If someone said to you, there is no radical left in the United States, only a radical right and a large center. How would you defend or rebut that statement?
I’ve heard it said that there hasn’t been a radical leftist senator in this country since the 1920’s and he was driven out of office and marked as a communist, and that the right is as far extreme today as the left was in the 1920’s. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-28-05, 05:43 AM Scotty I'd say, yeah right,and bears don't $#@# in the woods.
12-28-05, 06:19 AM RoverRoad Than define the radical Left. A fair and livable wage for a hard days work. A safe work environment. Financial security for a lifetime of labor. Clean cities and a clean environment. Access to good health care. Personal freedoms and dignity.
Those issues are not the radical left because they are things that most Americans want. They are centrist issues, so what is left?
12-28-05, 07:26 AM coldfuse Those are certainly fair as issues, Rover. The right and the left differ in how best to achieve them.
I would send you to the radical left website, but the language is unfit for our forums.
Today, "radical" carries negative political connotations. The more accepted terminology seems to be "progressive," which may satisfy some liberals' desire for change without having revolutionary overtones.
The political science term for extreme right-wing movements during my education was "reactionary" as opposed to radical.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: coldfuse, 12-28-05 08:28 AM
12-28-05, 09:29 AM coldfuse Make no mistake, however, there is a radical left. Through its own intellectual snobbery it has convinced itself and its followers that conservative Christians, bigoted homophobes, and members of the "vast right wing conspiracy" are the biggest hate groups in the United States. Why, all the radical left had to do to find the most aggressive and least tolerant hate group was to look at itself in the mirror!
What do they hate? What can they not tolerate? What do they seek to radically change?
First and foremost, they hate America. They hate Christopher Columbus. They hate authentic American history, the pilgrims, our founding fathers – especially James Madison. They hate the Constitution and all its amendments. They hate the sight of an American flag flying and 4th of July celebrations. They hate truth, patriotism, civility, liberty, true free speech, real freedom, the rule of law, a republican form of government, real justice, and punishment for evil doers. They hate private property rights. They hate the ballot box. They hate logic. They hate gun owners. They hate free people. They hate private entrepreneurs.
They hate God. They hate the Bible. They particularly hate Jesus Christ the Son of God as revealed in the Bible. They hate simple references to God. They hate the Christian religion in general and the moral law of God in particular - the Ten Commandments. They hate prayer, especially public. They hate the Church. They hate good. They cannot even tolerate the word "Christmas."
They hate marriage between a man and a woman and families with stay at home moms in particular. They hate fidelity. They hate anyone who would dare practice sexual abstinence before marriage. They hate the unborn. They hate adoption. They hate parental rights. They hate those who home school. They hate private Christian schools. They have a venomous, peculiar hatred for the Boy Scouts of America.
They hate any Supreme Court judge who adheres to the Constitution. They hate the police, the Pentagon, the FBI and the CIA. They hate the military. They hate veterans and any war hero.
They hate those who want to punish pornographers and those who want to rid our country of pornography. They hate those who want to punish murderers.
They hate talk radio. They hate and attack any attempt at balanced or truthful news reporting that does not support their own agenda.
Not every member of the radical left embodies all of this hatred. Others still would vehemently deny or protest some of the above, but their actions speak otherwise.
In a world of "hate crimes" the radical left is the most incorrigible criminal of all.
12-28-05, 09:42 AM newnickname Wow. Can you give us an example of someone, or some party, you have in mind?
12-28-05, 11:41 AM Scotty I must say that I totally agree with Fuse,and I need say no more. Very good answer,Fuse.
12-28-05, 11:57 AM RoverRoad Really? You agree with all of that? hmm. I was actually holding back my reply because I figured that his post had to be a bate to drag more people into the debate...
Because how could someone who agrees that both the rite and the left have the same goals, but have different ways of getting there conclude that either side could hate so much?
Everything about it was hate, hate, hate. Do you really believe that?
12-28-05, 12:04 PM Scotty
quote: Everything about it was hate, hate, hate. Do you really believe that?
Yes,I really believe that the far left has nothing but hate for this President,the country,and the military. I see it in people on this board,and if you can't see it you are blind.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty, 12-28-05 12:41 PM
12-28-05, 12:21 PM RoverRoad Well, as I was trying to explain, there is no left! But you are only partly rite, because I, a citizen of the same country that you are from have nothing but hatred for your president. But I love and would die for my country which is the United States! And I love and am thankful for my brothers and sisters that are paying the ultimate price under your president's command in my countries military.
So, figure that out!
12-28-05, 12:26 PM Scotty [quote]Well, as I was trying to explain, there is no left! But you are only partly rite, because I, a citizen of the same country that you are from have nothing but hatred for your president. But I love and would die for my country which is the United States! And I love and am thankful for my brothers and sisters in the military.
Well,thats you,but you have to look at the far left that we are talking about. Apparently you are not as far left as a lot of others.
There is a far left,and its radical.
12-28-05, 12:51 PM RoverRoad Is Cindy Sheehan a far left radical?
quote: Originally posted by RoverRoad: Because how could someone who agrees that both the rite and the left have the same goals, but have different ways of getting there conclude that either side could hate so much?
I made two separate posts on purpose. I'm sure you don't mean to lump all of the people on the left into the radical group.
Sheehan has become nothing but a pawn.
12-28-05, 01:16 PM FredPuli What exactly do you think would be the laws and practices that a 'radical left' government of the USA would have put into being but which others would not ?
Do you know of any such laws or practices in force in any European countries ?
(Listing a set of hates doesn't enlighten us outsiders very much Wink)
12-28-05, 02:35 PM juanruiz
quote: What do they hate?
This is one of the reasons I rarely discuss politics; you immediately get the demonization of the other side. The word "hate' is loaded, and is used almost without thought. Thus, one former member of this site accused me of hating God, and Jesus, and the Bible, and Christians, simply because I had a view he disagreed with. These sorts of debating tactics will never get anyone anywhere.
12-28-05, 05:46 PM Rakuchild People I know who I consider radical left aren't hateful but they are fed up with government by the corporation and for the corporation. They are mostly young and anarchistic, believing it would be better to burn it all down and start again, honoring the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They have a lot of anger because they feel lied to by those in power. They're angry because they have no voice in government so they tend to act out in social disobedient ways with spray paint, rude t-shirts and signs and other actions that push the buttons of the establishment.
