PDA

View Full Version : ACLU Takeover




tonesforjonesbones
06-18-2008, 07:32 AM
Here is something our local LP and Bob Barr meet up are considering....joining the ACLU en masse. The ACLU is a good tool if it is used correctly..which is hasn't been. It is consumed with socialist liberals, but if we libertarians join our local ACLU chapters...we could have a huge influence on getting it back to the Constitution. (and Ron Paul Republicans, Constitution Party people also) TONES:p

Kade
06-18-2008, 07:54 AM
Here is something our local LP and Bob Barr meet up are considering....joining the ACLU en masse. The ACLU is a good tool if it is used correctly..which is hasn't been. It is consumed with socialist liberals, but if we libertarians join our local ACLU chapters...we could have a huge influence on getting it back to the Constitution. (and Ron Paul Republicans, Constitution Party people also) TONES:p

Socialist liberals?

Get a f*&^king life... most of us are libertarians and civil rights absolutist. There was a time when those were not mutually exclusive.

micahnelson
06-18-2008, 08:23 AM
God bless the ACLU.

Jeremy
06-18-2008, 08:35 AM
They have a bad reputation.

Jeremy
06-18-2008, 08:37 AM
Socialist liberals?

Get a f*&^king life... most of us are libertarians and civil rights absolutist. There was a time when those were not mutually exclusive.

Stop trying to save the word "liberal". It's been gone for decades. They ARE socialists. Libertarians are classic liberals, but that's not the same.

Kade
06-18-2008, 08:37 AM
They have a bad reputation.

So does Bob Barr.

Kade
06-18-2008, 08:38 AM
Stop trying to save the word "liberal". It's been gone for decades. They ARE socialists. Libertarians are classic liberals, but that's not the same.

The libertarians I meet support tax subsidies to corporations before tax relief to working families... that is not liberal, that is corporate fascism. Most prefer no taxation, but that makes no sense..

Jeremy
06-18-2008, 08:41 AM
The libertarians I meet support tax subsidies to corporations before tax relief to working families... that is not liberal, that is corporate fascism. Most prefer no taxation, but that makes no sense..

Not IRS. Why are you even still here...? Are you a RP supporter? Let me guess, you want universal health care? Because every "liberal" I have met has wanted universal health care, which is socialism.

Rangeley
06-18-2008, 08:47 AM
The libertarians I meet support tax subsidies to corporations before tax relief to working families... that is not liberal, that is corporate fascism. Most prefer no taxation, but that makes no sense..
Like who?

Kade
06-18-2008, 08:54 AM
Like who?

Do you want their names and locations? Hell, most of them are about as mentally prepared for a philosophical debate as the Lakers were for the finals.

Kade
06-18-2008, 08:55 AM
Not IRS. Why are you even still here...? Are you a RP supporter? Let me guess, you want universal health care? Because every "liberal" I have met has wanted universal health care, which is socialism.

I don't support Universal Healthcare. I respect your asshole status, but the "why are you a RP Supporter" comments are getting REALLY, REALLY, old.

Jeremy
06-18-2008, 08:56 AM
Are we talking about libertarians or Libertarians... because there could be a big difference.

edit: If you don't support socialism, you are probably out of step with the rest of the people that call themselves liberal.

Danke
06-18-2008, 09:00 AM
Here is something our local LP and Bob Barr meet up are considering....joining the ACLU en masse. The ACLU is a good tool if it is used correctly..which is hasn't been. It is consumed with socialist liberals, but if we libertarians join our local ACLU chapters...we could have a huge influence on getting it back to the Constitution. (and Ron Paul Republicans, Constitution Party people also) TONES:p

That may be one way. But it would be a serious clash with their history. Kinda like trying to take over the Democrat Party.


There are better organizations out there, just lesser known.

http://www.cir-usa.org/

http://www.ij.org/

To name just a couple.

Danke
06-18-2008, 09:01 AM
God bless the ACLU.

I get it. That's funny. :)

Rangeley
06-18-2008, 09:01 AM
Do you want their names and locations? Hell, most of them are about as mentally prepared for a philosophical debate as the Lakers were for the finals.
So would I be correct to assume you do not mean all libertarians you have met, despite the implication of your post?

Or are you defining "libertarian" in some peculiar way?

SnappleLlama
06-18-2008, 09:06 AM
That may be one way. But it would be a serious clash with their history. Kinda like trying to take over the Democrat Party.


There are better organizations out there, just lesser known.

http://www.cir-usa.org/

http://www.ij.org/

Two name just a couple.

*swipes links for Cat Herder project*

:) Thanks!

Danke
06-18-2008, 09:08 AM
The libertarians I meet support tax subsidies to corporations before tax relief to working families... that is not liberal, that is corporate fascism. Most prefer no taxation, but that makes no sense..

I don't quite know what you are referring to as "tax subsidies"?

But I'd imagine most libertarians are for minimal taxation, even for corporations. Any business just passes on the "cost of doing business" (which includes taxes) to the consumer.

So we all end up paying for taxes on businesses.

sluggo
06-18-2008, 09:11 AM
That may be one way. But it would be a serious clash with their history. Kinda like trying to take over the Democrat Party.


There are better organizations out there, just lesser known.

http://www.cir-usa.org/

http://www.ij.org/

To name just a couple.

