The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[tulc]

In a nutshell, what you have just done is confirmed my statement that when group A has a message that is not liked by group B, group B cn always find a way to rationalize the oppression of group A.

uhmmm isn't that what the ACLU is trying to fight?
tulc(are you coming up with reasons to deny Phelps group their rights?)

 

[MachZer0]

And you are saying absolutely nothing at all.

Finally out of ideas, Mach?

I guess one way of letting oneself off the hook for responding to my comments is to say that I'm saying nothing at all, despite reality

 

[MachZer0]

In a current capitalistic society, yes, a leftist also advocates revolt. Other than those Americans who are communist revolutionaries, the term "leftist" does not apply to those you wish to vilify: Liberal Democrats.

Another leftist ploy that I've seen is to redefine terms to make things seem other than what they really are. Leftists deal in far more than economics, no matter what definition is given for leftist

The only power available to the ACLU is to bring cases to court. This power is enjoyed by every citizen.

Or to make threats to do so which carries with it significant financial burden to those victims of the threats if they are carried out

Haven't you been lauding the Roberts Court? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical in crticizing a desire for "favorable judges?"

A favorable judge to me would be one who follows the law, not one who (as I said before) inserts between the lines.

Out of court settlements are commonplace. The only "threat" that can be made by the ACLU is to take the case to trial. The opposing side is free to accept or reject any offer.

As I said, at great financial cost sometimes. Better to be wronged than broke in some cases

Your comparison to Stalin is hilarious. Are you claiming the ACLU operates a gulag or executes those who don't comply?

Not yet

 

[MachZer0]

uhmmm isn't that what the ACLU is trying to fight?
tulc(are you coming up with reasons to deny them their rights?)

They would like people to think so, I'm sure

 

[tulc]

They would like people to think so, I'm sure

Uhmm...what?
tulc(who are they?)

 

[MachZer0]

Uhmm...what?
tulc(who are they?)

The ACLU

 

[nvxplorer]

Another leftist ploy that I've seen is to redefine terms to make things seem other than what they really are. Leftists deal in far more than economics, no matter what definition is given for leftist

So, regardless of the definition of "leftist," it means what you say it means. According to your own words, you are guilty of using a leftist ploy.

A leftist is a communist/socialist. That's the definition. Get over it.

Do you advocate neoliberalism? Do you realize that neoliberalism is a free market ideology? Are you now going to convolute your definitions to deny that liberal economics is the system you support? Since you support liberal economics, does that make you a leftist? Since you are now a leftist, does that put communism to the right of the economic axis?

Or to make threats to do so which carries with it significant financial burden to those victims of the threats if they are carried out

You're not familiar with how the courts work, are you?

A favorable judge to me would be one who follows the law, not one who (as I said before) inserts between the lines.

Your opinion on what constitutes a favorable judge is irrelevant. The fact is, you are guilty of that which you use to criticize the ACLU.

The ACLU feels the same as you do. Everyone who enters into a court of law feels they have the law on their side. This is why we have judges, juries and trials.

As I said, at great financial cost sometimes. Better to be wronged than broke in some cases

Are you claiming that this is somehow an unusual practice? Again, familiarize yourself with how the courts operate.

Not yet

Your tinfoil is showing.

So, you agree that your comparison to Stalin was ludicrous, but you have high hopes that it someday becomes true.

 

[tulc]

Sooo they only want people to BELIEVE it's illegal to protest? It's really ok, just part of some conspiracy to fool the public? I'm lost here throw me a rope please.
tulc(is it legal for people to protest at gravesides or not?)

 

[Nathan Poe]

I guess one way of letting oneself off the hook for responding to my comments is to say that I'm saying nothing at all, despite reality

The reality is that the ACLU can, most likely, put together a coherent legal argument as to why the MO bubble zones are excessive and therefore unConstitutional, and you cannot construct a counterargument based on evidence or legal precident -- becasue frankly, neither are on your side.

They will take this arguement as far as SCOTUS if need be, and even your beloved Roberts will see that they've got the law on their side.

