Food for thought, as re: Liberalism in America

[hobbes]

The rights being well-and-truly denied are those abrogated by the courts.

If racism still exists (no argument there) and blacks are still not equal, then precisely what good has all of this hand-wringing accomplished?

Are you saying that this should not have been done? And using the term "hand wringing" as if racial equality is a trivial matter ruminated over by tittering old ladies. Please use logic, not tactics.

It has done a hell of a lot of good, but that is not important. What is important is that it was the RIGHT thing to do.

My point was that the courts should do what is right, not what is popular. Just because you make a ruling does not mean that people are going to like black people. Like a said before, society is a rousing giant which wakes in stages.

Certainly, huge strides have been made, but that is not really the point.

Did you know that at one point "blacks" were not considered humans. They were felt to be more akin to animals than man. It is amazing what people can believe when they are ignorant.

What law did they make that you think is "wrong". If it is "wrong", why is it wrong?

[vidcc]

Last I looked, the ACLU (who is doing a whole LOT of the trench-work for NAMBLA) was viewed as an integral tool in the liberal fight for expanded "rights".

first i have heard of this

I believe you regard the ACLU as somewhat beyond reproach?

again "yawn".......... you believe incorrectly

In any case, I was serious:

Tell me why YOU think pedophiles should be denied equality.

Call it an exercise.

Because it is non consentual involving minors...not consenting adults....tell me what equality they could be equal to?
To allow pedophilia would be to allow preferential treatment...not equality.

You are purely trying to connect a case for pedophiles to liberal ideals because of your propoganda led opionion of what a liberal is. And a liberal is not the devil worshipping or immoral person you suggest he is

Also remeber that it is you that has decided i am liberal, personally that doesn't bother me one bit, by your standards i may well be..however i am a free thinker...just as every other "liberal" or even "conservative" is.. If you put 2 "liberals" in a room i doubt they would agree on everything...just so with 2 "conservatives"

[Rat Faced]

What do you mean by Liberals dont fight for what they believe in J2?

I seem to remember certain things happening in the 60's, 70's etc that were far from peaceful... hell even last year and the year before, how many demonstrators were arrested by the FBI for objecting to a war?

But even a peaceful march is standing up for what you believe in.

I think they do exactly the same things as the "Conservative" protesters.. I may be wrong, as those ones do tend to be more violent. However as you pointed out earlier, they are less evolved...

[clocker]

Please parse for me the Court's logic, not in deciding Roe v. Wade as it did, but in taking up the case to begin with, over concerns (rejected out of hand) for State's Rights?

j2,
Why is it that your outrage over Roe v. Wade ( a decision that you bring up repeatedly as an example of the Supremes overstepping their bounds and thus trampling "State's Rights") does not bleed over into the Court stepping in and deciding the 2000 Presidential election?
Were State's rights not also in play there?

Furthermore, you appear guilty of using the same overlarge brush to tar "Liberals" that you accuse your adversaries of using to deface "conservatives". The ACLU+pedophiles+liberals is hardly a match made as commonly as you would indicate.
From personal acquaintence with active ACLU members (employees, actually), they try to be as objective and dispassionate in pursuit of their goals as a good conservative could hope for.

Unfortunately, "good conservatives" are a trifle thin on the ground these days, the term having been hijacked by religious fundamentalists and political reactionaries, IMO.

[vidcc]

Unfortunately, "good conservatives" are a trifle thin on the ground these days, the term having been hijacked by religious fundamentalists and political reactionaries, IMO.

This is my opinion as well, however i have refrained from stating it as i feel the "tarring with the same oversized brush" has been already overused by "conservatives" when they make their "the problem with liberals" arguements.

The original article in this thread made a seperation between liberals and christians...as if a christian cannot be a liberal

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" used today are very often at odds with the definition.
It kind of reminds me of the use of the word pizza to describe those things dominos make...... far from the true version of a real pizza

[hobbes]

The original article suggested that liberalism was both pointless and arbitrary.