I had never heard of either one of these groups. Thanks for the links.

TurtleBurger
06-18-2008, 09:16 AM
I love the idea! We could gain a libertarian organization and get rid of a socialist organization in one move. It would need a major makeover before it was a group I'd be proud to belong to though.

micahnelson
06-18-2008, 09:27 AM
I love the idea! We could gain a libertarian organization and get rid of a socialist organization in one move. It would need a major makeover before it was a group I'd be proud to belong to though.

I hear this often. What are some issues that the ACLU has taken up with which you disagree. I have asked this many times and never found a compelling argument against the ACLU by a pro-liberty advocate.

I think this anti-ACLU sentiment is either religious in nature, or a holdover from too much talk radio.

Rangeley
06-18-2008, 09:34 AM
I hear this often. What are some issues that the ACLU has taken up with which you disagree. I have asked this many times and never found a compelling argument against the ACLU by a pro-liberty advocate.

I think this anti-ACLU sentiment is either religious in nature, or a holdover from too much talk radio.
The ACLU does a lot of good on many issues, but their stances on abortion and the 2nd amendment are positions I could never support. Noone has the "freedom" to take the life of another, and the right to bear arms is an individual, not collective right.

Kade
06-18-2008, 09:39 AM
The ACLU does a lot of good, but their stances on abortion and the 2nd amendment are positions I could never support. Noone has the "freedom" to take the life of another, and the right to bear arms is an individual, not collective right.

Reproductive rights are seen as civil rights, regardless of your personal taste on the matter.

The ACLU cites http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller/Opinion_of_the_Court for it's view on the second amendment.

The ACLU is not your enemy... maybe it is to the blastocysts, but I'm sure that if they personally requested their right to life, the ACLU would be there to defend them too.

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 10:03 AM
No, thanks. By the way, Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, stated that communism was the goal of the ACLU. They can rot in hell for all I care.

micahnelson
06-18-2008, 10:05 AM
No, thanks. By the way, Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, stated that communism was the goal of the ACLU. They can rot in hell for all I care.

Lincoln said that blacks were not equal to whites and yet you are in the Republican Party.

I dunno, whenever I hear about a privacy or civil liberties issue the ACLU tends to be on the right side of it.

I disagree with them on abortion, but at least they argue it from the only valid angle - medical privacy.

Still trying to get a clear idea of their second amendment stance.

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 10:11 AM
Lincoln said that blacks were not equal to whites and yet you are in the Republican Party.

That's true, but you're wrong about me being in the Republican Party. I was in the Republican Party, but now I'm back in the Constitution Party...for the win (in 2012, perhaps)!

micahnelson
06-18-2008, 10:15 AM
Fair Enough. I think we need to find allies where we can find them, and the ACLU is an ally on many fronts- abortion aside in my personal opinion.

We can count on them to defend privately funded speech in almost any form, due process, etc...

With all our disagreements, we can find common ground. Once we are free, we may return to the bludgeoning on policy issues. Remember, with all the fighting we do here- almost all of us pulled the lever for the same guy this primary season.

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 10:20 AM
With all our disagreements, we can find common ground. Once we are free, we may return to the bludgeoning on policy issues. Remember, with all the fighting we do here- almost all of us pulled the lever for the same guy this primary season.

Fighting each other? I prefer to call it "sharpening one another." :D

SLSteven
06-18-2008, 10:23 AM
joining the ACLU en masse. ... if we libertarians join our local ACLU chapters...we could have a huge influence on getting it back to the Constitution. (and Ron Paul Republicans, Constitution Party people also) TONES:p

Interesting idea. Anyone here ever tried this? I wonder what the requirements are.

Rangeley
06-18-2008, 10:37 AM
Reproductive rights are seen as civil rights, regardless of your personal taste on the matter.

The ACLU cites http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller/Opinion_of_the_Court for it's view on the second amendment.

The ACLU is not your enemy... maybe it is to the blastocysts, but I'm sure that if they personally requested their right to life, the ACLU would be there to defend them too.
The biggest reason I respect the ACLU as much as I do is that it has stood up for so many who noone else would stand up for, and has defended their rights. Their work in the realm of free speech is absolutely commendable. But their unwillingness to defend the unborn is nothing to commend, and that you would take such a position that someone needs to "request" their rights before they have them is absolutely disgusting. It is the responsibility of those of us who can stand up to stand up for the rights of those who cannot - whether it be due to restrictions from laws such as the patriot act, or their personal condition.

