idea.

I dunno. The idea of the world's superpower being one run by pragmatic politicians who basically look out for their own (and so by extenstion their own country's) interests above and beyond everything else seems far preferable to one run by ideological crusaders at the moment.

Technically the EU is not a country … can not be in the running for super power (if you include treaty groupings the UN could be considered a superpower possibly then)

How do you define a country?

So, am I but I am a conservative one. I guess you could call that a capialist.

Actually I'd say a conservative libertarian is pretty much a contradiction in terms. Conservative may literally mean averse to change but you have to remember how the term came into the policial scene. Its first use was in the UK, AFAIK, when the Tories changed their name to Conservatives in response to the Whigs changing their names to Liberals. So it was originally defined as being not-liberal, to be exact it was preferring to maintain social traditions and uphold morality rather than liberalise.

I guess what you're referring to is being a primarily economic rather than a primarily social libertarian.

"The Left" has been portrayed as "big brother" by numerous noted writers, most notably by George Orwell in the dystopian "1984."

Orwell wasn't demonising "lefties" (he was one himself at that time) he was criticising Stalinism which is only one particular manifestation of "The Left".

How do you define a country?
.

"The sole establisment that enforces law with the ligitimate use of violence"

The EU has no army and no police force to enforce laws. It is left to the members of the EU to enforce such law. The EU cannot be seen as a country because any member of the EU can withdraw from it at any point.

"The sole establisment that enforces law with the ligitimate use of violence"

The EU has no army and no police force to enforce laws. It is left to the members of the EU to enforce such law.

If the EU has no army what exactly is being deployed in Macedonia right now? This isn't a snotty response, BTW, I'm not 100% clear on the specifics myself.

As for the police force wouldn't most federal states fail the "sole establishment..." clause? In the US after all, the police fall under the jurisdication of the states, counties and cities, with the exception of the FBI, DEA, ATF and so-on.

The EU cannot be seen as a country because any member of the EU can withdraw from it at any point.

Actually they couldn't until recently. But I'm not sure that's the inability of parts to withdraw is a neccesary condition for a body to be a country. If there was a constitutional ammendment tomorrow permitting US state to secede from the Union would that mean the US was no longer a country?

Equally though, perhaps (not sure about Canada), not enshrined in law it is received wisdom that the UK and Canada would permit Northern Ireland and Quebec, respecitively, to secede should the majority of citizens vote for it in a referendum.

If the EU has no army what exactly is being deployed in Macedonia right now? This isn't a snotty response, BTW, I'm not 100% clear on the specifics myself.


as far as I know its the rapid reaction force.

Actually I'd say a conservative libertarian is pretty much a contradiction in terms. Conservative may literally mean averse to change but you have to remember how the term came into the policial scene. Its first use was in the UK, AFAIK, when the Tories changed their name to Conservatives in response to the Whigs changing their names to Liberals. So it was originally defined as being not-liberal, to be exact it was preferring to maintain social traditions and uphold morality rather than liberalise.

I guess what you're referring to is being a primarily economic rather than a primarily social libertarian.

I was kind of referring to being on the conservative side of the libertarian spectrum. There are liberal libertarians and conservative libertarians. I tend to lean Republican at times. There is more to the political spectrum then right or left. I agree with some social liberties but not all of them.

As for the police force wouldn't most federal states fail the "sole establishment..." clause? In the US after all, the police fall under the jurisdication of the states, counties and cities, with the exception of the FBI, DEA, ATF and so-on.

Actually they couldn't until recently. But I'm not sure that's the inability of parts to withdraw is a neccesary condition for a body to be a country. If there was a constitutional ammendment tomorrow permitting US state to secede from the Union would that mean the US was no longer a country?



The police force does indeed fall under the juristiction of the state in times of stability but could those powers of the state be withdrawn under some form of martial law? Not sure myself. Any way the state is sill subject to higher powers if you follow the chain.
EU countries still have national vetos as far as I know.

(please correct if any of thatis factually incorrect)

The Nature of Power:

Any party that is substantially in charge will be Big Brother.

Thus ends our lesson for the day.

I think it's highly interesting that I fear the far left for exactly the same reasons you fear the fari right ... for wanting changes which I find unacceptable. From my perspective, it's the far left who want to be "big brother:"
...