I wouldn't say they hate. And I wouldn't say they'll go far politically because they don't have the money.
12-28-05, 06:19 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse:
They hate talk radio.
Oooh! Those bastards!!
12-28-05, 06:30 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse:
They cannot even tolerate the word Christmas.
Who are you referring to here, Wal-Mart? Are they part of the "radical left" too?
Honestly, after reading your little screed, I think you are doing some projecting here. You are doing the hating.
12-28-05, 07:15 PM frankvan I think that "radical" is a comparative and very subjective adverb. It means whatever the person using it thinks is too far to the right or left of himself. He is, of course moderate and reasonable. One man's patriotism is another man's chauvinism. Some are content to wrap themselves in the flag and mouth platitudes about God and Country. Others believe that plastering bumper stickers on their vehicles, "Honk if you love Jesus", "Support our troops", etc. amount to labeling oneself as proudest of one's unimaginative conformity.
If one believes that there should be a floor below which no citizen of these United States should be allowed to fall, that all should have access to an education, shelter, food and medical care, that there is no excuse for millions of children to go without adequate nutritional needs, or adults to die of hypothermia from homelessness; if that seems radical to you, where do you place yourself on the progressive to reactionary spectrum? Do you dismiss the poor as lazy and un-deserving second class, not your concern. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but how do you reconcile that with the sum total of your other beliefs? Mine have to all fit in the same package without conflict and contradiction. How about you?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
When it comes to religion, I hate to label the radical left as being anti-Christian. Because I have known some radical leftist who were Christian.
Some issues that tend to seperate the radical left & radical right...
Abortion...Typically the right is pro-life, the left is pro-choice.
Gun control...The left is very big on gun control. Some to the point they think guns should be out lawed. The right has a tendency to stand up for the rights of the gun owners.
Government control...The left would like to see the government doing more for our personal lives. The right would like less government involvement.
Health care...The left would like Nationalized health care. The right would rather leave health care to the private sector.
Social Security...The left would like to see Social Security remain basically the way it is now. With some minor adjustments as needed. The right would rather scrap the system & go private.
Government regulations...The left loves government regulation of business & industry. The right would like to de-regulate many guide lines in business & industry.
Time of war...War protestors tend to be leftists. However not all leftists are anti war. The radical left does have a tendency to back their President, if he is of their party. They have a tendency to not back a President of the other party. A radical right winger will tend to back the President, no matter what party he is, during time of war.
The left has a tendency to talk about problems yet take little action. The right has a tendency to do less talking & take more action. (with the left fighting tooth & nail every step of the way) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-29-05, 08:30 AM juanruiz
quote: When it comes to religion, I hate to label the radical left as being anti-Christian. Because I have known some radical leftist who were Christian.
I have always found it ironic that the vast majority of self-appointed Christian spokesmen take a traditional conservative stance in regard to the issue of personal wealth and the like. Perhaps it's the residue of Calvin's view that wealth is a sign of Divine favor. If one reads the admonitions attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, you see a very socialistic viewpoint.
12-29-05, 09:48 AM frankvan Before someone else calls it to my attention, I called "radical" an adverb when it is obviously an adjective. Sorry! However, I do think it might be advantageous to drop these qualitative terms that only reflect the degree to which we approve or oppose some single issue.
LR and 'fuse both use radical as a suitable modifier for religious views, but both seem to think that 'religion" means "christian'. I think that more accurately reflects where left and right part ways. To me. religion runs the gamut of every belief system from the snake handling backwoods cultists to the million member tax avoidance organizations and their well-heeled lobbies. As a leftist, I do not hate religion, I hate religious pressures to mingle religion and politics, to nibble at the wall of separation between church and state. For a devout theist who is incapable of understanding that the wall of separation is his own best protection of his religious freedom, one can only conclude "myopic ignorance'.
LR says:"The left has a tendency to talk about problems yet take little action. The right has a tendency to do less talking & take more action. (with the left fighting tooth & nail every step of the way)"
Allow me to translate, because I seem to detect a tendency toward a rightward slant. Let me rephrase the same sentiment with a more neutral interpretation. The left has a tendency to think about a problem from all angles before taking action, while the right has a tendency to act precipitously, without considering the problem in its entirety. For instance: launch an invasion without any actual knowledge of the possibly chaotic outcome.
LR says:"Health care...The left would like Nationalized health care. The right would rather leave health care to the private sector"
Translation: The left recognize a terrible need for universal health care and the benefit of a single payer under the control of the tax-payers. The right are fearful of having to pick up some of the cost of caring for the 45 million fellow citizens without adequate health care.
LR says:"Abortion...Typically the right is pro-life, the left is pro-choice.
I say: Abortion. Typically the left is pro-woman, the right is oblivious to the woman's role in unwanted pregnancies.
Scotty says: "I must say that I totally agree with Fuse,and I need say no more. Very good answer,Fuse.
Í say: "I find it hard to believe that 'fuse believes what 'fuse says, OR that Scotty understands what 'fuse says. IMHO.
12-29-05, 10:20 AM RoverRoad LR, You are confusing the left with the center. Most of those issues are either right wing issues or middle of the road. Especially Abortion and Social Security. Most people want the laws untouched, but the far right wants to change the rules.
quote:
The left has a tendency to talk about problems yet take little action. The right has a tendency to do less talking & take more action.
Well, obviously because the far right is the one in power right now... When the pendulum swings back toward the center in 2006 it will be a different story.
2-29-05, 12:15 PM coldfuse I stand by my post describing the radical left. Though bits and pieces may describe others (find me a teenager who likes talk radio!), it is not meant to define a traditional liberal who often has mainstream goals but differs with a conservative on how to best achieve them.
Was the word "hate" too strong? Would folks prefer that I used loathe, abhor or abominate? How about instense hostility and aversion or extreme dislike or antipathy? Perhaps disgust, detest, despise, or condemn work better for some people. "Hate" was appropriate to cover most of these and to reveal the radical left as a hate group.
No, Gar, Wal-Mart is not part of the radical left, but it has bowed to pressure on the Christmas issue. And I am not part of the radical left simply because I have some libertarian views that are likely not shared by Homeland Security.
Interesting point on religion, frank. I don't believe religion means Christian at all, nor do I think all Christians are religious. My sense is that the radical left in America does not particularly mind Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Garveyism/Rastafarianism, etc. but is completely undone by Jesus Christ and Christianity.