You've got non-sequitors, mismatched analogies, fallacious appeals to emotion, and conspiracy theories on your side -- That and $4.50 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

Reality might be a welcome addition to your case.

 

[MachZer0]

So, regardless of the definition of "leftist," it means what you say it means. According to your own words, you are guilty of using a leftist ploy.

A leftist is a communist/socialist. That's the definition. Get over it.

leftist:

a : those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order especially in politics and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man

That goes beyond economics.

Do you advocate neoliberalism? Do you realize that neoliberalism is a free market ideology? Are you now going to convolute your definitions to deny that liberal economics is the system you support? Since you support liberal economics, does that make you a leftist? Since you are now a leftist, does that put communism to the right of the economic axis?

Moot popint, made so by the definition provided as given by Webster's

You're not familiar with how the courts work, are you?

Yes I am, and I am also familiar with the way the ACLUtakes advantage of the court system to push it's LEFTIST agenda

Your opinion on what constitutes a favorable judge is irrelevant.

I see, so judges who follow the law are irrelevant

The fact is, you are guilty of that which you use to criticize the ACLU.

Would that the ACLU had my view of what makes a judge favorable. But then, if they did, they would be out of business

The ACLU feels the same as you do. Everyone who enters into a court of law feels they have the law on their side. This is why we have judges, juries and trials.

Not true. The ACLU knows it will get favorable rulings from leftist justices who invent law rather than follow it

Are you claiming that this is somehow an unusual practice? Again, familiarize yourself with how the courts operate.

Did I say it was unusual? It may be common, but that doesn't make it right

Your tinfoil is showing.

Minimizing my viewpoint doesn't make it less true

So, you agree that your comparison to Stalin was ludicrous, but you have high hopes that it someday becomes true.

I see the ACLU as using the same tactics as other totalitarians and my high hopes are that they will be defeated before we get to the gulag style of government

 

[MachZer0]

Sooo they only want people to BELIEVE it's illegal to protest? It's really ok, just part of some conspiracy to fool the public? I'm lost here throw me a rope please.
tulc(is it legal for people to protest at gravesides or not?)

It's the rights of those attending the funeral that the ACLU is willing to deny by using the guise of supporting rights by the protesters. The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[MachZer0]

The reality is that the ACLU can, most likely, put together a coherent legal argument as to why the MO bubble zones are excessive and therefore unConstitutional,

I'm sure they can as well as I'm sure the state of Missouri will put together a coherent legal defense. But that doesn't address the double standard

They will take this arguement as far as SCOTUS if need be,

That's the extent to which they will go to push their agenda

and even your beloved Roberts will see that they've got the law on their side.

That remains to be seen

You've got non-sequitors, mismatched analogies, fallacious appeals to emotion, and conspiracy theories on your side -- That and $4.50 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

Whew! At least you didn't accuse me of a double standard

Reality might be a welcome addition to your case.

Day ain't over yet. The ACLU has an uphill battle because Missouri is not the only state that has such a law.

 

[tulc]

It's the rights of those attending the funeral that the ACLU is willing to deny by using the guise of supporting rights by the protesters. The proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

Ahh ok I get it now, thanks!
tulc(got confused, better now!)

 

[nvxplorer]

leftist:

a : those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order especially in politics and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man

That goes beyond economics.

I already stated that a leftist can be a revolutionary. The revolt is (generally) in opposition to capitalistic sytems (this is implied in your definition by the use of "common man.") Castro is a leftist. Chavez is a leftist. The ACLU is not leftist.

Using your definition in the manner you are portraying, Reagan was a leftist.

Moot popint, made so by the definition provided as given by Webster's

Let's see. Abortion is "the established order." You wish to overthrow the established order by banning abortion. According to your definition, that makes you a leftist.

My point is far from moot. The terms "liberal" and "leftist" are opposites when applied to economics.

Yes I am, and I am also familiar with the way the ACLUtakes advantage of the court system to push it's LEFTIST agenda

Freedom of religious expression is a leftist agenda?

I see, so judges who follow the law are irrelevant

Read it again. Your opinion on what constitutes a favorable judge is irrelevant.