3. Sorry, but you can't keep your own children from viewing pornogrophy or using drugs or deciding to adopt the gay lifestyle, since all of these things are going to be legal.

Get the picture?

What a bizarre argument. The far left is "Big Brother" because they want to infringe on your "right" to deny other people's liberties? Talk about turning an argument on its ear.

I guess that makes the First Amendment a "Big Brother" amendment because it infringes on your right to suppress freedom of speech and religion.

What a bizarre argument. The far left is "Big Brother" because they want to infringe on your "right" to deny other people's liberties? Talk about turning an argument on its ear.

I guess that makes the First Amendment a "Big Brother" amendment because it infringes on your right to suppress freedom of speech and religion.
just ignore eutrusca, his logic is lacking in ways i didnt think logic could be lacked. ignoring him is much less of a headache then trying to reason through the ludircous accusations he makes of anyone liberal

just ignore eutrusca, his logic is lacking in ways i didnt think logic could be lacked. ignoring him is much less of a headache then trying to reason through the ludircous accusations he makes of anyone liberal
ROFLMAO!!! Hi there, "Chess Squares," my old friend! I was beginning to wonder if you still existed.

The police force does indeed fall under the juristiction of the state in times of stability but could those powers of the state be withdrawn under some form of martial law? Not sure myself. Any way the state is sill subject to higher powers if you follow the chain.
EU countries still have national vetos as far as I know.

(please correct if any of thatis factually incorrect)

Well, while EU countries do have veto once EU laws are passed then member states they pretty much have to abide by it. If they don't then the citizens can appeal to the European Courts.

I dunno, I don't think the EU qualifies as a country under most people's definition but then neither is it a classic treaty organisation like the UN or NATO. It's basically unprecidented. It falls somewhere into a vague area between the two that isn't defined or known. I suggest the EU henceforth be known as The Gray Area.

I do think it will increasingly become like a modern state as time goes by. We have the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, a currency which well along the way, the start of the military and EuroPol which could eventually be expanded into an agency with powers of arrest. It will still, however, remain unlike any state that has previously existed.

The common paranoia themes:

The Right is Big Brother because:

1. they want to ban abortion
2. they want to listen in to your phone calls if you're Left
3. they want to call people on the Left "terrorists"
4. they want to make you go to church
5. they want to let their supporters carry guns
6. they want to suppress free speech of the Left

The Left is Big Brother because:
1. they want to ban guns
2. they want to listen in to your phone calls if you're Right
3. they want to call people on the Right "terrorists"
4. they want to shut down the churches
5. they want to arm the hell out of the police
6. they want to suppress free speech of the Right

'nuff said

What a bizarre argument. The far left is "Big Brother" because they want to infringe on your "right" to deny other people's liberties? Talk about turning an argument on its ear.

I guess that makes the First Amendment a "Big Brother" amendment because it infringes on your right to suppress freedom of speech and religion.
Who mentioned anything about "suppressing freedom of speech" or "denying other people's liberties?" Perhaps if you read the post?

The Left seeks a 'big brother' government, while the Right seeks individual freedom and individual responsibility. Bigger government equals tyranny.

The Left seeks a 'big brother' government, while the Right seeks individual freedom and individual responsibility. Bigger government equals tyranny.
Well, it is just a TAD more complicated than that. Heh!

The Left seeks a 'big brother' government, while the Right seeks individual freedom and individual responsibility. Bigger government equals tyranny.

Anyone that thinks the left is big brother needs to look in a mirror.

Anyone that thinks the left is big brother needs to look in a mirror.

I guess that would be George Orwell. Or perhaps you never read his work?

the right seeks "individual freedom"?

yeahi guess the right to oppres your fellow man is individual freedom but im pretty sure the government dictating what you can and cant do based on other peoples morals isnt seeknig individual freedom

you, sir, are an idiot

I guess that would be George Orwell. Or perhaps you never read his work?

Uh, Orwell was a leftist. So unless he thought of himself as being Big Brother...