The premise of this thread is that there is no radical left. I am quite comfortable that there is. How do others feel on the matter?
12-29-05, 12:33 PM juanruiz The problem with any political terminology is that its meaning is in the eye of the beholder. While some would apply "radical left" to Gus Hall, others would exemplify it by pointing to John Kerry. And I will reiterate here that "hate" is simply employing the fallacy of prejudicial language to make a case; much like the principal's speech in another of your posts. That this strategy is not limited to the right is clear, but, again, it simply underscores how far away so many are from a desire to discuss differences.
12-29-05, 01:52 PM Scotty
quote: Í say: "I find it hard to believe that 'fuse believes what 'fuse says, OR that Scotty understands what 'fuse says. IMHO.
I understand perfectly what Fuse was saying,and I agree with it 100% as I said before.
Let me just say this..... if the radical left does not hate all of which Fuse listed,it is doing a damn good job of faking it.
Do you think that I am stupid Frank? That I am unable to understand anything?
12-29-05, 02:08 PM Lighteningrodd So far fuse seems to have pretty well nailed it best. Perhaps I am being too specific.
Thank you frank for so accurately translating my extreme right wing post. Now everyone here can under stand how a right wing waco thinks. Big Grin
RR, now what is this change in 2006 about to take place that you are so looking forward to??? What do you predict is about to happen???
12-29-05, 02:13 PM Scotty
quote: RR, now what is this change in 2006 about to take place that you are so looking forward to??? What do you predict is about to happen???
It is just wishful thinking on his part. He is predicting a democratic takeover of the House and Senate.
Er,on the other hand,perhaps I just do not understand. Wink
12-29-05, 03:39 PM frankvan
quote: Interesting point on religion, frank. I don't believe religion means Christian at all, nor do I think all Christians are religious. My sense is that the radical left in America does not particularly mind Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Garveyism/Rastafarianism, etc. but is completely undone by Jesus Christ and Christianity.
Assuming that the "radical" left share this indifference to Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. with moderate or luke-warm liberals, I shall try to explain why you may think I'm completely undone by Jesus freaks. It is that Jews, Buddhists, etc actually believe in the separation of church and state. I have no quarrel with them. It seems that only the fundamentalist christians keep trying to add prayers to public schools, to introduce creationism into the teaching of science, and force their beliefs on the rest of us.
12-29-05, 07:02 PM frankvan
quote: Do you think that I am stupid Frank? That I am unable to understand anything?
It would be difficult to tell, since most of your posts are cut and pastes of other's arguments and opinions, or enthusiastic seconding of someone else's posts. I have to see more of someone's original thoughts and expressions before I judge them stupid or intelligent. I do think that several enthusiasts on these boards are positively brilliant, even though I may disagree with their opinions most of the time. Smile
12-29-05, 07:31 PM Rakuchild
quote: LR says:"Abortion...Typically the right is pro-life, the left is pro-choice.
I say: Abortion. Typically the left is pro-woman, the right is oblivious to the woman's role in unwanted pregnancies.
I want to interject here on the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Anyone who is breathing well under his/her own power and is of sound mind is very "pro-life." At this moment, to stop breathing would be one of the worse things that could happen to me. I am alive with no suicidal thoughts crossing my mind so I am "pro-life." On the issue of abortion, I am "pro- a woman's right to chose."
As a woman, I see the abortion issue as "pro-women's right to chose" and "anti-women's right to choose." Looking at it that way gets to the real issue- control over women. People's beliefs on when life begins vary greatly. Those who believe woman shouldn't have the power to decide what is in their best interest rarely consider the quality of life of the individual/family involved. They tend to believe that Jesus will take care of everything because Lord knows they aren't going into their pockets to help out. And they tend to be on the conservative side of politics and attend churches that don't see anything wrong with smacking a mouthy woman to adjust her attitude.
I find people on the left tend not to mix religion and politics. They don't try to push their religious beliefs on others or legislate them.
{Frank Van- what a lesson in diplomacy! Smile}
12-29-05, 09:06 PM newnickname I really think things would become a lot clearer if we were given some examples of these hateful 'radical left' people. We know who the neo-cons - the vulcans - are. Who are 'Fuse (and Scotty) talking about, exactly?
12-29-05, 11:16 PM coldfuse Are you stipulating then, NNN, that you do not believe there is a radical left? That is, after all, the premise of this thread. Whom would you include on a "radical left" list?
Because if you don't believe that the most extreme elements on the left are radical, then there is no point in discussing any of the others.
12-30-05, 12:06 AM newnickname I'm not stipulating anything. I'm asking for an example of who you are talking about. Give us an example of the kind of person or organisation you mean, and then we can see if your description is anywhere near accurate.
12-30-05, 04:53 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: I'm not stipulating anything. I'm asking for an example of who you are talking about. Give us an example of the kind of person or organisation you mean, and then we can see if your description is anywhere near accurate.
And while you are there please answer my question of what laws or practices you think that the radical left would introduce which those who are not 'radical left' would not Wink
12-30-05, 09:42 AM newnickname To be honest, and although I may be wrong, I doubt there's anyone who can fit Coldfuse's descriptions.
Who hates God? People don't believe in gods, or they worship one (or many). Who would hate a god, except a believer who had suffered some terrible loss, for example?
And who hates marriage between men and women - except someone trapped in a bad marriage? There are many who feel that gay marriage is fine, but that doesn't mean they want to see the end of the other kind.
Bin Laden and his like may 'hate America' - although if they were honest, they'd see that they need 'America' to maintain what support they have. If America disappeared overnight, Bin Laden would be a nobody. And Bin Laden is not a leftist. Do "the left" really hate America?
Why would the left hate the constitution? In its time it was a radical - revolutionary - document. It's idealistic. People may hate how some of it is ignored or misapplied, and they might want to make amendments to it, but it's difficult to see how anyone on the left could 'hate the constitution'.
The description itself is pretty lame. It's full of rhetorical tricks and logical lapses. It reads more like one of those rants circulated via e-mail than something Coldfuse would write.
For example, 'They hate talk radio. They hate and attack any attempt at balanced or truthful news reporting...' Is this meant to suggest that talk radio is balanced and truthful? (Is it meant to be a defense of poor old Fox News? Guys, just because Fox istself says it's balanced, doesn't mean it's balanced. Kellogs has said for ages that Cornflakes taste nice...)