The "right" to violate the rights of another is not one of these rights - it is not a right. Noone has the right to violate the rights of another. While someone may have the personal opinion that sex before marriage is fine, they cannot force someone who does not to have sex with them. This is a violation of their rights. While someone may think anothers life is worthless, to act on that and take their life is a heinous violation of their rights.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 10:42 AM
The libertarians I meet support tax subsidies to corporations before tax relief to working families... that is not liberal, that is corporate fascism. Most prefer no taxation, but that makes no sense..

um no. if I had to choose I'd go with "tax relief to working families"

but I believe in tax relief for everyone :p

as far as corporations goes HAHA I would love to end the corporate status itself. the corporate identity thing..just end it. that would be quite interesting

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 10:45 AM
The ACLU does a lot of good on many issues, but their stances on abortion and the 2nd amendment are positions I could never support. Noone has the "freedom" to take the life of another, and the right to bear arms is an individual, not collective right.

the ACLU is against gun rights? wow...that's pathetic lol

abortion is ok with me. I look at it as women's rights. disguisting, would try to talk my woman out of it, but in the end it's her decision.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 10:49 AM
That's true, but you're wrong about me being in the Republican Party. I was in the Republican Party, but now I'm back in the Constitution Party...for the win (in 2012, perhaps)!

you protectonist

crazyfingers
06-18-2008, 10:50 AM
you protectonist

LOL

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/14/is-bob-barr-a-libertarian-certainly-not-on-trade/

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 10:55 AM
LOL

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/14/is-bob-barr-a-libertarian-certainly-not-on-trade/

he is now more for free trade than ever. how's Chuk Baldwin on trade? openly a protectionist. do you know what that means? means he will cripple economy in the name of "protecting jobs" and "protecting industry"

did he ever take a long hard look at the history of the American steel industry?

here's Ron Paul on protectionism:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul21.html

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 11:02 AM
Are we talking about libertarians or Libertarians... because there could be a big difference.

edit: If you don't support socialism, you are probably out of step with the rest of the people that call themselves liberal.

there are many social conservatives in the democratic party. but many of them are fiscally liberal, believing in MORE government

yongrel
06-18-2008, 11:03 AM
I like the ACLU. I wish they would pay more attention to the 2nd and 10th Amendment, but I still like them. They have done a lot of good. If you recall, they even represented a few RP supporters who had some free speech issues.

Let's not scheme for their takeover when they should already be our allies.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 11:04 AM
I don't quite know what you are referring to as "tax subsidies"?

But I'd imagine most libertarians are for minimal taxation, even for corporations. Any business just passes on the "cost of doing business" (which includes taxes) to the consumer.

So we all end up paying for taxes on businesses.

or they just pack up and leave the country

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 11:06 AM
you protectonist

You communist.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 11:09 AM
You communist.

at least I was right in calling you that :p

well, maybe I am communist. giving the means of production to the people? yeah, sounds like capitalism to me hehehe

instead of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" we'll have "From each according to their ability, to each according to what they can get for it" ha

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 11:20 AM
at least I was right in calling you that :p

well, maybe I am communist. giving the means of production to the people? yeah, sounds like capitalism to me hehehe

instead of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" we'll have "From each according to their ability, to each according to what they can get for it" ha

I'd rather be a protectionist (http://constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Tariffs%20and%20Trade) than a communist (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm). At least it's more constitutional. No wonder you like the ACLU.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 11:25 AM
I'd rather be a protectionist (http://constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Tariffs%20and%20Trade) than a communist (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm). At least it's more constitutional. No wonder you like the ACLU.

you're an idiot. communists love protectionism. i'm a libertarian, you douche

Danke
06-18-2008, 11:33 AM
Their work in the realm of free speech is absolutely commendable.

Except if it is on public land.

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 11:33 AM
you're an idiot. communists love protectionism. i'm a libertarian, you douche

They do, but not for the same reasons a capitalist would in a constitutional republic. I guess I should have cleared that up.

No, you're a libertine, not a libertarian.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 11:36 AM
They do, but not for the same reasons a capitalist would in a constitutional republic. I guess I should have cleared that up.

No, you're a libertine, not a libertarian.

If I were a libertine I would be in prison right now. I must have some sort of moral restraints

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 11:38 AM
Except if it is on public land.

public land, eh? i call it commie land.

Danke
06-18-2008, 11:38 AM
We can count on them to defend privately funded speech in almost any form, due process, etc...



Funded with the taxpayer's money through extortion of government officials. Nice.

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 11:44 AM
If I were a libertine I would be in prison right now. I must have some sort of moral restraints

You're just an inconsistent libertine, that's all. It's good that you are, though.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 11:51 AM
You're just an inconsistent libertine, that's all. It's good that you are, though.

your mom is

raystone
06-18-2008, 11:53 AM
Stop trying to save the word "liberal". It's been gone for decades. They ARE socialists. Libertarians are classic liberals, but that's not the same.

+1

crazyfingers
06-18-2008, 11:53 AM
he is now more for free trade than ever.

Uh huh, just like Barr has changed his positions on everything else.

Face it...Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin ostensibly share many of the same views (at least according to what Barr currently professes to believe). The main difference is Baldwin is a man of principle and character while Barr is your typical slimeball who will say whatever he thinks people want to hear.

nbhadja
06-18-2008, 11:56 AM
The libertarians I meet support tax subsidies to corporations before tax relief to working families... that is not liberal, that is corporate fascism. Most prefer no taxation, but that makes no sense..

Don't you support war monger communist tool Obama??

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 11:56 AM
Uh huh, just like Barr has changed his positions on everything else.

Face it...Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin share many of the same views...the main difference is Baldwin is a man of principle and character while Barr is your typical slimeball who will say whatever he thinks people want to hear.

that would be your opinion. let's face the facts: Chuc Baldwin is a political nobody that won't get any media coverage. he's also a protectionist and a theocrat ouchhhhhh

The CP is also much smaller than the LP. waste of time

Baldwin is a rightwing loon

crazyfingers
06-18-2008, 11:57 AM
Don't you support war monger communist tool Obama??