I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is about the belief in true freedom and that it's goals are quite logical.

I have shown that the Constitution has no conflict with homosexual union and that the concept that Pedophiles would be protected is a totally incorrect.

No human that abuses another has any "rights".

People don't seem to understand that it is not freedom "as Christians see it", but real freedom.

My questions is this:

Was the author of the article so stupid as to think that pedophiles would be granted the freedom to abuse children, or knowledgable of his own logical flaw, but not caring, simply to carry forth his religious agenda.

So many ****ing liars for the cause, they should be shot.

I agree that people should be free, just not those fags.

[j2k4]

The original article suggested that liberalism was both pointless and arbitrary.

I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is about the belief in true freedom and that it's goals are quite logical.

Proven?

I beg to differ-it may be, in one of it's incarnations, just as you say; it does, however (and this, too, beyond that selfsame "shadow of doubt") find itself-due to it's overweening obsequiousness to minorities of any race/creed/behavior/sexual preference or peccadilloe-at odds with the core principles of the Constitution.

I have shown that the Constitution has no conflict with homosexual union and that the concept that Pedophiles would be protected is a totally
incorrect.

No you haven't; the Constitution doesn't mention what the Founders would have no doubt referred to as aberrant behavior, but, in any case, let us remain "in the daylight", so to speak, and forego any discussion of aberrance, rather, and better, to forego any argument that the omission of any such reference can be parlayed into "no conflict".

Plainly put, the issue is not addressed, and cannot therefore be pronounced upon "constitutionally".

No human that abuses another has any "rights".

People don't seem to understand that it is not freedom "as Christians see it", but real freedom.

My questions is this:

Was the author of the article so stupid as to think that pedophiles would be granted the freedom to abuse children, or knowledgable of his own logical flaw, but not caring, simply to carry forth his religious agenda.

No, I believe he is curious, as am I (and so should you be), as to why and how such as NAMBLA (with the aid of the ACLU) can even be allowed their "day in court" without being done the courtesy of being informed, in no uncertain terms, by all sides, that they are pissing into the wind, and to go home?

The liberals could accomplish this pretty easily, but will not, owing to their ill-administered and indiscriminate plank of "inclusion".

They are accomodating and advocating a tremendous waste of time and resources.

So many ****ing liars for the cause, they should be shot.

I agree that people should be free, just not those fags.

To me, a "fag" is a small bundle of sticks, and also a British colloquialism referring to a tobacco-filled cylindrical object which is placed into one's oral orifice and then burnt.

Nothing more.

[manker]

To me, a "fag" is a small bundle of sticks, and also a British colloquialism referring to a tobacco-filled cylindrical object which is placed into one's oral orifice and then burnt.

Nothing more.

I've also seen it used, in literature, as a term to describe a personal servant of the head boy - or a prefect - in English private schools.

It may have been in a Dickens novel, I'm not sure.

[j2k4]

j2,
Why is it that your outrage over Roe v. Wade ( a decision that you bring up repeatedly as an example of the Supremes overstepping their bounds and thus trampling "State's Rights") does not bleed over into the Court stepping in and deciding the 2000 Presidential election?
Were State's rights not also in play there?

Roe v. Wade is merely the first thing that springs to mind for me, and insofar is the board is concerned, the mention of it serves in an odd way as a sort of shorthand reference to judicial activism.

When I say Roe v. Wade, I'm sure you are able to skip a few lines of my blather immediately, yes?

Anent Florida in 2000:

The Federal Court saw the Florida Court as having flouted it's own law, in fact saw the lower Court as having acted willfully in the vein you see the Federal Court guilty of.

The Federal Court demonstrated it's lack of rooting interest in the decision sufficiently to have forestalled any Congressional action which it would quite rightly have feared.

The Dems may not be in the majority anymore, but they can raise hell with the judiciary, as recently with Bush's appointments.

[j2k4]

It may have been in a Dickens novel, I'm not sure.

See Fagin.