Progressives: The Anti-Liberals

[Pandora]

Yes, of course the unconstitutional asset forfeiture law precedes Bush. I'm not sure just how far back it goes, but it has been around for far too long.

Can you really not see anything wrong with this:


from an innocent until proven guilty point of view? How about not being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process?

And those cars taken from drunk drivers can be had back by paying the towing and storage fees. They aren't taken and sold, nor are they taken unless the driver fails a breath test.

Vehicles that are suspected of being used in the drug trade can be taken and sold, and often are. There doesn't have to be any basis for the suspicion.

Yet, no one seems to worry about this trashing of the Bill of Rights.

When its clear cut and dry that all the things a person has is due to selling drugs I am honestly mixed on what to do about it.

If someone had their house or car taken because they did drugs or sold a joint I would be against totally

I did not post what I did because I agree with the law, I posted what I did because you were blaming Bush and the patriot act and I am just really sick and tired of Bush being the blame for every single thing that goes wrong on planet Earth.

 

[GenSeneca]

We have nothing to say to each other, Mr Seneca, your quiver is empty. All you have is assertions of your own.

I've not had to even fire a shot yet because none have stepped up to challenge me. Pick one of the tenets from the liberalism list and give an example of how the Progressives support that tenet without fail. I know you cannot do this because where they support it one day, they trample it the next (same with the ACLU), such is the progressive nature of their unprincipled ideology.

My assertions have all been backed by examples and some of them have been, and continue to be, proven by replies such as yours. This one is no exception.

The ACLU at least makes an effort, if a biased effort. You have not named one group that does any better than another biased effort.

The thread topic was not to find a group who upheld the tenets of Liberalism. I was quite clear in the topic; Progressives are not the liberals they claim to be, and progressives are, in fact, in opposition to liberalism.

You offered the ACLU as a distraction by claiming they upheld the tenets of liberalism, and you were wrong. What they support today, they trample tomorrow, that is not a position of principle but a position of political exploitation. Your attempted distraction only reinforces my earlier assertion that such tactics are often employed to avoid dealing with a message that one disagrees with.

As for the NRA being biased... You make a spectacle of yourself with such silly accusations. The NRA has never tried to uphold the 2nd amendment rights of just Republicans while allowing the Democrats to lose their 2nd amendment rights.... such a thing isn't even possible. The NRA also limits themselves to only dealing with the 2nd amendment, so the fact that they don't attempt to protect our other rights is not a bias on their part any more than an eye doctor is biased for not treating feet.

You do a lot of self-righteous preaching,

That's actually confidence in, and competence of, the subject material. Don't be embarrassed, most people don't know the difference. I wouldn't sound "preachy" if we were discussing sports figures because I don't know crap about them and I don't pretend to care.

we have not found any view of reality that you and I share that we can agree upon to use as a basis for discussion. Apparently you and I live on different planets.

As I said, you don't have to agree with my view of "reality" in order to challenge my view by providing examples of where progressives adhere to the principles of liberalism.

If I am so wrong in my assertions, it should be as easy to prove me wrong with facts, examples and sound logic, as I have done with your accusation that the NRA was a biased right wing organization.

 

[samsara15]

So this is just another liberal bashing thread?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Thank you again for being the intellectual leader of the Progressives here on the forum.

Have you a defense of Progressive ideology as being something other than anti-liberal?

....To someone who throws-around terms like plagiarism....when they have no idea what constitutes plagiarism?

Hardly....(that's "not hardly"; for Bush-fans).

​

 

[samsara15]

The original question you asked is who of us gave to the ACLU; we explained why we do not, because they are bias.

You seem to accept the fact that they are bias, so hopefully you can also accept that is the reason why many of us do not support them or their efforts.

IMO, the ACLU is not biased.

I merely gave your side the benefit of the doubt.

Can you be equally generous in trying to achieve some objectivity that approaches ideological neutrality, so we could have a basis for discussion? Or is your hatred of liberals and liberality too deep to allow you that much give and take?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

IMO, the ACLU is not biased.

I'm sure "conservatives" can find something to whine-about.

​

 

[Dr.Who]

IMO, the ACLU is not biased.