Or, 'They hate authentic American history, the pilgrims, our founding fathers – especially James Madison. What is meant by 'authentic'? Traditionalist history comprising dates, battles and bios of 'important people', with a few cliched homilies thrown in? Many educators and students hate that, but it's not political; it's just that it's such a narrow view of what was going on.
Some of it is just silly: 'They hate the unborn. They hate adoption... They hate veterans... They hate those who want to punish pornographers...' Do you really know of anyone like that?
Who are 'they'? They sound like a pleasantly scary fantasy, like something from a ghost story.
Let's have an actual example of 'them'.
12-30-05, 11:03 AM coldfuse You may be right, nick. I really hope there is no one group dedicated to all of the description. What a chore they would have - especially because they would have to tread carefully and not reveal themselves for who they really are in order to have any hope of success and credibility.
As for finding one person - that's easy. All of my post is based on regular conversations over eight years with a former neighbor. I could add more to his "hate" list if necessary: the Federal Reserve Bank, commercial banks (specifically Bank of America, Wachovia, and Citicorp), and corporations (Duke Energy, Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil and others). A disciple of Lyndon Larouche, he was the Democrat candidate for a citywide office and was also associated with the ACLU. Did I enjoy my conversations with him? Yes. Did we get along? Sure. Did we agree? Hardly!
Would the ACLU come close? I don't know; I am sure they would not admit to any hatred but their time, energy and money seems to be spent going after a number of the organizations and institutions listed. Does the Lyndon Larouche organization come close? For every argument that Larouche is on the left fringe (his early political career was as a socialist) there is one to explain his fascism - I suppose he is outspoken enough that nobody wants him!
Shoot, we can't even get anyone on this site to admit their loathing of President Bush, though I personally believe it is self-evident.
12-30-05, 11:09 AM aminator2002 I rarely disagree so adamantly with coldfuse but man, does that post just stink of being spawned on by talk radio hosts who would love everyone to believe that there are these evil people who hate as described.
I would say that the radical left is best exemplified by the protestors at WTO meetings. These are radical proponents of anti-capitalism/anti-globalization to the point of violence. I think that other people who could be seen as "radical" within the left political group could include any war protestors that will scream and yell and throw things at people.
I believe that the radical right is best exemplified by abortion clinic attackers, people like Tim McVeigh or militia groups. I think that the radical right also has to include all hate groups such as the KKK and other extreme bigots.
I strongly believe that a lot of people on the right hate all "liberals" to the point of making insane statements like liberals hate America and hate Christians. It's just plain stupid. I mean come on fuse, do you really think that people support gay marriage because "they hate marriage between a man and a woman"? That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard and I would never have expected it.
The mistake people make about left and right is to not respect the point of view. Personally I can respect people's opinions, disagree with them and move on. I feel like having political discussions with conservatives leads to them broadly categorizing, grouping and making stupid assumptions like something about me hating America. Good lord, how ridiculous do we have to be?
12-30-05, 11:11 AM frankvan NNN says:" It reads more like one of those rants circulated via e-mail than something Coldfuse would write".
Precisely why, in my opinion, "coldfuse wrote it". I don't think he knows anyone who fits that total profile because it was a composite of all of the horrible examples of extremists imaginable. I think he was attempting to provoke discussion, and succeeded. And he may know of one person who fits that complete description; after all, Scotty seems to see them behind every tree.
Nevertheless, I believe that RR's original point is a valid one. I do believe that the so-called far left is a fiction. That most of those values attributed to the liberals are main stream values shared by most Americans. The right just has a better propaganda machine and more funding.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
sorry, you posted at the same time as me fuse. Now you've narrowed it to pretty much a single group instead of making it seem that anyone who supports gay marriage hates marriage between a man and a woman, etc. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-30-05, 11:50 AM DorianGreyed Some snippets from Wikipedia's article about the ACLU
In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either despite its communist roots. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle."
Regarding the internment of Japanese in the United States during World War II
In fact, the ACLU argued that some internments may have been necessary for the security of the nation, but that by interning Americans without giving them a hearing, the military was violating their right to due process. The ACLU argued that the internments should have civilian oversight, instead of military, and that the Japanese in the camps had been interned on the basis of racial discrimination.
The ACLU's stated mission is to defend the rights of all citizens as enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. While the bulk of the ACLU's cases involve the First Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process and cases involving the right to privacy (see, e.g., the Louisiana chapter [7]), the organization has taken positions on a wide range of controversial issues. In particular, the ACLU:
* Supports the separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU: o Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property; o Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, or "moments of silence" in public schools or schools funded with public money; * Supports full first amendment rights of citizens, organizations and the press, including school newspapers; * Supports reproductive rights, including the right to choose an abortion; * Supports full civil rights for homosexuals, including government benefits for homosexual couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones; * Supports affirmative action as a means of redressing past discrimination and achieving a racially diverse student body [8]; * Supports the rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices; * Supports the decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana [9]; * Opposes demonstration permits and other requirements for protests in public places. * Opposes surveillance cameras in cities, citing privacy violations [10]
The ACLU has opposed some campaign finance laws such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which it considers an inappropriate restriction upon freedom of expression. It does not, however, have a blanket opposition to all laws on campaign finance.
The ACLU has been noted for vigorously defending the right to express unpopular, controversial, and extremist opinions on both the left and right. Some have expressed the view that the ACLU sometimes plays a role comparable to that played by public defenders, helping to ensure that even unpopular defendants receive due process.
In 1954, the ACLU played a role in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which led to the ban on segregation in U.S. public schools.
In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Nazi parades and demonstrations (Skokie had a large Jewish population). A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU's action in this case led to the resignation of about 15 percent of the membership from the organization (25 percent in Illinois), especially of Jewish members.
In the 1980s, the ACLU filed suit to challenge the Arkansas 1981 creationism statute, which required the teaching in public schools of the biblical account of creation as a scientific alternative to evolution. The law was declared unconstitutional by a Federal District Court.
The organization believes that free speech rights must be available to all citizens and residents of the United States. Therefore, it has taken on unpopular cases to defend the free speech rights of clients such as Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazi groups, and NAMBLA, a group which supports legalization of pederasty.
The ACLU has defended Frank Snepp formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency (from an attempt of this government agency to gag him) and Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North (convicted on the basis of coerced testimony—a violation of his fifth amendment rights).
The ACLU continues to argue that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment," the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, and that it is contrary to international human rights norms.