The common paranoia themes:

The Right is Big Brother because:

1. they want to ban abortion
2. they want to listen in to your phone calls if you're Left
3. they want to call people on the Left "terrorists"
4. they want to make you go to church
5. they want to let their supporters carry guns
6. they want to suppress free speech of the Left

The Left is Big Brother because:
1. they want to ban guns
2. they want to listen in to your phone calls if you're Right
3. they want to call people on the Right "terrorists"
4. they want to shut down the churches
5. they want to arm the hell out of the police
6. they want to suppress free speech of the Right

'nuff said
MY turn:
The Right is Big Brother because:

1. they want to ban abortion (most do so accurate)
2. they want to listen in to your phone calls if you're Left (there was a court case in Virginia so that is true)
3. they want to call people on the Left "terrorists" (Happen)
4. they want to make you go to church (No but they do want a National religion)
5. they want to let their supporters carry guns (true)
6. they want to suppress free speech of the Left (Both sides do but yeah)

The Left is Big Brother because:
1. they want to ban guns (Only a minority of Left says that. While I agrre in Principle... its flawed. I am okay with Regulation/license)
2. they want to listen in to your phone calls if you're Right (Not been much a problem, but could be...)
3. they want to call people on the Right "terrorists" (Well only in sense that Right used a few Fear tactics. But they were called Fascists more)
4. they want to shut down the churches (Actually again a minority of the Left do, but most just don't want a National Religion. Moistly because in past it spelled doom for those who decided not to practice it)
5. they want to arm the hell out of the police (Shouldn't the police be armed?)
6. they want to suppress free speech of the Right (Not been too much of an issue, but maybe relating to religious stuff.)

MY turn:
5. they want to arm the hell out of the police (Shouldn't the police be armed?)


Well, if you consider that police miss more often, misidentify targets more often, and are percentage-wise more likely to make a mistake with a firearm (as compared to an armed civilian), I don't think they need firearms.

Three times more likely to shoot someone accidentally as compared to me.
Twice as likely to miss.
Four times slower to draw and fire.
Just not good numbers, especially for those who don't trust me to begin with. It makes the police look positively criminal.

The Denver Police department scares me.

Well, if you consider that police miss more often, misidentify targets more often, and are percentage-wise more likely to make a mistake with a firearm (as compared to an armed civilian), I don't think they need firearms.

Three times more likely to shoot someone accidentally as compared to me.
Twice as likely to miss.
Four times slower to draw and fire.
Just not good numbers, especially for those who don't trust me to begin with. It makes the police look positively criminal.
Since you are so good. Why not join the Police so they have better shooters.

Also wouldn't Police Reform be the better option. Make Policemen have to take gun classes and become good shots.

Since you are so good. Why not join the Police so they have better shooters.

Also wouldn't Police Reform be the better option. Make Policemen have to take gun classes and become good shots.

The difference in the US is that most gun owners possess guns because they like shooting them. So they shoot a great deal.

Most police do not join because they like guns, but because they like being policemen. By and large, it's work - not fun, so they shoot only during their initial training (which is rudimentary), and yearly training (which is even more rudimentary). Those who like guns practice, and the rest DO NOT.

The result is that they don't shoot as well.

Also, since most have only a passing interest in shooting, the training is less effective.

I shoot 20,000 to 30,000 rounds per year. That would cost your police service quite a bit of money for every policeman to be doing that. That's the level of training you get for an Army Infantry unit. The police couldn't afford that.

the right seeks "individual freedom"?

That it does. The Left seeks bigger government with a more involved role in people's lives. The farther Left you go, the bigger size of government you're calling for. The Right seeks small government, or prefferably, no government at all. Bigger government always leads to tyranny and oppression. You, sir, are anti-freedom....

you, sir, are an idiot

Irrelevant ad hominem. Seems like that's all you can put out these days, CS....

The Right is the great evil of this nation called America.

As a member of the ACLU I find it very desturbing the things that republicans are doing. Now with a second Bush term three things I fear:

1. Roe vs Wade being overturned

2. Only Christian Creationisum being taught in public school

3. A stricter Patroit Act

This is why the close minded conservitives must wake up and open their minds. Liberals like myself welcome change and accept it so why can't they?
1. Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned. There is no reason for Abortion to be allowed for Birth Control. It should be used only in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother.

2.That is crackpot thinking. Only the extremist want it taught in science classes.

3. The Patriot Act is already damaged. It needs to be replaced, but certain aspects of it should be kept. It is helping.

The Right is the great evil of this nation called America.
The left is the great evil on this planet called Earth.

1. Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned. There is no reason for Abortion to be allowed for Birth Control. It should be used only in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother.


