I have said many times before...it doesn't bother me...... better be a liberal than a conservative, just don't complain when I lump you in with phelps when labelling conservatives.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Printable View
I have said many times before...it doesn't bother me...... better be a liberal than a conservative, just don't complain when I lump you in with phelps when labelling conservatives.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Thanks for that admission.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Whats a "phelps"?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....phelps.ap.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
BTW, vid-
I spoke not one word of "lumping", either.
This tactic is unnecessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Not familiar with him.
He looks like an incredibly aged Greg Norman.
Like I said i don't care what group you want to label me with overall, but I am definately not a conservative.
on many things i am liberal on others, libertarian...I am far right of you when it comes to being a libertarian on a vast range of issues and left on others.
I find that hard to believeQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I find that, for myself, Conservative (of the popular "labels") best denotes or encompasses my views, a relative few of which can be construed as Libertarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I've found, in a lifetime of playing about "in the field" so to speak, that the vast majority of one's views must fall in one or another of the several ideological catagories in order that one might be defined as any other than confused; that is to say that one cannot entertain the full variety of choice in every area as someone who is "sufficiently engaged", and then coherently espouse ideas of several camps simultaneously merely to lay claim to the tag, "Pragmatist", which is a polite way to describe someone who is just wishy-washy.
What is it to say, "I am far right of you when it comes to being a libertarian on a vast range of issues"?
I beg you, please clarify this, and then provide an example wherein you might comfortably describe yourself as being to my ideological right? :huh:
Why would you say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Have you knowledge of my inveterate hatred of "fags"?
conservatives are supposed to believe in small government with minimal powers in the private world. you believe that government has a place making laws and rules that determine what goes on in the privacy of ones own home...ones living arrangements. Now to me that would be government interference ...something you would pin onto liberals.... So I am far right of you on this.
As to phelps... if you remove the vitriol.... isn't he just pushing conservative values?.... certainly not liberal.
I find it hard to believe you have no knowledge of him.
On the wishy washy part I would suggest that if taking a stance on each issue rather than following a set rule makes one wishy washy then it's better than the alternative...being a brainwashed sheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It seems you have perceived an insult.
You are (as usual) wrong again, but alas, I am off to work.
I shall endeavor to relieve you of your ignorance after my business. :)
so if i offer up a counter i have perceived an insult?
I think that your both generalising...
Most sane people are Conservative on some things and Liberal on other things... only a fool is a "Conservative" on everything, and likewise a "Liberal" on everything due purely on the way his party is aligned. These people are also sheep and just have no way of formulating their own opinions... maybe we should pity them and lock them up for their own good. (and societies, these people have votes after all)
Personally, im quite Conservative on Laws that I think matter (such as Violent Crime), however quite Liberal on some others and I totally disregard those i think are unjust...
I'm conservative enough to hate Red Tape, and Liberal enough to put up with it for certain things without complaint (whilst cursing it for other stuff)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
....Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
So, how many times have you repeated those sentiments without my taking offense?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I gotta get a haircut-back later.
Thats the trouble with the skinhead styling... so many damn haircuts. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
:P
Ooooh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh.
Hmmmm.
I'll think of something...
The skinhead is natural..........
These days when Kev gets a haircut the barber just does his nose and ears:shifty:
:lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
brilliant
I've never had to do my nose or ears, and the hair on my head (while thinning) is still rather abundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I'll settle for that. ;)
On this point you have misapprehended not only me, but conservatives in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
At to "what goes on in the privacy of ones own home...", let us cut to the chase, and winnow your concerns down to the bedroom, which should serve to clarify the issue.
You believe (as a liberal) that it is not enough to merely "live and let live" in sexual matters outside those which normally and routinely adhere to heterosexuals, you feel that the rest must be given blanket and official legal sanction.
While I grant there are certain statutes (I speak here of those which seek to forbid such as sodomy), the enforcement of which upon consenting adults is arguably passe and a logistical impossiblility, that might well be stricken, I see no need to pro-actively force societal acquiescense in such matters.
This is precisely the point at which you steer left, while I tack to the right.
Then:
In an attempt to address the issue of pedophilia and other crimes against innocents (I believe this was in Texas, was it not?), a legislative attempt to deprive those who prey on children of privacy arising from an unfortunate (and theoretical) interpretation of the Constitution was undertaken, and then struck down rather comprehensively by the courts.
The court's action had the effect (once again) of officially sanctioning the activities of those whose stories, once known, sicken and dishearten us all.