While some refer to the ACLU as a libertarian organization and while the ACLU has defended the US Libertarian Party in recent cases [27], a number of libertarians and objectivists oppose the ACLU for its support of laws that they view as distinctly anti-liberty, such as affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws that apply to private property.
Notably, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting a suit by (Jerry) Falwell against the state of Virginia. The suit, which was successful, overturned the Virginia constitution's ban on the incorporation of Churches. In addition, the ACLU has defended the rights of a Christian church to run anti-Santa ads on Boston subways, the rights to religious expression by jurors, and the rights of Christian students to distribute religious literature in school.
Many minority religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have at times been defended by the ACLU and are ardent supporters of it. In the Mormon community, the ACLU is viewed positively by some, who cite Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, a case litigated by the ACLU on behalf of a Mormon student concerning school prayer [32]. However, a good number of Mormons, including some local leaders, are strongly against the activities of the ACLU.
Jehovah's Witnesses were involved in twenty-three Supreme Court rulings between 1938 and 1946 over religious objections to serving in the armed forces and over saluting the flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance [34], over local and state ordinances prohibiting the Witnesses from publishing critcisms of the Roman Catholic church [35], as well as over government reluctance to prosecute anti-Witness vigilantes; the ACLU was directly involved in these cases [36]; the ACLU's involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses continues, and they joined the Witnesses in a 2002 case over doorbell-ringing.
It seems that the ACLU is more concerned about what the Constitution says rather than which group benefits. Since the constitution is the basis of our legal system, isn't that a good thing? In the Nazi/Skokie, IL case, US District Court Judge Bernard M. Decker described the principle involved in the case as follows: "It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear ... The ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines ... is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."
12-30-05, 12:45 PM Scotty
quote: And he may know of one person who fits that complete description; after all, Scotty seems to see them behind every tree
Oh, thats where you are absolutely wrong Frank. I only see things like that when I visit this board. Believe it or not,where I live right now,people are very supportive of our President,and government. I very seldom hear in my daily living anyone protesting the war or voicing hate for the President,or country. I feel very good about my Country until I come on these boards,and all I see is hate for the President,talk about our troops,what the country is doing wrong,support for some of the enemy.Bad mouthing the US,etc.
People here are pro American. They believe that they live in the best country in the world,and they are proud of it. They do not like to hear our troops,and our country being run down by leftist.
I mainly hear negative things here. The hate that Fuse wrote about is there,not all of it in one group,but it is there spread out over the radical left,which is very much alive.
It is in the headlines all too often these days.
12-30-05, 06:57 PM frankvan Scotty: "Believe it or not,where I live right now,people are very supportive of our President,and government." ----"People here are pro American. They believe that they live in the best country in the world,and they are proud of it. They do not like to hear our troops,and our country being run down by leftist."
Then, why don't you tell us where that idyllic place is? One of the original thirteen colonies is pretty indefinite.
Scotty "I feel very good about my Country until I come on these boards,and all I see is hate for the President,talk about our troops,what the country is doing wrong,support for some of the enemy.Bad mouthing the US,etc" --"I mainly hear negative things here. The hate that Fuse wrote about is there,not all of it in one group,but it is there spread out over the radical left,which is very much alive."
Just by way of helping us understand what you mean by "radical left" , haters of the president, bad mouthing our troops, supporting out enemies, etc. Do you consider me a member of that group? Any one else you can name?
12-30-05, 07:13 PM newnickname So far, the only concrete example we have is Coldfuse's neighbour - which doesn't help much as we can hardly compare him to the original "hate babies, moms and apple pies" description. Those violent protestors at WTO conferences might be a better example of 'radical left', though. Does anyone know what their agenda is, exactly? Does it include hatred of the unborn?
I guess the right hate the unborn, too. Not just the radical right - all of them who support Bush's Middle East policy. Bush has admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, based on bad intelligence. He also suggested (although the next words out of his mouth should have been "I therefore resign") that this was OK, as the invasion could be justified as a kind of coup d'etat, getting rid of Hussein (and installing a democratically elected 'Islamofascist' government in his stead). But at least 30,000 civilians, born and unborn, were killed as a result of this illegal coup and Bush supporters seem to think that's OK.
Is that hatred? Or just willful ignorance?
12-30-05, 10:28 PM RoverRoad
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse: They hate talk radio. They hate and attack any attempt at balanced or truthful news reporting that does not support their own agenda.
OK the irony here is that this thread was actually a topic on the Thom Hartmann Radio Program. That’s where I got the idea for the post from. I love talk radio. I have links to pretty much every liberal talk radio host in America that streams on the internet. And the conservatives I can just pick up on the AM dial. It sure would be nice if I could pick up some of the liberals on the AM dial as well. But only the radical right is available on my radio. So that’s definitely not fair and balanced media. And as far as the corporate news goes, I just want to hear the whole story, not just one side or the other. If would be refreshing if a news outlet like CNN or Fox would report something because it’s important instead of because it will get ratings.
quote: Originally posted by newnicname: WTO conferences might be a better example of 'radical left', though. Does anyone know what their agenda is, exactly? Does it include hatred of the unborn?
You know, I don’t even think most of them know what their agenda is. I think most people who protest violently do it because they like breaking windows.
Peaceful demonstrations on the other hand are not radical, and people from both sides of the political spectrum have peaceful demonstrations. It’s a constitutional right, so it can’t be radical?
As for the unborn, the right is radical because they care for the fetus, but once that fetus is a person and out of the womb they stop caring. That's not rational. The baby can starve; it can have little or no healthcare. It can grow up with a lousy education. That’s all fine to them as long as it gets out of the womb ok.
12-31-05, 01:55 AM RoverRoad Though I don’t believe that there is a radical left that has any influence on our society, I do believe that there is a huge radical right and they are in power right now. So obviously I would put Bush in that category along with his vice president and most of his cabinet. I would say that about 50% of the republicans in congress are radically right.
Most of political talk radio is radically right. They have to be radical or people wouldn’t listen. Because it would be boring. I’d say that most of the liberal talk radio that’s out there is middle of the road. That’s why it’s not doing as well in the ratings. But they are starting to close the ratings gap. Mainly because Bush keeps messing up!