From the director of the ACLU:

"We at the American Civil Liberties Union believe that today's news conference is a significant and encouraging development in our efforts to defend First Amendment rights in the context of campaign finance reform. I'm particularly delighted that the Alliance for Justice and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - each of them long-time allies in the defense of progressive values in America - are here to join with us in expressing opposition to various sections of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. "

As I said before - the ACLU is much more intersted in advancing progressive values than in advancing freedoms. Yes, they dress it up as advancing freedom but anyone who is fooled by that and does not realise they are a progressive and political organization is well fooling themselves.

We could start a poll to see who here likes the ACLU and who does not. Wanna bet all the progressives like them and conservatives do not? We could see who else they have 'allied' with and then see how many times the ACLU allies with progressives and how many times they ally with conservatives.

When it comes to defending the constitution they only defend it when it suits them and much less frequently when it does not suit their political agenda.

 

[samsara15]

Nonetheless, the ACLU does defend freedom, as they define it, in all terms set forth in the original post that began this thread. How is that any different from so-called Classical Conservatives, or Conservative advocacy groups simlar to the ACLU, doing the same? Is there a double standard here? Does it depnd on whose ox is being gored?

 

[Andy]

Nonetheless, the ACLU does defend freedom, as they define it, in all terms set forth in the original post that began this thread. How is that any different from so-called Classical Conservatives, or Conservative advocacy groups simlar to the ACLU, doing the same? Is there a double standard here? Does it depnd on whose ox is being gored?

The key being "as they define it". When the ACLU prevents people from practicing their faith within the frame work of the law, because of a non-existent separation of church and state, the they are redefining liberty.

Conservative uphold the constitution and the values the country was built on. An unchanging view that ultimately all liberty and life, are given from our creator. Not by some infinitely changeable abstract notion of liberty.

 

[PLC1]

The key being "as they define it". When the ACLU prevents people from practicing their faith within the frame work of the law, because of a non-existent separation of church and state, the they are redefining liberty.

Conservative uphold the constitution and the values the country was built on. An unchanging view that ultimately all liberty and life, are given from our creator. Not by some infinitely changeable abstract notion of liberty.

Non existent separation of church and state?

Which church do you think should be supported by the state?

 

[Andy]

Non existent separation of church and state?

Which church do you think should be supported by the state?

That doesn't address the point. There is no "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

What church is supported by the state is irrelevant. The constitution prohibits the establishment of a government enforced religion. Further it prevents the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion.

Using a non-existent provision to prevent people from exercising their religion, it a violation of the very constitution they claim to uphold.

 

[PLC1]

That doesn't address the point. There is no "separation of church and state" in the constitution.

What church is supported by the state is irrelevant. The constitution prohibits the establishment of a government enforced religion. Further it prevents the federal government from inhibiting the free exercise of religion.

Using a non-existent provision to prevent people from exercising their religion, it a violation of the very constitution they claim to uphold.

Does that mean that the ACLU is guilty of preventing people from exercising their religion?

Did they close down a church or something? I hadn't heard that.

 

[Pandora]

IMO, the ACLU is not biased.

I merely gave your side the benefit of the doubt.

Can you be equally generous in trying to achieve some objectivity that approaches ideological neutrality, so we could have a basis for discussion? Or is your hatred of liberals and liberality too deep to allow you that much give and take?

You have a bias opinion in your thinking that the ACLU is not bias. Logic and facts say otherwise.

I don’t know what liberality is so I can’t hate it but I do hate liberalism, its what is killing our Country that I love so much.

It’s impossible to argue with you that the ACLU is not bias when all the proof even from the ACLU themselves says other wise, its like arguing with shaman.

You started this ACLU argument by asking if we give $$ to them. Not only did people reply no they explained why they did not but that was not good enough for you and that is a personal problem you will have to work out on your own.

The ACLU is bias and only defends things within their political agenda, why would someone who is politically against them give them money...they wouldn’t.!!

 

[Andy]

Does that mean that the ACLU is guilty of preventing people from exercising their religion?

Did they close down a church or something? I hadn't heard that.

Yes. I believe they have. Possibly not close a church down, but they have prevented people from putting up Christmas trees.

 

[Pandora]

Yes. I believe they have. Possibly not close a church down, but they have prevented people from putting up Christmas trees.

They forced a monument to come down because it displayed the same Ten Commandments that are on government buildings in Washington DC too.

They have been right there in the thick of things trying to keep kids from praying even when it’s their own choice, stopped praying or any mention of God in speeches by graduates.

And all under the mythical separation of church and state!

They want freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion

They are like a cancer

Unless you’re Muslim that is