• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dems Oppose Civil Liberties As Usual

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no greater enemy of civil liberties in America than your standard self-righteous, crusading liberal.

As with every famous world leader who ever called themselves something liberal (Stalin-Communist, Hitler-Nazi stands for National Socialist, Castro-Communist, Kim Jong Il-Communist, Hillary Clinton-Socialist), American liberals, EVERY TIME the chips are down, can be found siding against freedom (unless it is for child molesters or Muslim terrorists).

Exhibit A: Ann Coulter was recently invited to speak at the University of Connecticut as a counterpoint speaker to Cindy Sheehan.

-Cindy Sheehan (who has no qualifications to speak on this matter, and is often incorrect in her assertions) was invited without incident. Ann Coulter (who is a law scholar with major qualifications) was invited despite death threats and organized efforts to suppress her speech.

-Cindy Sheehan spoke without even being questioned about parading her dead son around to conduct a partisan smear campaign. Ann Coulter was screamed down by this liberal, “pro-diversity” crowd before she could get a word in. Some free exchange of ideas. THIS is EXACTLY why universities are not viewed as a forum for intellectual growth and debate. They aren’t. They are a staging ground for liberal brainwashing and propaganda (our tax dollars at work) followed by harassment, arm-twisting, and outright assault for anyone who dares to question them. (There are entire organizations dedicated to exposing and neutralizing this kind of extreme bias and violations of civil rights in universities across the country. They are called Accuracy in Academia, Campus watch, etc.).




And we’re supposed to believe that liberals represent civil liberties? On what planet? They ALWAYS choose tyranny over liberty when it becomes remotely difficult for them to practice what they preach. Republicans just simply are not like this.

The reason is that every time Republicans open up a magazine, turn on the news, watch a movie, or read the newspaper, conservative views are being outrageously and falsely smeared or excluded from the entire thing while liberal views are mindlessly regurgitated and propagandized for (some, like NPR and the NY Times require more thought to catch how much they stack the deck against conservative viewpoints because they apply an air of neutrality; they make phony “balance” statements to make things look evenly covered; they use sophisticated language and elaborately skewed poll numbers, but their agendas are well-evidenced and insanely left-wing).

The point is Republicans are use to hearing opinions that disagree with, denigrate, and lie about their views. Liberals rarely experience dissent of any kind unless they look for it, so when they do experience dissent, they cannot engage it intellectually, and thus move swiftly to suppress it.

Liberals are use to being patted on the head and called courageous for attacking conservatives and regurgitating DNC rhetoric. Why WOULD they be capable of real debate?

If Ann Coulter really is some right wing hack with nothing to say, than letting her speak would be the best way to defeat her. This is how I defeat liberals all the time. They are wrong, and I know it, so I let THEM disprove themselves. You only have to suppress speech when the speaker has a point to be reckoned with.

Liberals simply cannot handle Ann Coulter intellectually, so they prove her right and react with mindless, Neanderthal threats of violence, blatantly false personal attacks (Al Franken champions this particular feature-as I catalogued in another thread), and suppression of her speech.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Now I don't agree with Anne Coulter's political opinions, but as a speaker she is entitled to speak without being heckled. If anyone objects to her opinions, they should wait to question time, her when there are scheduled rebuttle times.

The students made themselves look like morons.

I agree with you, that true intellect is to listen's to an argument, digests the points, and the decides to agree or disagree.

As for universities being liberal hotbeds, well it appears that there are just as many conservative uni students on this site as liberal uni students.

This rudeness of heckling over people is niether liberal or a conservative problem, but an American problem. Just watch O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and all these programs show, are conservatives and liberals trying to out shout each other. Probably because neither side presents real data, but fall back on emotive rhetoric.

Lastly it really isn't that bad for Republicans, you've got the Whitehouse, Congress, and the Senate, what is there to complain about?

Enjoy your rant, as I suppose it lets off a wee bit of steam eh?:ranton:
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
There is no greater enemy of civil liberties in America than your standard self-righteous, crusading liberal.

As with every famous world leader who ever called themselves something liberal (Stalin-Communist, Hitler-Nazi stands for National Socialist, Castro-Communist, Kim Jong Il-Communist, Hillary Clinton-Socialist), American liberals, EVERY TIME the chips are down, can be found siding against freedom (unless it is for child molesters or Muslim terrorists).
I think you are about the first person I have ever seen who tried to contend Hitler was a liberal.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iriemon said:
I think you are about the first person I have ever seen who tried to contend Hitler was a liberal.
Really?
The first one?
I've seen this canard trotted out so many times that I've lost count. The standard thing is for them to say "See? It says socialist right there in the name- National Socialist Party."
To which I say, "Well North Korea must be democratic. See? It says democratic right in the name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"The standard thing is for them to say "See? It says socialist right there in the name- National Socialist Party."
To which I say, "Well North Korea must be democratic. See? It says democratic right in the name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea."-

Simon Moon



There are also few Christians who are anything like what Christianity stands for, but we judge Christianity by the actions of its followers, no matter how un-Christian they are.

