The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Electric Skeptic]

Exactly, and we the people need to be armed when the militia needs to be assembled

And they will be, if that ever happens. The second amendment is not in any danger whatsoever. That's why the ACLU isn't defending it.

Oh yes they do. I know folks don't like it, but it remains true, nonetheless

This is just (another) lie. The ACLU receives no government funding, you have not shown they do, and cannot show they do.

 

[nvxplorer]

You seem to be hung up on two things, the length of the thread and insulting me.

I'm not insulting you, Mach. Your false accusations are another story. If you don't wish to be ridiculed, stop making ridiculous statements.

Isn't tolerance something preached from your side of the aisle?

My side of the aisle? LOL. What side would that be? The side of logic, reason and truth?

 

[nvxplorer]

Schools are inanimate objects. They have no right

Not the school structure. The school, as in, the students, teachers and administrators.

It's hard to believe you're not arguing for the sake of arguing. Surely you understood what Nathan meant by "school."

How ironic that your response was to a man named Poe.

 

[nvxplorer]

Looks like they misinterpreted it to me. What part od shall not be infringed do some folks not understand?

Banning guns would infringe on the right to bear arms. Since guns haven't been banned, no infringement has taken place. People still have the right to bear arms, as can be demonstated at any gun show. Regulating sawed off shotguns does not infringe on one's right to bear arms. If sawed off shotguns were equivalent to "all arms," then you'd have a case. They aren't. Other guns are legal and available. You lose the argument.

 

[Brimshack]

The moral of the story:

1) It is inappropriate to call someone (especially a conservative) on inappropriate behavior.

2) Sweeping generalizations about groups of people is however quite okay, at least if they are lefties.

3) If challenged for this behavior (number 2), then refer back to number 1.

 

[MachZer0]

And they will be, if that ever happens. The second amendment is not in any danger whatsoever. That's why the ACLU isn't defending it.

Can you point to some cases they've filed in defense of the 2nd amendment

This is just (another) lie. The ACLU receives no government funding, you have not shown they do, and cannot show they do.

Calling it a lie doesn't change the fact that I provided evidence otherwise. They receive federal funds to keep their agenda moving forward

 

[MachZer0]

I'm not insulting you, Mach. ... If you don't wish to be ridiculed, stop making ridiculous statements.

An obvious selfcontradiction

 

[MachZer0]

Banning guns would infringe on the right to bear arms. Since guns haven't been banned, no infringement has taken place. People still have the right to bear arms, as can be demonstated at any gun show. Regulating sawed off shotguns does infringe on one's right to bear arms. If sawed off shotguns were equivalent to "all arms," then you'd have a case. They aren't. Other guns are legal and available. You lose the argument.

Infringe doesn't mean ban, it means encroach. Another ploy I've seen from the left is to redefine words in order to fit the argument. Thank goodness we have dictionaries

 

[MachZer0]

The moral of the story:

1) It is inappropriate to call someone (especially a conservative) on inappropriate behavior.

2) Sweeping generalizations about groups of people is however quite okay, at least if they are lefties.

3) If challenged for this behavior (number 2), then refer back to number 1.

The moral of the story is, as demonstrated, that many on the left, in this case the ACLU, will support whatever cause or group that advances its agenda. This time, it is the ACLU coming out in support of Fred Phelps who is preaching an anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America message. That seems to fit quite well with the ACLU

 

[JoyJuice]

The moral of the story is, as demonstrated, that many on the left, in this case the ACLU, will support whatever cause or group that advances its agenda. This time, it is the ACLU coming out in support of Fred Phelps who is preaching an anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America message. That seems to fit quite well with the ACLU

To an extent what you say here has some truth.

The ACLU will support what ever cause that advances it's agenda. The agenda spoken here by "it's" is the ACLU's, which is upholding the constitution and it's freedoms, protections, and rights provided for its citenzy.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Infringe doesn't mean ban, it means encroach. Another ploy I've seen from the left is to redefine words in order to fit the argument. Thank goodness we have dictionaries

"Infringe" obviously does not mean, in a Constitutional context, an outright ban or a bare encroachment. By your liberal (pun intended) definition, preventing private ownership of atomic weapons and Abrams tanks is infringement.

