Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
uhmmm isn't that what the ACLU is trying to fight?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.
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 realityNathan Poe said:And you are saying absolutely nothing at all.
Finally out of ideas, Mach?
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 leftistnvxplorer said: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.
Or to make threats to do so which carries with it significant financial burden to those victims of the threats if they are carried outThe only power available to the ACLU is to bring cases to court. This power is enjoyed by every citizen.
A favorable judge to me would be one who follows the law, not one who (as I said before) inserts between the lines.Haven't you been lauding the Roberts Court? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical in crticizing a desire for "favorable judges?"
As I said, at great financial cost sometimes. Better to be wronged than broke in some casesOut 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.
Not yetYour comparison to Stalin is hilarious. Are you claiming the ACLU operates a gulag or executes those who don't comply?
They would like people to think so, I'm suretulc said:uhmmm isn't that what the ACLU is trying to fight?
tulc(are you coming up with reasons to deny them their rights?)
MachZer0 said: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
You're not familiar with how the courts work, are you?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
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.A favorable judge to me would be one who follows the law, not one who (as I said before) inserts between the lines.
Are you claiming that this is somehow an unusual practice? Again, familiarize yourself with how the courts operate.As I said, at great financial cost sometimes. Better to be wronged than broke in some cases
Your tinfoil is showing.Not yet
MachZer0 said: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
leftist:nvxplorer said:
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.
Moot popint, made so by the definition provided as given by Webster'sDo 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?
Yes I am, and I am also familiar with the way the ACLUtakes advantage of the court system to push it's LEFTIST agendaYou're not familiar with how the courts work, are you?
I see, so judges who follow the law are irrelevantYour 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 businessThe fact is, you are guilty of that which you use to criticize the ACLU.
Not true. The ACLU knows it will get favorable rulings from leftist justices who invent law rather than follow itThe 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.
Did I say it was unusual? It may be common, but that doesn't make it rightAre you claiming that this is somehow an unusual practice? Again, familiarize yourself with how the courts operate.
Minimizing my viewpoint doesn't make it less trueYour tinfoil is showing.
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 governmentSo, you agree that your comparison to Stalin was ludicrous, but you have high hopes that it someday becomes true.
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.tulc said: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?)
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 standardNathan Poe said: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,
That's the extent to which they will go to push their agendaThey will take this arguement as far as SCOTUS if need be,
That remains to be seenand even your beloved Roberts will see that they've got the law on their side.
Whew! At least you didn't accuse me of a double standardYou'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.
Day ain't over yet. The ACLU has an uphill battle because Missouri is not the only state that has such a law.Reality might be a welcome addition to your case.
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.MachZer0 said: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.
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.Moot popint, made so by the definition provided as given by Webster's
Freedom of religious expression is a leftist agenda?Yes I am, and I am also familiar with the way the ACLUtakes advantage of the court system to push it's LEFTIST agenda
Read it again. Your opinion on what constitutes a favorable judge is irrelevant.I see, so judges who follow the law are irrelevant
If everyone agreed with your view, you'd be out of the "enormous thread" business.Would that the ACLU had my view of what makes a judge favorable. But then, if they did, they would be out of business
Have fun, Mach. I'm getting bored.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
MachZer0 said: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
That's the extent to which they will go to push their agenda
That remains to be seen
Whew! At least you didn't accuse me of a double standard
Day ain't over yet. The ACLU has an uphill battle because Missouri is not the only state that has such a law.
As I've said, excuses can always be made to oppress a group with whom there is disagreementNathan Poe said: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.
Not at all. But the ACLU may not experience as much success as we see fewer activists on the benchIs there something wrong with taking a case to SCOTUS?
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 deadGranted, 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.
Not self serving at all, constructionist would better describe itWell, 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.
And I'm sure when the Supreme court finds for the state of Missouri, you'll accept the law as Constitutional, right?Well, that's why we have SCOTUS -- they rule the law Unconstitutional, and the 14th Amendment does the rest.
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.MachZer0 said:As I've said, excuses can always be made to oppress a group with whom there is disagreement
MachZer0 said: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 deadMachZer0 said: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.
Just like anti-abortionists now accept all women's right to an abortion as constitutional.MachZer0 said:And I'm sure when the Supreme court finds for the state of Missouri, you'll accept the law as Constitutional, right?
Roberts stated that Roe v. Wade is "settled law." What you're really looking for are activist judges.MachZer0 said:Not at all. But the ACLU may not experience as much success as we see fewer activists on the bench
It was settled by activist judges. It can be overruled by those who correctly interpret the Constitutionnvxplorer said:Roberts stated that Roe v. Wade is "settled law." What you're really looking for are activist judges.
It was settled by Supreme Court justices. 'Activist' just means 'someone who rules in a way I don't like'.MachZer0 said:It was settled by activist judges.
It can be overruled by those who interpret the constitution differently.MachZer0 said:It can be overruled by those who correctly interpret the Constitution
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?