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b302/Minnesocold/Che_Obama_1.jpg

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 11:58 AM
your mom is

What're you, in first grade or something? I haven't been insulted like that since elementary school. Personal attacks do not change the truth.

Andrew-Austin
06-18-2008, 11:59 AM
What're you, in first grade or something? I haven't been insulted like that since elementary school. Personal attacks do not change the truth.

I think he was just having difficulty taking you seriously.

crazyfingers
06-18-2008, 11:59 AM
that would be your opinion. let's face the facts: Chuc Baldwin is a political nobody that won't get any media coverage. he's also a protectionist and a theocrat ouchhhhhh

The CP is also much smaller than the LP. waste of time

Hate to break it to you but Barr is a political nobody as well. The LP sold out its principles for 2% of the vote (if they're lucky).

Speaking of "theocrats", what is Barr's current position on Wiccas in the military? Are they now OK with him as long as they are willing to fight in his War in Iraq?

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 12:00 PM
What're you, in first grade or something? I haven't been insulted like that since elementary school. Personal attacks do not change the truth.

You started it when you kept calling me a communist, while knowing damn well that I'm not.

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 12:00 PM
that would be your opinion. let's face the facts: Chuc Baldwin is a political nobody that won't get any media coverage. he's also a protectionist and a theocrat ouchhhhhh

The CP is also much smaller than the LP. waste of time

Baldwin is a rightwing loon

Yeah, and you're not a libertarian, you libertine.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 12:01 PM
Hate to break it to you but Barr is a political nobody as well. The LP sold out its principles for 2% of the vote.

Speaking of "theocrats", what is Barr's "current" position on Wiccas in the military? Are they now OK with him as long as they are willing to fight in his War in Iraq?

That's why Bob Barr has received so much media coverage, huh? He's going on Cavuto today lol where's Chucky going today? to your house? lol. What's Chuck's position on trade relations? you should ask him about free trade

G-Wohl
06-18-2008, 12:02 PM
that would be your opinion. let's face the facts: Chuc Baldwin is a political nobody that won't get any media coverage. he's also a protectionist and a theocrat ouchhhhhh

The CP is also much smaller than the LP. waste of time

Baldwin is a rightwing loon

Exactly. He's also a religious nut who is a member of a party that wants to outlaw pornography.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 12:02 PM
Yeah, and you're not a libertarian, you libertine.

I don't think I would rely on a theocratic nutcase to tell me that I'm not a libertarian

Theocrat
06-18-2008, 12:07 PM
I don't think I would rely on a theocratic nutcase to tell me that I'm not a libertarian

I don't have to prove it to you. You prove my point everytime you post something in these forums. By your own words shall you be judged. ;)

crazyfingers
06-18-2008, 12:12 PM
That's why Bob Barr has received so much media coverage, huh? He's going on Cavuto today lol where's Chucky going today? to your house? lol. What's Chuck's position on trade relations? you should ask him about free trade

Barr has received some media coverage because he is an establishment tool. He is also a protectionist. He has not said or done anything to cancel out his many anti-free trade votes. I know, the truth hurts sometimes. Maybe you should start focusing on principles instead of party.

Kade
06-18-2008, 12:15 PM
The biggest reason I respect the ACLU as much as I do is that it has stood up for so many who noone else would stand up for, and has defended their rights. Their work in the realm of free speech is absolutely commendable. But their unwillingness to defend the unborn is nothing to commend, and that you would take such a position that someone needs to "request" their rights before they have them is absolutely disgusting. It is the responsibility of those of us who can stand up to stand up for the rights of those who cannot - whether it be due to restrictions from laws such as the patriot act, or their personal condition.

The "right" to violate the rights of another is not one of these rights - it is not a right. Noone has the right to violate the rights of another. While someone may have the personal opinion that sex before marriage is fine, they cannot force someone who does not to have sex with them. This is a violation of their rights. While someone may think anothers life is worthless, to act on that and take their life is a heinous violation of their rights.

You reduce the value of humans when you imply that humanity is defined by DNA strands and cell walls alone.

I don't want to get in an abortion debate. I will never be convinced that the unborn ought to be protected simply because they will eventually be fully human.

Nope.

Rangeley
06-18-2008, 12:22 PM
You reduce the value of humans when you imply that humanity is defined by DNA strands and cell walls alone.

I don't want to get in an abortion debate. I will never be convinced that the unborn ought to be protected simply because they will eventually be fully human.

Nope.
An unborn is as human as a 1 second old, a 1 month old, a 10 year old, a 100 year old. How far along they are in their development has nothing to do with that.

Kade
06-18-2008, 12:23 PM
An unborn is as human as a 1 second old, a 1 month old, a 10 year old, a 100 year old. How far along they are in their development has nothing to do with that.

Then at 1 second old, take it out of the women's body and see how well it does...

Make sure you don't use tax payer money to support it.

I said I didn't want to go here. Please stop.

Rangeley
06-18-2008, 12:26 PM
Then at 1 second old, take it out of her body and see how well it does...