 

[MachZer0]

To an extent what you say here has some truth.

The ACLU will support what ever cause that advances it's agenda. The agenda spoken here by "it's" is the ACLU's, which is upholding the constitution and it's freedoms, protections, and rights provided for its citenzy.

How I wish that were true. Communism seeks two things, early on. To attack religion and the family and to confiscate guns. The ACLU supports both of those in its law suits, or lack thereof

 

[Brimshack]

The moral of the story is, as demonstrated, that many on the left, in this case the ACLU, will support whatever cause or group that advances its agenda. This time, it is the ACLU coming out in support of Fred Phelps who is preaching an anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America message. That seems to fit quite well with the ACLU

"Many" is a new qualifier for you, but I don't mind the shifting goalposts. What does strike me as odd here is that once again you make it clear that the sole point of your argument is an attack on the character of the ACLU. That your attack rests on falsehoods is neither suprising nor particularly relevant. The fact of the matter is that you yourself have made a number of shameless arguments in support of your own agenda during the course of this very thread. You could have simply argued against their stance, but you didn't. Instead you have fielded rediculous conspiracy theories, playground semantics, and a barrage of baseless accusations. That you would now talk about how the ACLU will do anything to advance its own agenda is irony of the tallest order. What you see in them is little other than a mirror of your own politics.

But of course, it is not against the rules to attack a group. It is against the rules to attack a person. So, you complain that people are attacking you personally. A further irony here is that your own conduct in this thread is demonstrably reprehensible. And the statements addressing this fact are no more personal attacks than those of any other person criticizing the behaviour of another. People here aren't trying to make you feel bad, they are trying desparately to get you to make an honest effort.

 

[Brimshack]

How I wish that were true. Communism seeks two things, early on. To attack religion and the family and to confiscate guns. The ACLU supports both of those in its law suits, or lack thereof

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent ...with an allusion to a Genetic Fallacy as well.

 

[MachZer0]

"Many" is a new qualifier for you, but I don't mind the shifting goalposts. What does strike me as odd here is that once again you make it clear that the sole point of your argument is an attack on the character of the ACLU. That your attack rests on falsehoods is neither suprising nor particularly relevant. The fact of the matter is that you yourself have made a number of shameless arguments in support of your own agenda during the course of this very thread. You could have simply argued against their stance, but you didn't. Instead you have fielded rediculous conspiracy theories, playground semantics, and a barrage of baseless accusations. That you would now talk about how the ACLU will do anything to advance its own agenda is irony of the tallest order. What you see in them is little other than a mirror of your own politics.

But of course, it is not against the rules to attack a group. It is against the rules to attack a person. So, you complain that people are attacking you personally. A further irony here is that your own conduct in this thread is demonstrably reprehensible. And the statements addressing this fact are no more personal attacks than those of any other person criticizing the behaviour of another. People here aren't trying to make you feel bad, they are trying desparately to get you to make an honest effort.

Would you care to address the topic here?

 

[JustOneWay]

Communism seeks two things, early on. To attack religion and the family and to confiscate guns.

1 religion
2 family
3 guns


two things?

 

[MachZer0]

1 religion
2 family
3 guns


two things?

1 religion and family
2 guns

 

[JustOneWay]

1 religion and family
2 guns

 

[nvxplorer]

Infringe doesn't mean ban, it means encroach. Another ploy I've seen from the left is to redefine words in order to fit the argument. Thank goodness we have dictionaries

I never said infringe means to ban. I said if guns were banned, that would infringe on the right to bear arms.

I couldn't care less what you've seen from the left (everyone who disagrees with you is not "the left"), but what I see from your argument is a lack of logic.

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Examine that clause, Mach. What cannot be infringed is the right, not the type of arms. The Constitution does not say "any and all arms." It simply says "arms." Since you are allowed to "keep and bear arms," your right to do so is not being infringed.

 

[nvxplorer]

An obvious selfcontradiction

Those were two statements, which would make them contradictory, not self-contradictory.

Regardless, they are not contradictory. I'm not insulting you personally. I'm reacting to your ridiculous statements with ridicule.