Here again, you side (however regrettfully) with the court, under the guise of extending rights as far and wide as possible, no matter who may fall under the umbrella you've erected.
This tendency is not Libertarian in nature, it is Liberal.
I, on the other hand, would continue to chase the pedophiles, while contending with the rest of the liberal machinery (ex., your beloved ACLU) arrayed against me.
I am, after all, for law and order, you see?
Oh so liberals are not only unamerican, they want to legalise paedophillia...... I would like you to explain how liberals approve of and want to legalise Paedophillia.
Absolutely....the state has no place making laws when it come to CONSENTING ADULTS IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES. and it is that point, and only that point which is being pro-actively pursued.Quote:
You believe (as a liberal) that it is not enough to merely "live and let live" in sexual matters outside those which normally and routinely adhere to heterosexuals, you feel that the rest must be given blanket and official legal sanction.
While I grant there are certain statutes (I speak here of those which seek to forbid such as sodomy), the enforcement of which upon consenting adults is passe and a logistical impossiblility, that might well be stricken, I see no need to pro-actively force societal acquiescense in such matters.
This is precisely the point at which you steer left, while I tack to the right.
You seem to be confusing this with forcing people to participate. Nobody is asking you to approve of what people do in private, they are saying keep your meddling laws out of my home.
In Texas, which had a sodomy law, someone did indeed get "raided" by the cops and charged....It did happen... but let's consider ordinances like the one that forces the couple with 3 children to leave their home...because they were not married. Nobody is asking for approval of those living arrangements, they are saying it's none of your business and certainly none of governments business to deny them.
But I will extend your "sexual matters outside those which normally and routinely adhere to heterosexuals" to the part that comes outside the home. I believe in equal rights (created equal are we not?) for consenting adults and so believe government has no place denying rights that shouldn't be denied, and when it comes to outside the home it is that point, and only that point which is being pro-actively pursued. Nobody is asking for special treatment, it could be argued that as married heterosexuals we are the one that are asking for special treatment, nobody is asking for approval, they are asking for that unamerican ideology...freedom and equality
So if one is against government regulation one is a conservative...unless that regulation is in the privacy of the home...then any objection is blatantly liberal (not libertarian) and thus unamerican because that's precisely what government should be doing...........correct??????
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
1. Find for me an instance when I posted anything to the effect that liberals were not patriotic.
2. Liberals are for a "no exceptions" rights agenda, that is to say, if a law was written in such a way as to target pedophiles, liberals would agitate for a judicial "remedy" on the extreme off-chance a non-pedophile suffered a mis-step, rather than address this post-action, as the system allows.
Better to leave pedophiles on the street than mistakenly question the integrity of an individual, right?
Such blind opposition has the effect of coddling pedophiles.
Fact.
3. What the rest of your post ignores is the fact that, should a cunning pedophile coax a youngster into the "PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES" without being observed, he/she/they are entitled to have his/her/their way with that youngster (by law!), ignoring the fact that mistaken entries can be treated in a compensatory fashion; such entries must by made only in the case of relevant suspicion-in other words, the crack pipe on the bedstand is not an issue, and the embarrassment of suffering the display of one's ugly naked ass does not out-weigh the risk of a child's abuse.
Clean your broad brush and put it away, vid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Since the ACLU was founded by admitted communist i was just stating fact
what part does coaxing a minor have to do withQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
?...nice try omitting CONSENTING ADULTS though...... However that would not be......CONSENTING ADULTS as one party would not be a CONSENTING ADULTQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I see you're trying to do some cleaning with the spin cycle.:dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It's not even very good spinning at that while you latch on for dear life to PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME. :ermm:
Oh, fuck; there you go again with the post cleaver-I'll have none of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I left out "CONSENTING ADULTS" because I address the problem of under-age individuals, and thus seek to hew to what is relevant-no other reason; I have no blankets to waft onto other issues.
The rest is indecipherable, sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Wrong, and (!) wrong again.
Besides which, if I had or took the time to lay out my entire argument in one post, it would resemble those no one can be fussed to read, for fear of it's length.
One must keep some powder dry, after all. ;)
Leaving out something that is against the law is spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If I murder someone in the privacy of my home, it harms another and the act itself is against the law.
If you made reasonable arguments they would simply make sense and have teeth.
The only posts that many aren't fussed to read are your CAP posts.