Ok for one. Abortions happen for other reasons besides birth control.

If you overturn it, it means no abortions period. That is what the Evangalistas want. Rape? Why punish the child for it. Incest? What punish the child for it. Danger to the mother? Well many accept that. However, I have heard some actually say. "Why intefere with God's plans?"

That it does. The Left seeks bigger government with a more involved role in people's lives. The farther Left you go, the bigger size of government you're calling for. The Right seeks small government, or prefferably, no government at all. Bigger government always leads to tyranny and oppression.
You are muddling right/left with authoritarian/libertarian. Those on the Right are leading the fight against drugs, homosexuality, divorce, pornography, anything that they deem immoral and should be banned. The Religious Right is downright fascist. It is ironic that people on the Left are now fighting to reduce the size and power of the government.

Ok for one. Abortions happen for other reasons besides birth control.

If you overturn it, it means no abortions period. That is what the Evangalistas want. Rape? Why punish the child for it. Incest? What punish the child for it. Danger to the mother? Well many accept that. However, I have heard some actually say. "Why intefere with God's plans?"
Exactly, it needs to be revisited to clarify these things. That is the problem. The militant left want no tampering with thier right to abort on demand. The supreme court needs to review it and update it.

You are muddling right/left with authoritarian/libertarian. Those on the Right are leading the fight against drugs, homosexuality, divorce, pornography, anything that they deem immoral and should be banned. The Religious Right is downright fascist. It is ironic that people on the Left are now fighting to reduce the size and power of the government.

While I would agree that the religious right, as you put it, is extreme, we've also gone to the other extreme with a complete demonization of religion (Christianity in particular), and a willingness to forego the First Amendment in the form of "political correctness". Not to mention a 40 year history of stomping on the 10th Amendment. Or attempts to invalidate the 2nd Amendment.

If a party is in power, it abuses that power. And the party not in power will fight to reduce that power.

Doesn't matter who's in charge, that power corrupts, baby.

1. Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned. There is no reason for Abortion to be allowed for Birth Control. It should be used only in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother.

Terrible argument, only shows that you are more concerned about the origins of the pregnancy than the actual life of the child.

The militant left want no tampering with thier right to abort on demand. The supreme court needs to review it and update it.

No it's called women. Hate to tell you this that as a whole a majority of women prefer the option. This means the left, the center and the right.

Women don't seem to like the idea of white male evangalistas reducing them to more or less property.

You will have more power when people hear the orphanages are empty.

2 things:

I always love the "homosexual agenda." I mean really. You seem to think that people recruit. "Common Billy, try the cock! Everyone's doing it! You know what they say-once you suck a dick, you never go back!"

And secondly, if you're so afraid that your kids will do drugs that you want to make them illegal-and you're so controlling that you refuse to think of them as sapient beings who can make their own decisions-then you are a shitty parent.




Oh yeah, and good to see you TRA :pam I that obvious? :(

The Left seeks a 'big brother' government, while the Right seeks individual freedom and individual responsibility. Bigger government equals tyranny.
the Bush administration totally disproves your theory

The left is the great evil on this planet called Earth.
the greedy right are destroying the planet with their greenhouse gases

the Bush administration totally disproves your theory

No, it doesn't at all. George W. Bush is a statist Leftist, like yourself. He's just not as far-Left as you or John Kerry, for example.

You are muddling right/left with authoritarian/libertarian. Those on the Right are leading the fight against drugs, homosexuality, divorce, pornography, anything that they deem immoral and should be banned. The Religious Right is downright fascist. It is ironic that people on the Left are now fighting to reduce the size and power of the government.


Bigger government = Left

Smaller government = Right

Bigger government = Oppression and tyranny

Smaller government = Freedom and liberty

Left = Subjugation

Right = Freedom

***

You can't refute that because you know it's true. The bigger the government is, the more oppressive it becomes. Anarchists, as an example, are on the fringe of the Right as they seek the complete elimination of government (well, most anarchists, I should say).

No, it doesn't at all. George W. Bush is a statist Leftist, like yourself. He's just not as far-Left as you or John Kerry, for example.
Bush is as conservative as you can get--hes a total reactionary on social issues and he exists solely to steal for the super-rich--these are far from leftwing traits

the greedy right are destroying the planet with their greenhouse gases
I'm neither left nor right C'mon, they both want Big Government to enforce their agendas, people! Don't be so blind to your *sides* own hand in advancing force and coersion on the people.
Just to be fair, I'd like to add to the statement above:
So the *evil* Republicans are the only people left who are still driving as opposed to riding bikes? That's the blanket statement of the year f I heard you correctly.