Would that the ACLU had my view of what makes a judge favorable. But then, if they did, they would be out of business

If everyone agreed with your view, you'd be out of the "enormous thread" business.

Not true. The ACLU knows it will get favorable rulings from leftist justices who invent law rather than follow it


Did I say it was unusual? It may be common, but that doesn't make it right


Minimizing my viewpoint doesn't make it less true

I see the ACLU as using the same tactics as other totalitarians and my high hopes are that they will be defeated before we get to the gulag style of government

Have fun, Mach. I'm getting bored.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm sure they can as well as I'm sure the state of Missouri will put together a coherent legal defense. But that doesn't address the double standard

Because there is none. Public protests with apast history of erupting into violent and illegal behavior need a bit more regulation than protests in which nothing has ever occured.

That's the extent to which they will go to push their agenda

Is there something wrong with taking a case to SCOTUS?

That remains to be seen

Granted, I'm optimistic. But nobody's offered up a legal reason for the bubble zone, so I'm confident that in its current form, it will be struck down.

Whew! At least you didn't accuse me of a double standard

Well, you certainly don't have a double standard -- your politics, as expressed here, are consistently self-serving: A Constitution for the people you agree with, and the rest can go rot.

Day ain't over yet. The ACLU has an uphill battle because Missouri is not the only state that has such a law.

Well, that's why we have SCOTUS -- they rule the law Unconstitutional, and the 14th Amendment does the rest.

 

[MachZer0]

Because there is none. Public protests with apast history of erupting into violent and illegal behavior need a bit more regulation than protests in which nothing has ever occured.

As I've said, excuses can always be made to oppress a group with whom there is disagreement

Is there something wrong with taking a case to SCOTUS?

Not at all. But the ACLU may not experience as much success as we see fewer activists on the bench

Granted, I'm optimistic. But nobody's offered up a legal reason for the bubble zone, so I'm confident that in its current form, it will be struck down.

Many states have done so. It's odd that people on the left can find a right to privacy that allows a woman to legally kill her own child, but they can't find a right to privacy to allow families to peacefully bury their dead

Well, you certainly don't have a double standard -- your politics, as expressed here, are consistently self-serving: A Constitution for the people you agree with, and the rest can go rot.

Not self serving at all, constructionist would better describe it

Well, that's why we have SCOTUS -- they rule the law Unconstitutional, and the 14th Amendment does the rest.

And I'm sure when the Supreme court finds for the state of Missouri, you'll accept the law as Constitutional, right?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

As I've said, excuses can always be made to oppress a group with whom there is disagreement

And you can test to see whether an 'excuse' has been made to 'oppress' the group or whether valid reasons are being used. In this case, anti-abortion protesters have been given a 'bubble' because they have been violent in their protests in this regard in the past. The ACLU is against Phelps being given any such 'bubble' because he has NOT been violent in his protests IN THIS REGARD in the past. His actions in OTHER types of protests are irrelevant, just as the ACLU didn't argue for the anti-abortionists' bubble based on what they'd done in other protests previously - they argued based on what the anti-abortionists had done in the protests for which they were seeking a bubble.

Many states have done so. It's odd that people on the left can find a right to privacy that allows a woman to legally kill her own child, but they can't find a right to privacy to allow families to peacefully bury their dead

It's not odd at all. One involves a person's right to control their own body; the other involves a person's desire to control others around them.

And I'm sure when the Supreme court finds for the state of Missouri, you'll accept the law as Constitutional, right?

Just like anti-abortionists now accept all women's right to an abortion as constitutional.

 

[nvxplorer]

Not at all. But the ACLU may not experience as much success as we see fewer activists on the bench

Roberts stated that Roe v. Wade is "settled law." What you're really looking for are activist judges.

 

[MachZer0]

Roberts stated that Roe v. Wade is "settled law." What you're really looking for are activist judges.

It was settled by activist judges. It can be overruled by those who correctly interpret the Constitution

 

[Electric Skeptic]

It was settled by activist judges.

It was settled by Supreme Court justices. 'Activist' just means 'someone who rules in a way I don't like'.

It can be overruled by those who correctly interpret the Constitution

It can be overruled by those who interpret the constitution differently.