Make sure you don't use tax payer money to support it.
Thats one second after birth, not conception - but yes, take a newly born and throw them in the trash and see how well they would do. Wait - for some reason thats a crime and abortion is not.

Kade
06-18-2008, 12:28 PM
Thats one second after birth, not conception - but yes, take a newly born and throw them in the trash and see how well they would do. Wait - for some reason thats a crime and abortion is not.

I didn't say trash. I say just remove it from her body. It has no claim to it. Just gently take the blastocyst out, (with a coat hanger if it becomes illegal in your state) and gently place it on a Church's pew.

If you are going to advocate for it's survival, I suggest you find it a new body pretty fast..... it might not last too long outside of her womb.

Rangeley
06-18-2008, 12:36 PM
I didn't say trash. I say just remove it from her body. It has no claim to it. Just gently take the blastocyst out, (with a coat hanger if it becomes illegal in your state) and gently place it on a Church's pew.

If you are going to advocate for it's survival, I suggest you find it a new body pretty fast..... it might not last too long outside of her womb.
You cant just throw children into environments that they cannot possibly survive - throwing a newly born into the trash is equivalent to removing a child from the womb before they can survive outside of it. Even if you wish to give a child up for adoption, you cant just throw them on the streets at 2 years old and mockingly say "you better find a new home fast!" - you have to go through a process of legally taking the child out of your protection and to another - otherwise you will be responsible for their death.

It is no different for the unborn - there is a process to go through, and if the process is not gone through it will result in the death of the unborn.

Kade
06-18-2008, 12:59 PM
You cant just throw children into environments that they cannot possibly survive - throwing a newly born into the trash is equivalent to removing a child from the womb before they can survive outside of it. Even if you wish to give a child up for adoption, you cant just throw them on the streets at 2 years old and mockingly say "you better find a new home fast!" - you have to go through a process of legally taking the child out of your protection and to another - otherwise you will be responsible for their death.

It is no different for the unborn - there is a process to go through, and if the process is not gone through it will result in the death of the unborn.

You are only taking advantage of my personal feelings on the issue.

If I were a purist, I would simply say, tough. If it can't survive on it's own, then nobody should require someone to take care of it.

Your side of the argument is deeply flawed, and mine is only flawed from a libertarian perspective because I demand accountability after birth...

You give value to blastocyst, an act which greatly reduces the value of fully formed, conscious, sentient, and aware human. And worse than that, you will take your new definition and use it to lawfully enforce onto another human and allow her body to be used by the state only (because if it is against her will, it can only be by state/federal law) to develop inside her body, for 9 months, a baby, that you will never see, never care for, never think about again, so that you can sleep better at night, knowing that now, at the very least, a precious piece of cellular goop has successfully been farmed into a child that will be unwanted by it's birth mother (and most certainly it's father at this point) and thrown into a random adoptive family, and if you have your way, most certainly without welfare at this point. Nice.

You want to continue this conversation?

G-Wohl
06-18-2008, 01:01 PM
You reduce the value of humans when you imply that humanity is defined by DNA strands and cell walls alone.

Well, it's too bad you think that. Whether or not you want to believe it, the fact remains that the only thing that separates human beings from any other animal is a couple of genetic differences. If it weren't for these differences, there'd be nothing different between us and chimpanzees/orangutans.

Also, I don't know where in the world you got "cell walls" from, a feature that only plants/fungi (and now, apparently, human beings) possess.

Kade
06-18-2008, 01:05 PM
Well, it's too bad you think that. Whether or not you want to believe it, the fact remains that the only thing that separates human beings from any other animal is a couple of genetic differences. If it weren't for these differences, there'd be nothing different between us and chimpanzees/orangutans.

Also, I don't know where in the world you got "cell walls" from, a feature that only plants/fungi (and now, apparently, human beings) possess.

This did absolutely nothing to change the subject, or refute my point.

And you are correct the cell wall is only associated with plants and the like. I'm glad you pointed that out. I write visually.

I should have used the word plasmalemma, but I couldn't think of it at the time.

Rangeley
06-18-2008, 01:29 PM
You are only taking advantage of my personal feelings on the issue.

If I were a purist, I would simply say, tough. If it can't survive on it's own, then nobody should require someone to take care of it.

Your side of the argument is deeply flawed, and mine is only flawed from a libertarian perspective because I demand accountability after birth...

You give value to blastocyst, an act which greatly reduces the value of fully formed, conscious, sentient, and aware human. And worse than that, you will take your new definition and use it to lawfully enforce onto another human and allow her body to be used by the state only (because if it is against her will, it can only be by state/federal law) to develop inside her body, for 9 months, a baby, that you will never see, never care for, never think about again, so that you can sleep better at night, knowing that now, at the very least, a precious piece of cellular goop has successfully been farmed into a child that will be unwanted by it's birth mother (and most certainly it's father at this point) and thrown into a random adoptive family, and if you have your way, most certainly without welfare at this point. Nice.

You want to continue this conversation?
While it may be your opinion that respecting the rights of all human beings detracts from the value of life, this is merely an opinion on a subjective concept and is of absolutely no relevance. Whether human life has value or not, from conception to death it is nonetheless human life.