Bigger government = Left

Smaller government = Right

Bigger government = Oppression and tyranny

Smaller government = Freedom and liberty

Left = Subjugation

Right = Freedom

***

You can't refute that because you know it's true. The bigger the government is, the more oppressive it becomes. Anarchists, as an example, are on the fringe of the Right as they seek the complete elimination of government (well, most anarchists, I should say).
Like I said the neoconservative Bush administration disproves your chart--the republican party which exists to serve the interests of billionaires and corporate crooks only is in no way leftwing and they stand for Big Govt

Bush is as conservative as you can get--hes a total reactionary on social issues and he exists solely to steal for the super-rich--these are far from leftwing traits

George W. Bush is a Leftist, Skapedroe, I assure you. He advocate's a bigger government that is more involved in Americans' lives. If he was truly a Rightist, we wouldn't have the monsterous-sized government we have t'day. We wouldn't have the Department of Homeland Security being created. On a simpler level, we wouldn't have income tax (theft) as the unlawful Sixteenth Amendment would have been repealed long ago. He is not a true Rightist.

I'm neither left nor right C'mon, they both want Big Government to enforce their agendas, people! Don't be so blind to your *sides* own hand in advancing force and coersion on the people.
Just to be fair, I'd like to add to the statement above:
So the *evil* Republicans are the only people left who are still driving as opposed to riding bikes? That's the blanket statement of the year f I heard you correctly.
republicans are the only people actively obstructing the fight against greenhouse gases

Like I said the neoconservative Bush administration disproves your chart--the republican party which exists to serve the interests of billionaires and corporate crooks only is in no way leftwing and they stand for Big Govt

That's what you can't seem to comprehend. The GOP is Left-wing because they stand for big government. Just like the Democrats. And the Greens. And most other major political parties out there. The Democrats are no different than the Republicans when you look at it -- both are lying, cheating statists who want to oppress the masses. 'Cept, the Democrats seem to lie and cheat a bit more than the GOP. Both want to lead us to a socialist hell-hole, it's just a matter of the speed of said direction. Democrats want to jump on a rocketship and fly us there at Mach 20, while Republicans want a slower journey there.

George W. Bush is a Leftist, Skapedroe, I assure you. He advocate's a bigger government that is more involved in Americans' lives. If he was truly a Rightist, we wouldn't have the monsterous-sized government we have t'day. We wouldn't have the Department of Homeland Security being created. On a simpler level, we wouldn't have income tax (theft) as the unlawful Sixteenth Amendment would have been repealed long ago. He is not a true Rightist.
how can Bush the union busting hater of working americans who rewards the rich when they export our jobs be considered a leftist? leftists arent classical robber barons the way Bush is--the left formed in reaction to oppressors like Bush

republicans are the only people actively obstructing the fight against greenhouse gases

Skapedroe, I have a question for you: do you live in an urban or rural community?

how can Bush the union busting hater of working americans who rewards the rich when they export our jobs be considered a leftist? leftists arent classical robber barons the way Bush is--the left formed in reaction to oppressors like Bush

How has the President busted unions? What worker unions has he broken up? George W. Bush is a leftist because he advocates the growth of the government -- I thought we went over this a'ready? The Left formed merely to oppress, not to fight oppressors. They're incapable of fighting for freedom. They fight for enslavement and tyranny while the Right fights for liberty and enfranchisement.

republicans are the only people actively obstructing the fight against greenhouse gases
Still a gross generalization placing sole responsibilty on one side unnecessarily and inaccurately.
Besides bullshitting and taking money from lobbyists who further the destructive forces you're referring to, in what way are they active?
Seems to me you'd start by getting rid of the car and adopting a more ecofriendly example of living, not furthering it while complaining.
All that hot air can't be helping you achieve your green utopia anytime soon. C'mon, practice what you preach and someone might take you seriously!
A *Save the Planet* bumper sticker on the back of your SUV isn't doing anything but making you the target of justified mistrust.