Among many other issues I would say that anybody that thinks that the bible overrides the U.S. constitution is radically right. But I wouldn’t put people that want to keep the words “Under God” in the pledge in the far right category, mainly because the majority of Americans want it in there. I do not want those words there so I am left of center on that issue. But I’m not radical left because I’m not trying to get them removed. People that are trying to get it removed would be radically left. So, there is a small radical left element in this country. But they are so small and insignificant that they will never get anything accomplished. They are only speaking so loudly on this issue because they have separation of church and state on their side. The radical right are those that want to eliminate separation of church and state.
Radically right people would include pharmacists that deny a customer’s prescription because they disagree with abortion. But someone that disagrees with abortion wouldn’t be radically right. They are only radically right if they impose their beliefs on others and infringe upon someone’s rights in the process.
Pornographers are radically left. People that are trying to stamp out pornography are radically right. The rest of us in the center just buy the stuff.
I could go on and on, and probably will add more later, but this is enough for now.
12-31-05, 07:30 AM coldfuse Are we really discussing radicals, yet (ami's examples excepted)?
Examples of radical right: Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler
Examples of radical left: Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung
Where on earth did anybody get the idea that George W. Bush or "50% of the republicans in congress are radically right?"
12-31-05, 07:42 AM RoverRoad If you want to bring foreign leaders into the equation, that's a much wider scale. Until now I thought we were talking about U.S. politics.
I wouldn't put Bush as far right as Saddam and Hitler. He's a few miles behind them, but still radical.
12-31-05, 08:09 AM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse: Are we really discussing radicals, yet (ami's examples excepted)?
Examples of radical right: Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler
Examples of radical left: Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung
Where on earth did anybody get the idea that George W. Bush or "50% of the republicans in congress are radically right?"
Aha! Now I see. Compared to Hitler, Bush is only moderately right-leaning. And few Democrats are as far leftward leaning as Lenin. Ergo; RR is rightcorrect: there is no sizeable 'radical left' in this country.
12-31-05, 10:38 AM Scotty I believe there are people here that must be selective readers,or as someone said,willful ignorance. I see hate for the President,criticism of our troops,bad talk about the country on these board daily,but some people apparently do not wish to admit that it goes on. Why?
There are none so blind,than those who will not see!
This talk about there being no radical left is absolutely funny. Try reading the newspapers daily,the radical left will hit you in the face. RR's talk about the radical right is also amusing.
I live in the best country in the world,bar none. I don't know where some of the rest of you live.
12-31-05, 10:47 AM Scotty
quote: OK the irony here is that this thread was actually a topic on the Thom Hartmann Radio Program. That’s where I got the idea for the post from. I love talk radio. I have links to pretty much every liberal talk radio host in America that streams on the internet. And the conservatives I can just pick up on the AM dial. It sure would be nice if I could pick up some of the liberals on the AM dial as well. But only the radical right is available on my radio. So that’s definitely not fair and balanced media.
It is fair and balanced media. Is it the fault of the media,because liberals can't make a go of it on talk shows?
It has been tried over and over again,but they just do not last,because nobody wants to hear the junk that they put out.
Try and look at the ratings sometime. The conservative talk show host are so popular because they talk the language of the American people.
This would give most people "a clue".
12-31-05, 11:15 AM newnickname Concrete examples of the 'radical left' in the US so far: Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, Coldfuse's neighbour, and maybe people who get violent at demos. I doubted RR's point at first, but I think it's being proved.
quote:
Where on earth did anybody get the idea that George W. Bush or "50% of the republicans in congress are radically right?"
Starting a war for no good reason is a radical action. Some of the war aims were certainly right-wing - witness the CPA's attempts under Bremer to create a constitution for the new Iraq that was a wish list for the radical right and Big Business. (The radical left hates 'Big Business' )
Although - contradicting L.Rodd's point about the right being better at taking action - Bush seems to have talked big (or hinted slyly to his supporters) on many 'radical right' ideas, but has actually achieved little; for example, social security reform, or amending the constitution to tell citizens who they can and cannot marry.
Notice that the actual names of these 'radical rightists', and that of a website, are supplied. When we use real-life examples, we can base our discussion on what these people and organisations actually say and do. We can discuss what the radical right is or isn't, and who qualifies. Without examples, I could simply say that people on the radical right eat babies for breakfast and pick their noses in traffic, and there's no sensible way to for anyone to show how that's wrong. That's roughly the situation Coldfuse's "hate" list has set up.
Could we maybe have some real examples of this chimerical 'radical left'? We seem to be talking about a boogey-man.
12-31-05, 12:26 PM Lighteningrodd Perhaps the reason why we are having such a hard time defining these terms is because when politicians are running for office, they have a tendency to detach themselves from their base & run on the center. Those running as a Democrat don't want to be labled as the "looney left." Those running as a Republican don't like being accused of "taking away from the poor."
I can recall a long time ago, I made reference to liberals. Another poster accused me of name calling. So is that suppose to mean that someone of the liberal persuasion does not like being termed as a liberal??? So this is tosay a liberal is not proud of what he/she might believe??? What would be a better label then???
So perhaps we need to take a look at what organizations are out there that make up the liberals or the conservatives. Seems no one here wants to point the finger at any individuals.
12-31-05, 01:22 PM Dwight OK newnickname, you made me do it. I had to go and look up the word "chimerical" because I had never heard it before.
Function: adjective Etymology: chimera 1 : existing only as the product of unchecked imagination : fantastically visionary or improbable 2 : given to fantastic schemes synonym see IMAGINARY
I think that is the first time I've had to do that since the passing of a former member, Maiku. May he rest in peace.
I wonder if the main reason we cannot come up with a list of names of persons or groups who make up the "radical left" is because so few persons or groups display all of these characteristics. Many people tend to be liberal thinking in one area, but conservative in others.
Just this morning I was speaking to a man I know quite well and we were talking about the government's attempts to deal with "unwanted" children. These are children of parents who are unable or unwilling to take proper care of them, so the kids wind up as wards of the state.
His views on the problem and possible solutions were very "liberal" in my opinion. But just moments later he made a comment about the fate of the "working" man and in my view his opinion was extremely conservative. I don't know how he votes (liberal or conservative), but this is an intelligent, well informed man. He is an ex-marine and Viet Nam veteran, but I cannot "label" him because his opinions (like most people) vary depending upon their personal experience.
This is an interesting thread but I would like to second aminator2002's comment: "The mistake people make about left and right is to not respect the point of view. Personally I can respect people's opinions, disagree with them and move on."
Disagree, with becoming disagreeable.