The fact is your #3 is transparently spurious and boring.
aclu nambla statementQuote:
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
This is a more eloquent version of what I am trying to get across
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives...clu_and_th.phpQuote:
The ACLU and the NAMBLA Case
Much has been made of the fact that the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU has taken on a case defending NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, in a civil lawsuit arising from the kidnapping and killing of a 10 year old boy. There is no more controversial or emotionally-charged issue than this. NAMBLA is universally, and justifiably, viewed as a vile organization that advocates something that nearly everyone despises in the strongest possible terms. Unfortunately, that makes it a perfect target for demagoguery and superficial demonizing, and that is just what we have seen. One group has even begun a website called the "ACLU NAMBLA Rage Page" where people can register their revulsion. Bill O'Reilly has ranted against the ACLU for taking the case, as has virtually everyone on the right in America, and many people claim outright that the ACLU is fighting for the right to rape children. But in the midst of this understandably emotional outpouring, something has been lost - the legal issue. This is, after all, a court case and court cases are decided not by emotional reactions, but by reference to legal precedents. So what is the legal issue at stake and under dispute?
Here are the facts of the case. A 10 year old boy named Jeffrey Curley was tortured and murdered by two men, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari. The men were caught, tried, convicted and sentenced. Furthermore, the parents of the victim filed a civil lawsuit against the two men and won a $200 million verdict, which they will surely never collect. But then the parents went a step further by suing NAMBLA, an organization that advocates that the age-of-consent laws be changed to allow sexual relations between adult men and juvenile boys. Jaynes was a member of NAMBLA and the police found that he had 8 issues of their publication in his home and had accessed their website at the Boston Public Library.
The legal argument that the parents of the victim are making is that NAMBLA's publications fostered an atmosphere that caused the crime to take place. That's right - they do not allege that there was anything that specifically instructed Jaynes to rape and kill a child, that either their publications or their website provided any material support for the crime, or even that it advocated committing such a crime, only that the "totality of the child sex environment" advocated by NAMBLA somehow caused this to happen. In fact, the defendants filed a motion early on in the case asking that the plaintiffs spell out specifically what statements or expressions in either the group's publications or website could reasonably be construed as causing Jaynes to commit this crime. The amended complaint did not do so, referring instead only to the general "climate" fostered by NAMBLA. And herein lies the crux of the case.
It's not illegal to advocate a change in the laws, and nowhere in their complaint do the plaintiffs point to any statement made in any NAMBLA publication that urges that one violate the laws in place currently. And in most cases, it's not even illegal to advocate breaking the law. Multiple court rulings have established that only if the advocacy carries a "clear and present danger" of an "imminent breach of the peace" can speech that advocates criminal behavior be censored and punished by law. This is known as the Brandenberg test because of the Supreme Court case it stems from, and the standard has been upheld several times by the Court, as recently as 2000. But the question at stake here is not so much whether the government can censor such speech, but whether the person or organization that advocates a change in the laws should be held responsible for the actions of someone who reads their material and thereafter breaks those laws.
Let's think about the ramifications of this precedent if the plaintiff wins. There have been numerous cases of anti-abortion advocates killing abortion doctors. One such activist was recently put to death in Florida for committing murder. Under the precedent that would be given if the plaintiffs win in the NAMBLA case, anti-abortion groups whose literature such a murderer had read, or whose website they visited, could be sued and held responsible for the actions of the individual who pulled the trigger. After all, they advocate a change in the laws and they "foster an atmosphere" in which abortion doctors are viewed as murderers who must be stopped. Let's say a law is passed banning the ownership of automatic weapons. The NRA would surely oppose such a law and would advocate that the law be changed in their publications and on their website. Could the parents of a victim of a murder by such a weapon blame the NRA on the same grounds as NAMBLA is being sued? Of course they could. The NRA would be "fostering a climate of lawlessness" by claiming that the gun laws are unjust and illegitimate.
Once we establish the legal principle that groups which advocate changing the laws can be held responsible for the actions of those who break the laws, the sky is the limit for such lawsuits. What is now legal advocacy aimed at changing the laws would be suppressed by the need to avoid civil damages. And the principle of individual responsibility would be undermined in America yet again. The responsibility for the murder of Jeffrey Curley lies with the two men who committed the act and those men have been tried and convicted - and frankly, if someone in prison takes a shiv to one or both of them, I don't think any of us will lose any sleep over it. But we cannot let our justifiable outrage at this horrible crime allow us to set a precedent that could destroy what is now legal and protected political advocacy in America. We cannot allow that emotional reaction to prompt us to destroy a bedrock principle of our legal system, the notion that it is actions that are punishable, not words no matter how repulsive they may be.