They fight for enslavement and tyranny while the Right fights for liberty and enfranchisement.
My gay, muslim and atheist neighbors would beg to disagree with this generalization.
That's right, liberty and justice for everyone but the fags, ragheads and nonconverted.
I agree that they were headed there, but they've been backpeddling faster than the Democrats afraid of being called *liberals*.

How has the President busted unions? What worker unions has he broken up? George W. Bush is a leftist because he advocates the growth of the government -- I thought we went over this a'ready? The Left formed merely to oppress, not to fight oppressors. They're incapable of fighting for freedom. They fight for enslavement and tyranny while the Right fights for liberty and enfranchisement.

You can't argue with someone who's going to redefine the terms to fit his own POV.

You can't argue with someone who's going to redefine the terms to fit his own POV.
thats what it sounds like Colerica is doing

Skapedroe, I have a question for you: do you live in an urban or rural community?
suburban

How has the President busted unions? What worker unions has he broken up? George W. Bush is a leftist because he advocates the growth of the government -- I thought we went over this a'ready? The Left formed merely to oppress, not to fight oppressors. They're incapable of fighting for freedom. They fight for enslavement and tyranny while the Right fights for liberty and enfranchisement.
Bush wouldnt pass the Homeland security Bill unless it didnt have union workers plus Bush appointed an anti-unionist to head the Labor dept plus Bush favors exporting union jobs to third world slaves-the leftwing ACLU is suing Bush over his patriot act excesses

Still a gross generalization placing sole responsibilty on one side unnecessarily and inaccurately.
Besides bullshitting and taking money from lobbyists who further the destructive forces you're referring to, in what way are they active?
Seems to me you'd start by getting rid of the car and adopting a more ecofriendly example of living, not furthering it while complaining.
All that hot air can't be helping you achieve your green utopia anytime soon. C'mon, practice what you preach and someone might take you seriously!
A *Save the Planet* bumper sticker on the back of your SUV isn't doing anything but making you the target of justified mistrust.
but a democratic president would sign the Kyoto treaty

That's what you can't seem to comprehend. The GOP is Left-wing because they stand for big government. Just like the Democrats. And the Greens. And most other major political parties out there. The Democrats are no different than the Republicans when you look at it -- both are lying, cheating statists who want to oppress the masses. 'Cept, the Democrats seem to lie and cheat a bit more than the GOP. Both want to lead us to a socialist hell-hole, it's just a matter of the speed of said direction. Democrats want to jump on a rocketship and fly us there at Mach 20, while Republicans want a slower journey there.

Take a good look at the Right spin engine. Search key words: Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove.

Scares me more than Bush or anyone in the white house currently. In fact I love Bush and the white house folks as much as I am scared of the mentioned people above.

but a democratic president would sign the Kyoto treaty

And that's a good thing....why, per se?

Take a good look at the Right spin engine. Search key words: Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove.

Scares me more than Bush or anyone in the white house currently. In fact I love Bush and the white house folks as much as I am scared of the mentioned people above.
true and the american media is controlled by republican/conservatives so if anyones doin the most spinning lying and cheating its the reps--Bush didnt even have a record of any success of his own to run on--his entire campaign was just based on smearing and lying about kerry with the help of the wormy corporate media who never once challenged Bushs slimy tactics of distortion but if anything added to them

Bigger government = Left

Smaller government = Right

Bigger government = Oppression and tyranny

Smaller government = Freedom and liberty

Left = Subjugation

Right = Freedom


You're completely right. About economics. What does this have to do with individual rights?

You're completely right. About economics. What does this have to do with individual rights?

Simply put: more government leads to oppression, plain and simple....

Simply put: more government leads to oppression, plain and simple....
Examples or are you talking out of your head without one?

As a member of the ACLU I find it very desturbing the things that republicans are doing. Now with a second Bush term three things I fear:

1. Roe vs Wade being overturned

2. Only Christian Creationisum being taught in public school

3. A stricter Patroit Act

This is why the close minded conservitives must wake up and open their minds. Liberals like myself welcome change and accept it so why can't they?

Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, didn't you know that? It violates the 10th Amendment.

Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, didn't you know that? It violates the 10th Amendment.
10th Amendment is which? Sorry I can't recall it.

Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, didn't you know that? It violates the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it by the states , are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

oyez: The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

im pretty sure thats the people

Amendment 14 S.1: [...] "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges and immunities of citizens of the United States" [...]

in the soviet states of roach busters, privilidges abridge you!