I am no anarchist. I think there need to be laws, and by their very nature laws will restrict peoples actions. Any government law that prevents one person from doing harm against another is a law that would prevent someone from using their body as they see fit - in this case, to commit some harm to another. I see this as something that is necessary, just as I see it to be necessary that there be laws against throwing children on the streets - even if that child is unwanted - and just as I see it as necessary that there be laws protecting the unborn.

Unlike situations like welfare, or healthcare - where people can voluntarilly fill these needs, and do it better then any government - situations such as this are ones where there really is only one person that can fill the need. Thats what makes this different - by its very nature it would be a violation of the harm principle due to the fact it is placing them in an environment in which they simply could not survive. I wish that it did not have to be that way, and perhaps some day they will be able to transfer a developing child into another person or even a facsimile safely. Perhaps some day adoption will be carried out instantly and require no wait times. But until that day comes, the circumstances necessitate a law to protect them as they cannot protect themselves.

latkinson6
06-18-2008, 01:53 PM
The libertarians I meet support tax subsidies to corporations before tax relief to working families... that is not liberal, that is corporate fascism. Most prefer no taxation, but that makes no sense..

if it weren't for the corporations there wouldn't be any working families.
if i didnt have to pay such high corporate taxes I could hire more people
and pay higher wages.

Kade
06-18-2008, 01:55 PM
While it may be your opinion that respecting the rights of all human beings detracts from the value of life, this is merely an opinion on a subjective concept and is of absolutely no relevance. Whether human life has value or not, from conception to death it is nonetheless human life.

I am no anarchist. I think there need to be laws, and by their very nature laws will restrict peoples actions. Any government law that prevents one person from doing harm against another is a law that would prevent someone from using their body as they see fit - in this case, to commit some harm to another. I see this as something that is necessary, just as I see it to be necessary that there be laws against throwing children on the streets - even if that child is unwanted - and just as I see it as necessary that there be laws protecting the unborn.

Unlike situations like welfare, or healthcare - where people can voluntarilly fill these needs, and do it better then any government - situations such as this are ones where there really is only one person that can fill the need. Thats what makes this different - by its very nature it would be a violation of the harm principle due to the fact it is placing them in an environment in which they simply could not survive. I wish that it did not have to be that way, and perhaps some day they will be able to transfer a developing child into another person or even a facsimile safely. Perhaps some day adoption will be carried out instantly and require no wait times. But until that day comes, the circumstances necessitate a law to protect them as they cannot protect themselves.

The gravity of this ineptitude, in the form of propagandizing doublespeak, has done nothing to refute any of the claims I make, or the most simple facts. It offends you, because you give value to human cell life. I didn't want to get into this because it is so very complex, but not as simple as it becomes when you imply that the state ought to force a women to carry to term with her body, a developing human in order for it to be born into a very uncertain life, so that you can feel good about yourself and a society that has made it necessary for mothers to even come to the feeling that they can't support or raise a child, evolutionarily.

During the late 1190s, Pope Innocent III told the local convents to build cribs at the gates for young mothers to drop off their babies that they didn't want...


The reason... because he couldn't stand the sight and smell of the number of dead babies floating in the Tiber.


I'm not going to explain the logical conclusion to that line of thought. Legal abortions are the most humane and sensible way to deal with the problem.

Stop arguing to me about it... this was about the ACLU. You are not going to convince me, in any amount of lifetimes, that blastocysts are equivalent to fully developed humans... it's not going to happen.

Kade
06-18-2008, 01:57 PM
if it weren't for the corporations there wouldn't be any working families.
if i didnt have to pay such high corporate taxes I could hire more people
and pay higher wages.

Wtf...

If you own a corporation, and you would willing hire more people for no other reason than to hire people and pay them more, you don't deserve to run a business in a free market.

A business will run best, on the fewest amount of people, making the highest quality products, for the lowest price.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 02:03 PM
Wtf...

If you own a corporation, and you would willing hire more people for no other reason than to hire people and pay them more, you don't deserve to run a business in a free market.

A business will run best, on the fewest amount of people, making the highest quality products, for the lowest price.

why don't we get rid of the corporate status? it's so damn artificial.

is the stock market a natural element of the free market?

Kade
06-18-2008, 03:00 PM
why don't we get rid of the corporate status? it's so damn artificial.

is the stock market a natural element of the free market?

I would LOVE to get rid of the corporate status. A "share" would be defined as anyone with a monetary stake in a company, fully liable, fully responsible.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 03:03 PM
I would LOVE to get rid of the corporate status. A "share" would be defined as anyone with a monetary stake in a company, fully liable, fully responsible.

how about no definition

Kade
06-18-2008, 03:06 PM
how about no definition

And who would be deciding there was no definition?

Grandson of Liberty
06-18-2008, 03:46 PM
Wow, this thread is a great example of why I don't visit the forums as much anymore.

What is this? The Ron Paul Devolution? :cool:

Danke
06-18-2008, 03:48 PM
Wow, this thread is a great example of why I don't visit the forums as much anymore.

What is this? The Ron Paul Devolution? :cool:


Then why don't you contribute something useful to it instead of what you just wrote?

crazyfingers
06-18-2008, 03:51 PM
Wtf...

If you own a corporation, and you would willing hire more people for no other reason than to hire people and pay them more, you don't deserve to run a business in a free market.

A business will run best, on the fewest amount of people, making the highest quality products, for the lowest price.