Dwight
12-31-05, 01:37 PM newnickname I think I came across 'chimerical' in relation to WMD.
Now we just need to find where on that website they let slip that they hate the unborn, the US constitution, marriage...
12-31-05, 01:50 PM Dwight Well, I goofed again...That should be: Disagree, without becoming disagreeable.
A better link for those wanting to read more of Maiku:Words & Language
"I think I came across 'chimerical' in relation to WMD." newnickname
I think the only response to this is to say, "thank goodness the WMD were illusionary".
Dwight
12-31-05, 02:17 PM coldfuse
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Aha! Now I see. Compared to Hitler, Bush is only moderately right-leaning. And few Democrats are as far leftward leaning as Lenin. Ergo; RR is rightcorrect: there is no sizeable 'radical left' in this country.
Nor, in my opinion, is there any sizeable 'radical right.' An argument could certainly be made that Bush is not altogether conservative. At least a few members of this board seem to agree that he is not "all together" Wink.
12-31-05, 02:21 PM coldfuse And nick, you are simply not going to find anyone who wants to be heard admitting to any hatred of the unborn, etc. You may, however, discover considerable support for the slaughter of unborn children, even in the third trimester, even as they enter the birth canal. On the order, I believe, of 1.5 million annually in the United States, and required from time to time as government policy in some nations.
12-31-05, 05:06 PM newnickname ...so how do you connect that to 'the radical left in the United States'? 'Roe vs. Wade' is not upheld by a radical fringe, is it?
Does anyone actually 'hate the unborn' or 'support' abortion? Or do people mostly see the legalisation of abortion as a necessary evil - to keep it safe and regulated?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3049 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
If a government can require a woman who already has a child to abort a pregnancy, can we not consider that there might be a pro-abortion movement within the United States?
Do abortion providers support abortion?
Are the stories of Planned Parenthood not remaining objective when counseling young women true?
Aren't there a large number of people in this country who do not even recognize an unborn child as a human being? Even in the last trimester? Even until the point that it has fully emerged from the birth canal and breathes air? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-31-05, 06:36 PM RoverRoad
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse: How many women died from abortions before Roe v. Wade?
Too many!
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse: How many unborn have died deaths since?
Irrelevant. The key word is "Unborn"
12-31-05, 06:49 PM DorianGreyed I suspect that the widespread availability of the birth control pill had much more to do with limiting the number of deaths due to abortions than anything else, and it would not surprise me if that was still the case. Back-alley abortions were very cheap, and very deadly. Saying that abortions were "underreported" is an unmderstatement if one considers that, even in the 60s and into the 70s, many suicide-by-cars were reported as "loss of control" accidents, and self-inflicted gunshot wounds were often called "accidents" by police to spare the families involved. I knew of several back then, and it was a small town. Two of the ones I know about involved the fathers of girls who got pregnant being unable to deal with the "problem."
12-31-05, 06:58 PM Scotty
quote: Too many!
How many is too many? You have to be specific here or your answer does not count. Give us a reference so that we can see if your answer might even come close to being right.
quote: Irrelevant. The key word is "Unborn"
Sorry Jack, That answer just doesn't cut it. Have you ever seen an unborn baby in the womb? Apparently not.
12-31-05, 07:16 PM frankvan I think the reasonable approach to abortion is adequate funding of birth control, contraception, education, over-the-counter sale of morning-after pill, - making abortion infrequent, legal, regulated by doctors and available. It is a health concern that belongs to the decision of the woman and her doctor. It is none of your business unless you are the one who is pregnant - so BUTT OUT! If you oppose abortion, birth control, extramarital sex, homosexuality, gay marriage, or any thing outside of explicit murder, rape, etc. on religious grounds, don't practice it - but keep your sanctimonious nose out of everybody else's business.
12-31-05, 07:25 PM Dwight
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: ...If you oppose abortion, birth control, extramarital sex, homosexuality, gay marriage, or any thing outside of explicit murder, rape, etc. on religious grounds, don't practice it - but keep your sanctimonious nose out of everybody else's business.
"...keep your sanctimonious nose out of everybody else's business".
This does become my business when someone else's behavior causes my tax burden to increase. Children born to a single parent often wind up on the welfare rolls and that expense is born by taxpayers. That tax money could have been used to care for my own family.
Dwight
12-31-05, 07:34 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Dwight:
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: ...If you oppose abortion, birth control, extramarital sex, homosexuality, gay marriage, or any thing outside of explicit murder, rape, etc. on religious grounds, don't practice it - but keep your sanctimonious nose out of everybody else's business.
"...keep your sanctimonious nose out of everybody else's business".
This does become my business when someone else's immoral behavior causes my tax burden to increase. Immorality is expensive.
Dwight
Religious considerations are for the church of your choice. A secular government has no concern with "morality" - only ethical and legal ones. Separation of Church and State is the law of the land.
12-31-05, 07:36 PM frankvan Scotty: "Sorry Jack, That answer just doesn't cut it. Have you ever seen an unborn baby in the womb? Apparently not." Scotty...
"It is time for him to go to the other side. Hell is waiting for "Tookie"."
How much more palatable it becomes to kill people 'after' they're born. One way for the sanctimonious to play God!
12-31-05, 07:40 PM Scotty
quote: If you oppose abortion, birth control, extramarital sex, homosexuality, gay marriage, or any thing outside of explicit murder, rape, etc. on religious grounds, don't practice it - but keep your sanctimonious nose out of everybody else's business.
Ah has spoken!
Yassuh pappy!
12-31-05, 07:44 PM juanruiz
quote: I think the reasonable approach to abortion is adequate funding of birth control, contraception, education, over-the-counter sale of morning-after pill, - making abortion infrequent, legal, regulated by doctors and available.
Since when is this not available? A trip to the local Planned Parenthood Branch, if not school, will find contraceptives readily purveyed. Or a box of Trojans at the local pharmacy, or now even Target and Walmart. Why is it always that the question of a woman's control of her body starts with the question of abortion? What happened to that control at the point of time the act which produced the pregnancy occurred and nothing was done to prevent it? And before I get accused of being anti-Roe v. Wade; don't even go there. What I am anti is personal irresponsibility.
12-31-05, 07:46 PM RoverRoad Scotty, One is too many because it is unnecessary and wrong for a woman to die because a medical procedure was denied to her.