The ACLU is, in my view, correct to take this case. They are not defending the right of men to rape and kill little boys, the men were duly convicted of crimes and the laws that they were convicted under are not at issue. They are not defending the message that NAMBLA puts out, anymore than the Jewish ACLU attorney David Goldberger was defending the anti-semitic message that the Nazis were advocating when he took their case and defended their right to assemble and speak their views, even if those views are repulsive to virtually everyone. It may well be that the ACLU will suffer financially because of this highly controversial case, as they did when they lost 30% of their membership after taking the Nazi case in Skokie. But if they do, it will be a result of the triumph of emotional demagoguery over sober thinking. And that will hurt us all far more than most people can currently envision.
I will pause here only long enough to note your post omits any mention of the legal status of the person you "murder" in your home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Is he/she by any chance an intruder?
The rest of your post is pish.
Your debatably eloquent C & P aside, my point vis a vis the ACLU is, how does the membership of NAMBLA warrant ACLU services, when the victims of pedophilia do not?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Again, I hark back to my earlier mention pf the ACLU's imperative (which originally mirrored those of other such organizations), which does not seek currently to defend any but the stance of the pedophile, as opposed to the (perhaps) underfinanced efforts of the victim of the pedophile, whose rights have most surely also have been violated.
Have you any idea what is the acronym of whatever group has been formed to defend the victims of pedophilia, or perhaps how much they have reaped from that crowd of liberals who find themselves inclined to donate to minority and/or underfinanced legal causes?
Or has this particular cause been overlooked by the ACLU? :huh:
Are you suggesting the Aclu formed just to defend paedophiles?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I think you will find that Accronym is the D.O.J. .... And there are probably many support groups and charitites out there that deal with the victims and I would guess that liberals, some may be ACLU members, donate plenty to them. The ACLU takes up cases where the bill of rights has been violated. It doesn't have to take up cases where it is not violated. they are defenders of civil rights, not a criminal prosecution group. As I said if the DOJ refused to take up a victim of padophilia case without due process then the ACLU would go after the prosecutor because then the victims rights would have been violated. They would gladly want a day when they could pack up.
First they came for the JewsQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me
Of course you think your CAP posts are gold laden works of art.:smilie4:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I didn't go into what the legal status of that person. Since I said murder, it's murder, not self defense.
If a person such as yourself shoots a old lady that wanders into your home in the back that's on you.....that must be self-defense.
As an aside, we agree on capping someone illegally entering our home. We differ on why we are capping them. I want to protect self and family. You just want to shoot them 'cause they illegally entered.:stars:
Seems the Aclu is now defending Phelps...who would have thought it...the obviously liberal agenda infected ACLU defending a right wing biggots freedom of religion and speech :rolleyes:.
Of course the right wingers objecting to phelps now didn't have a problem with their vile hate tactics when they were doing it at funerals of homosexuals for most of the last two decades... then it was religious freedom and free speech all the way.:dry:
As a true conservative, naturally I totally missed these activities you speak of.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
As someone who can speak knowledgeably, I wonder if you can tell me-was the ACLU compelled to backstop these "vile hate tactics" under the guise of religious freedom and free speech"?
Ah-didn't think so...they practice politics, too, don't they? :)
Perhaps that would be because protesting at the funeral of a homosexual, shouting at the parents that their son/daughter will be burning in hell and that aids is gods punishment for their sin doesn't spark outrage on the news or commentary outlets you listen to or read.... But to be fair they got little press from most of the main stream mediaQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The ACLU have been condemning this groups message for yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Given unmistakable wording and the nature of the message how could it not be "religious free speech"........ But to answer your question on the ACLU's motives........the guise is the first amendment..... [repeat]Again it seems that it is impossible to look past the plaintiff to realise free speech needs to be defended.[repeat/]
Why is it that laws are only just being presented to curtail these hatemongering freaks when they have been at it for the best part of two decades basically unchallenged?
But just think, if the aclu fails then we can ban protests outside abortion clinics, we can stop religious groups attending gay rallies and handing out their literature, we can ban door to door evangalism. Government could ban any kind of protest against their policies...wouldn't that be wonderful, a government that couldn't be protested..........
And, wonder of wonders, this does not happen...:huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Curious, eh?
What with the ACLU on every corner (just like Starbucks), but only in liberal neighborhoods (unlike Starbucks).
The ACLU picks it's spots.
Fact.