Wow you really have no idea what you're talking about...

He wants to hire more people so he can expand his business, but he is unable to due to high corporate taxes. He didn't say anything about wanting to do it out of the goodness of his heart.

There's something called the "invisible hand" that benefits all...you might've heard of it (probably not).

Grandson of Liberty
06-18-2008, 04:02 PM
Then why don't you contribute something useful to it instead of what you just wrote?

I guess for the same reason I throw dog crap away instead of trying to polish it. Kind of a waste of time, even with the best of intentions and polish.

That said, in the span of 9 months or so, we've gone from "Let's get Dr. Paul elected and restore liberty and true conservative principles to our government" to "Let's join the ACLU!" C'mon now, that's just goofy. And no, I'm not gonna debate it. Anyone paying attention to the cases the ACLU fights and their history knows they have no interest in strengthening America or protecting our civil liberties.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-18-2008, 04:05 PM
And who would be deciding there was no definition?

free market

cska80
06-18-2008, 04:08 PM
Wow, this thread is a great example of why I don't visit the forums as much anymore.

What is this? The Ron Paul Devolution? :cool:

I agree. For a while now it's been posts about how Obama is great, etc. You're all insane or just a bunch of Obama activists trying to pull some votes. All in all, this forum isn't good for much nowadays except for Youtoooooooobs...

driller80545
06-18-2008, 04:29 PM
You give value to blastocyst, an act which greatly reduces the value of fully formed, conscious, sentient, and aware human. And worse than that, you will take your new definition and use it to lawfully enforce onto another human and allow her body to be used by the state only (because if it is against her will, it can only be by state/federal law) to develop inside her body, for 9 months, a baby, that you will never see, never care for, never think about again, so that you can sleep better at night, knowing that now, at the very least, a precious piece of cellular goop has successfully been farmed into a child that will be unwanted by it's birth mother (and most certainly it's father at this point) and thrown into a random adoptive family, and if you have your way, most certainly without welfare at this point. Nice.

You want to continue this conversation?


destroy another fetus now
we don't like children anyhow
see sig

SeanEdwards
06-18-2008, 04:30 PM
Not IRS. Why are you even still here...? Are you a RP supporter? Let me guess, you want universal health care? Because every "liberal" I have met has wanted universal health care, which is socialism.

Universal healthcare is no more socialism than universal national defense is. Presumably, we all share in the benefits of being protected by the national military. Is that socialism? Is being able to call 911 and have police show up to help you socialism too?

driller80545
06-18-2008, 04:32 PM
Universal healthcare is no more socialism than universal national defense is. Presumably, we all share in the benefits of being protected by the national military. Is that socialism? Is being able to call 911 and have police show up to help you socialism too?

Applying this logic, nothing would be socialism.

cska80
06-18-2008, 05:21 PM
Why try arguing with these people? Liberalism is a mental disorder like the man says. They don't deal in reality, they only try to bend reality to fit their agenda because it feels good.

driller80545
06-18-2008, 05:52 PM
Why try arguing with these people? Liberalism is a mental disorder like the man says. They don't deal in reality, they only try to bend reality to fit their agenda because it feels good.

lol..... and you don't?

cska80
06-18-2008, 06:05 PM
lol..... and you don't?


No, I don't. No one is swimming to Cuba from the US to get free healthcare. No one is flooding the northern border to get Canadas free healthcare. Ted Kennedy didn't take a flight to the EU to get free healthcare.

Socialism has never worked and it won't work here.
Communism has never worked and it won't work here.
Marxism has never worked and it won't work here.

Why don't you just move to those countries if you need free healthcare so bad? Leave us the fuck alone. I already have enough money stolen from me in taxes for programs I'll never use.

SeanEdwards
06-18-2008, 06:13 PM
No, I don't. No one is swimming to Cuba from the US to get free healthcare. No one is flooding the northern border to get Canadas free healthcare. Ted Kennedy didn't take a flight to the EU to get free healthcare.


Your comment is factually inacurate. Many thousands of Americans leave the US to get affordable healthcare every year. Ted Kennedy doesn't need to look for affordable healthcare overseas, because he gets to tap the US system. A system that operates by excluding some 47 million or so citizens.

cska80
06-18-2008, 06:15 PM
Show me these statistics. Kthnxbai. Oh and make sure they aren't coming from some UN funded study. Fucking morons. Does anyone with a clue still frequent these forums or just Obama operatives? I'm beginning to think some of the radio talkers were right about the RP movement. A good portion of them were just anti war leftist fanatics trying to disturb the republican party and cared nothing about the rest of RP's platform.

SeanEdwards
06-18-2008, 06:35 PM
Show me these statistics. Kthnxbai. Oh and make sure they aren't coming from some UN funded study. Fucking morons. Does anyone with a clue still frequent these forums or just Obama operatives? I'm beginning to think some of the radio talkers were right about the RP movement. A good portion of them were just anti war leftist fanatics trying to disturb the republican party and cared nothing about the rest of RP's platform.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_12/b4076036777780.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/13/california_health_costs_send_patients_to_mexico_fa cilities/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/story?id=2320839&page=1

driller80545
06-18-2008, 08:58 PM
No, I don't. No one is swimming to Cuba from the US to get free healthcare. No one is flooding the northern border to get Canadas free healthcare. Ted Kennedy didn't take a flight to the EU to get free healthcare.