I don't see #2 causing a big problem, b/c another group can sue and it'd just backfire against them. #3 is what scares me. I've already heard Patriot Act horror stories that make me want to never fly again. :gundge:

Examples or are you talking out of your head without one?

Let's see.....hmm.....nations where big government and oppression go hand in hand.......ever heard of Nazi Germany? Fascisti Italy? The Soviet Union? Red China? Islamic Iran? Ba'athist Iraq? What do these nations have in common? A bloated, oppressive government.....

The more a government is involved with its people's everday lives, the bigger it gets. The bigger the government is, the more oppressive it becomes by nature.......

Simply put: more government leads to oppression, plain and simple....

Maybe (deal with that later). But my point was that the left-right division deals only with economics, not civil liberties.

Let's see.....hmm.....nations where big government and oppression go hand in hand.......ever heard of Nazi Germany? Fascisti Italy? The Soviet Union? Red China? Islamic Iran? Ba'athist Iraq? What do these nations have in common? A bloated, oppressive government.....

Also, all dictators had hair. Therefore having hair makes one a dictator.

Correlation != cause.

Oppression necessitates a large government. That does not mean a large government necessarily means oppression.

Plenty of countries have meaintained larger governments than that of the US without any appreciable loss in liberty.


The more a government is involved with its people's everday lives, the bigger it gets. The bigger the government is, the more oppressive it becomes by nature.......

What you are saying is

if A then B. Therefore if B then A

This is a logical fallacy:

If that fruit is a banana, then it is yellow. Therefore if that fruit is yellow, it is a banana.

Let's see.....hmm.....nations where big government and oppression go hand in hand.......ever heard of Nazi Germany? Fascisti Italy? The Soviet Union? Red China? Islamic Iran? Ba'athist Iraq? What do these nations have in common? A bloated, oppressive government.....

The more a government is involved with its people's everday lives, the bigger it gets. The bigger the government is, the more oppressive it becomes by nature.......
your half right--corporate power is an equal threat and thats where your blind spot is

What you are saying is

if A then B. Therefore if B then A

This is a logical fallacy:

If that fruit is a banana, then it is yellow. Therefore if that fruit is yellow, it is a banana.
actually his statement is more like this

the more snow a snowball collects, the bigger it gets. the bigger the snowball gets, the more snow it collects. which is true, which isnt a logical fallacy

Funny. Orwell had leftists and communists in mind when he wrote 1984. Hehe.

The ACLU is responsible for some very horrendous defense of sickening acts.

The type of people who will launch an assault on a Christian's right to set up a nativity scene, but defend the stoner who wants to go on private property and rape the scene's sheep.

Funny. Orwell was a self described socialist.

Funny. Orwell was a self described socialist.
not to mention communists were never leftists as he is referring to them

AND

also he is another ignorant git who thinks the aclu hates religion, they have defended as many as they have brought up.

Bush is very Orwellian--he needs to invent enemies to steal our freedoms and loot the world for his own private greed

all the liars on Foxnews and the rightwing media are on a smear campaign against the ACLU falsely accusing them of trying to remove the word Christmas and religion from everything and its a total fabrication

your half right--corporate power is an equal threat and thats where your blind spot is
Amen, people all ways seem to ignore the fact that uncontroled economic power can be just as dangerus as uncontroled political power. The only way to negate the threat of both is to place them in the hands of the masses via some form of democracy or republic.

Amen, people all ways seem to ignore the fact that uncontroled economic power can be just as dangerus as uncontroled political power. The only way to negate the threat of both is to place them in the hands of the masses via some form of democracy or republic.
I agree and its also time to puncture the Big Lie that the market alone is a solution for everything--thats just not true and an unregulated market is a trainwreck waiten to happen

actually his statement is more like this

the more snow a snowball collects, the bigger it gets. the bigger the snowball gets, the more snow it collects. which is true, which isnt a logical fallacy

Yes, it still is a logical fallacy. Just because it works in some examples does not mean it works in all. Just because it involves relative concepts, more/bigger, doesn't change the underlying logic. It's still the fallacy of commutation of conditionals:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/commcond.html

It's worth noting that the example you give above doesn't work regardless of the fallacy. The first part is true but the second is false: a large snowball at rest does not collect any more snow.