Please tell me that you care about blown up Iraqi babies as much as you care about unborn fetuses. I’ve seen pictures of both. The difference is, the Iraqi baby had a life, the fetus was still working on it. I have sympathy that the fetus didn’t get a chance to be bourn, but I have more sympathy for the bourn Iraqi baby that was blown up.
The people that are most qualified to debate abortion are women. Men really don’t have much of a say. We just but in where it isn’t our business and enforce our beliefs on women.
12-31-05, 07:47 PM frankvan The sound bite is the argument of the inarticulate, IMHO.
12-31-05, 07:49 PM Scotty
quote: How much more palatable it becomes to kill people 'after' they're born. One way for the sanctimonious to play God!
So ridiculous it is pitiful. You can't compare the two. Not even close.
quote: The sound bite is the argument of the inarticulate, IMHO
yeah! Unless it is used by you, huh, Frank? Remember your " cause I eats me spinach" reference?Wink
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty, 12-31-05 08:54 PM
12-31-05, 07:54 PM Scotty
quote: . What I am anti is personal irresponsibility.
Exactly!
Why is this never mentioned? Do you kill a living baby because of a few minutes of enjoyment for yourself? Take responsibility for your actions.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty, 12-31-05 09:08 PM
12-31-05, 08:00 PM Scotty
quote: Religious considerations are for the church of your choice. A secular government has no concern with "morality"
Great! Just leave "morality" out of it. That makes it OK.
12-31-05, 09:17 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by Scotty: Do you kill a living baby because of a few minutes of enjoyment for yourself?
Calling a foetus a "living baby" is the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that make it more difficult to discuss this type of thing, abortion.
Besides, if you truly, really believe that "living babies" are being murdered, why aren't you willing to do what it takes to stop it, whatever it takes, whatever the consequences?
By god if I knew that "living babies" were being murdered at a clinic down the street I would be willing to put my life on the line to stop it. Why aren't all these anti-choice people willing to defend these "living babies"? Too much trouble?
12-31-05, 09:24 PM Scotty It appears to me that people are trying to do something about it. What do you think the big commotion is all about? Many are out there doing that very thing. Yes,I believe "living babies" Are being killed,and I am sure that you do too.
12-31-05, 09:33 PM GarColga If I really felt that "living babies" were being killed and all I could do is cause a "commotion" I don't think I could live with my cowardice!
12-31-05, 09:46 PM Scotty
quote: If I really felt that "living babies" were being killed and all I could do is cause a "commotion" I don't think I could live with my cowardice!
From the inception of his pro-life work, Fr. Frank Pavone has been urging the mass media to show the American people what an abortion is. Abortion is a reality which is so horrific that words alone can never convey its meaning
12-31-05, 10:18 PM coldfuse Abortion is a highly charged issue, and I have never seen anyone change their mind or any group become anything but polarized discussing it.
Is it not self-evident that there is a dehumanization unborn babies to support killing them, whatever the reason?
How many women still die from legal abortions each year? With over a million procedures, is the number significant? How many have died from complications due to abortion-inducing drugs? Here's an interesting perspective from a woman.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 7739 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Frankvan, I'm sorry I edited my post because I decided that I did not want to bring morality into the question for exactly the reasons that you stated.
Anyway the quote you show is the original post. As soon as I read it I knew I needed to correct the slant of the last paragraph. But I wasn't fast enough. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 01-01-06, 09:35 AM frankvan
quote: What I am anti is personal irresponsibility.
So am I. So is everyone else. But thousands of years of preaching and teaching haven't shown much progress in eradicating it. We still seem to produce unwanted pregnancies. If someone has a legislative solution, I have yet to see it.
01-01-06, 09:47 AM frankvan
quote: This does become my business when someone else's behavior causes my tax burden to increase. Children born to a single parent often wind up on the welfare rolls and that expense is born by taxpayers. That tax money could have been used to care for my own family."
Believe it or not, I do not advocate unmarried motherhood, or even irresponsible copulation. Other people almost invariably behave in ways that increase my tax burden. So-called moral considerations, as defined by the 'moral majority', result in tax exemptions for all sorts of religious entities. That increases my, and your, tax burden far more than single parents' irresponsible behavior. In fact, I'd be willing to have one fewer aircraft carrier, for the same effect. IMHO.
01-01-06, 09:59 AM FredPuli Was it the radical left that invented and introduced Medicare ? Or were they simply socialists? ( Is it not open to all of a certain age, without means-testing? )
01-01-06, 10:06 AM frankvan
quote: Aren't there a large number of people in this country who do not even recognize an unborn child as a human being? Even in the last trimester? Even until the point that it has fully emerged from the birth canal and breathes air?
Sadly, there are people in this country who do not recognize living human beings of a different race as human beings. The important thing is that the laws of the country do. The law, up to the present, recognizes that until a fetus has reached a certain stage of gestation, it can legally be aborted. I also share your feeling of repugnance at the thought of any abortion, but I believe the answer is not imposing my belief on others through legislation. I prefer to direct efforts toward elimination of the incidence and the need for abortion; through planned parenthood, education, contraception, etc. So long as there are adult human lives that face the prospect of horribly deformed babies, of babies produced through rape or incest, of naive young women's lives being irreparably scarred, I will continue to support Roe v Wade.
01-02-06, 05:14 AM RoverRoad
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Was it the radical left that invented and introduced Medicare ? Or were they simply socialists? ( Is it not open to all of a certain age, without means-testing? )
I'd say Medicare has been a bi-partisan effort. It was signed into law by a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson and prescription drug coverage was added by the signature of Current Republican president G.W. Bush. Though, he diminished some other areas of the program. Both parties know the importance of having it around.
To quote from Bush in 2003 State of the Union address: "Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society."
I’m not sure who wrote that for him.
It now reads: "...keep your sanctimonious nose out of everybody else's business".
This does become my business when someone else's behavior causes my tax burden to increase. Children born to a single parent often wind up on the welfare rolls and that expense is born by taxpayers. That tax money could have been used to care for my own family."
Dwight
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 4321 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
Originally posted by FredPuli: Was it the radical left that invented and introduced Medicare ? Or were they simply socialists? ( Is it not open to all of a certain age, without means-testing? )
I'd say Medicare has been a bi-partisan effort. It was signed into law by a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson and prescription drug coverage was added by the signature of Current Republican president G.W. Bush. Though, he diminished some other areas of the program. Both parties know the importance of having it around.
To quote from Bush in 2003 State of the Union address: "Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society."
AnswerPool.com 
)