Socialism has never worked and it won't work here.
Communism has never worked and it won't work here.
Marxism has never worked and it won't work here.

Why don't you just move to those countries if you need free healthcare so bad? Leave us the fuck alone. I already have enough money stolen from me in taxes for programs I'll never use.

amazing, amazing

DirtMcGirt
06-18-2008, 09:24 PM
Check out the donations to the Mayo Clinic in MN, the richest people in the world fly there to get treatment, not to any free health care nation....

tonesforjonesbones
06-18-2008, 09:28 PM
My thoughts on the ACLU is they are full of socialists who have dis regard for the Constitution..and prefer everything to be government regulated. If we join en masse and take it over...we can pull it back to the Constitution. It is a very visable organization...and if we could get a strong hold on the ACLU...we can definately gain a lot of ground in getting back to Liberty and the Constitution. The ACLU pushes for legislation that should belong to the states and to the people...if we take over...we can pull them in the direction of 2nd amendment rights and the 10th amendment. All you have to do is join your local chapter. TONES

libertarian4321
06-19-2008, 12:34 AM
Exactly. He's also a religious nut who is a member of a party that wants to outlaw pornography.

The Constitution Party wants to outlaw pornography? I've never paid much attention to them because they are so small, and they never seem to get on the ballot here in Texas, but I thought they were for less government?

If the CP is a bunch of social conservatives bent on "mothering" us through the heavy hand of big government, forget it, I can scratch Baldwin off the list of potential people to vote for.

Pauls' Revere
06-19-2008, 12:50 AM
God bless the ACLU.

Flew right past me...good one!
:D

FACLU!

Theocrat
06-19-2008, 01:30 AM
This information (http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html) about the ACLU comes from a Congressional Record of the 87th Congress back in September 20, 1961. After reading it, please explain to me how the principles of the ACLU are compatible with the principles which Congressman Paul stands for under our constitutional republic.

cska80
06-19-2008, 02:32 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_12/b4076036777780.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/13/california_health_costs_send_patients_to_mexico_fa cilities/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/story?id=2320839&page=1

It says nothing about foreign healthcare being superior to ours, only cheaper. We all know why the prices in this country are fucked up...BECAUSE of government intervention. And, like a typical liberal, you call for MORE intervention. The fact is, even with a healthcare system with rising costs and all of its flaws, I don't hear about foreign companies with breakthrough research. I don't hear about foreign companies coming up with new drugs for diseases, etc. I'm done arguing. Like I said earlier, it's impossible to argue with a liberal. Once you join reality, then we can talk.

Roxi
06-19-2008, 02:50 AM
Do you want their names and locations? Hell, most of them are about as mentally prepared for a philosophical debate as the Lakers were for the finals.

you answered your own question.... they can call themselves libertarians, republicans, monkeys, whatever but if they are dilrods then why would their views reflect on liberals in general....

im not debating the OT im only saying that if "the liberals you meet are...." and they also are not all that sharp, then they would be a poor example.

Kade
06-19-2008, 08:13 AM
you answered your own question.... they can call themselves libertarians, republicans, monkeys, whatever but if they are dilrods then why would their views reflect on liberals in general....

im not debating the OT im only saying that if "the liberals you meet are...." and they also are not all that sharp, then they would be a poor example.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-19-2008, 08:23 AM
No, I don't. No one is swimming to Cuba from the US to get free healthcare. No one is flooding the northern border to get Canadas free healthcare. Ted Kennedy didn't take a flight to the EU to get free healthcare.

Socialism has never worked and it won't work here.
Communism has never worked and it won't work here.
Marxism has never worked and it won't work here.

Why don't you just move to those countries if you need free healthcare so bad? Leave us the fuck alone. I already have enough money stolen from me in taxes for programs I'll never use.

are you a fool? you're bashing people on being too socially liberal, yet you bring up economic liberalism when you know damn well libertarians aren't for universal healthcare. Universal healthcare is a nice idea, it is something that is actually more attractive to me than the current system we have the in US, but will it work? only for a decade or two, before it recedes, and crumbles. why? because government is fundamentally stupid, which makes it hard for it to be and maintain efficiency. Everything just...gets worse and worse. Sure, I'd love it at first, but why not at least let a purely private sector grow side by side? Then people would have an alternative that actuall works...not sure how the universal healthcare existing would affect the free market healthcare industry in the same country, probably make it more expensive, which is not good.

healthcare is just not a government issue

MMolloy
06-19-2008, 12:56 PM
This information (http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html) about the ACLU comes from a Congressional Record of the 87th Congress back in September 20, 1961. After reading it, please explain to me how the principles of the ACLU are compatible with the principles which Congressman Paul stands for under our constitutional republic.

Excellent Link! A short starting point for those who want to do their homework.

Bottom line: ACLU is a communist front organization and those wanting to take it over probably have not done their homework and will be used as dupes.

Danke
06-19-2008, 01:09 PM
Excellent Link! A short starting point for those who want to do their homework.

Bottom line: ACLU is a communist front organization and those wanting to take it over probably have not done their homework and will be used as dupes.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1523543&postcount=1