Everyone who calls themselves something liberal (as listed in the previous post), including Democrats, push for things that horrifically violate civil liberties of people-unless those people are child molesters or terrorists, of course.



Also, Australian libertarian said:

"As for universities being liberal hotbeds, well it appears that there are just as many conservative uni students on this site as liberal uni students.

This rudeness of heckling over people is neither liberal or a conservative problem, but an American problem. Just watch O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and all these programs show, are conservatives and liberals trying to out shout each other. Probably because neither side presents real data, but fall back on emotive rhetoric.

Lastly it really isn't that bad for Republicans, you've got the Whitehouse, Congress, and the Senate, what is there to complain about?"





Whether there are slightly more conservatives on this website or not has zero relevance to whether or not universities are liberal brainwashing centers.

This is not an American problem, it is demonstrably a liberal problem. O'Reilly and Hannity let the other side speak. Liberals who control nearly ALL universities and every allegedly objective media outlet except Fox conduct debates between moderate Democrats and extreme ones, often excluding the conservative view entirely.

Conservatives are law-abiding, answer to something higher than themselves and ACTUALLY care about freedom of political expression.

And Republicans winning elections in no way entitles the left to suppress free speech.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm still trying to see where the civil liberties were "oppressed" or "opposed".
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
aquapub said:
The reason is that every time Republicans open up a magazine, turn on the news, watch a movie, or read the newspaper, conservative views are being outrageously and falsely smeared or excluded from the entire thing while liberal views are mindlessly regurgitated and propagandized for (some, like NPR and the NY Times require more thought to catch how much they stack the deck against conservative viewpoints because they apply an air of neutrality; they make phony “balance” statements to make things look evenly covered; they use sophisticated language and elaborately skewed poll numbers, but their agendas are well-evidenced and insanely left-wing).
Yeah, I hate those phony 'balanced' statements that the media uses (Fox: Fair and Balanced). If I'm going to get news I want it to be biased, dammit.

At least one side is using sophisticated language. And as for your 'skewed' poll numbers, all I see is a lot of empty accusations. Maybe if you chose to support anything you say with any real evidence I'd think you were at least as credible as a 24 hour cable news station (not very). If you want to debate, use some actual evidence and leave the empty rhetoric for politicians and Ann Coulter.
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
aquapub said:
Whether there are slightly more conservatives on this website or not has zero relevance to whether or not universities are liberal brainwashing centers.

This is not an American problem, it is demonstrably a liberal problem. O'Reilly and Hannity let the other side speak. Liberals who control nearly ALL universities and every allegedly objective media outlet except Fox conduct debates between moderate Democrats and extreme ones, often excluding the conservative view entirely.
I go to the University of Rochester and I'm majoring in Political Science. Out of the professors that head the department 1 is liberal, 2 are libertarian, and 2 are conservative. There's even a guy who worked as a speechwriter for Bush Sr. So unless the physics department is somehow brainwashing their students to be liberal peons, I'd say that my school isn't that liberal at all.

So, again, before you start making sweeping accusations such as 'liberals control all universities', try and support your statements with fact. Has it ever occured to you that maybe the students are the ones who are liberal, not the professors? If you want to paint people who have good grades in high school and high SAT scores as 'liberal,' by all means go ahead. I won't stop you.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
aquapub said:
"The standard thing is for them to say "See? It says socialist right there in the name- National Socialist Party."
To which I say, "Well North Korea must be democratic. See? It says democratic right in the name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea."-

Simon Moon



There are also few Christians who are anything like what Christianity stands for, but we judge Christianity by the actions of its followers, no matter how un-Christian they are.

Everyone who calls themselves something liberal (as listed in the previous post), including Democrats, push for things that horrifically violate civil liberties of people-unless those people are child molesters or terrorists, of course.



Also, Australian libertarian said:

"As for universities being liberal hotbeds, well it appears that there are just as many conservative uni students on this site as liberal uni students.

This rudeness of heckling over people is neither liberal or a conservative problem, but an American problem. Just watch O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and all these programs show, are conservatives and liberals trying to out shout each other. Probably because neither side presents real data, but fall back on emotive rhetoric.

Lastly it really isn't that bad for Republicans, you've got the Whitehouse, Congress, and the Senate, what is there to complain about?"





Whether there are slightly more conservatives on this website or not has zero relevance to whether or not universities are liberal brainwashing centers.

This is not an American problem, it is demonstrably a liberal problem. O'Reilly and Hannity let the other side speak. Liberals who control nearly ALL universities and every allegedly objective media outlet except Fox conduct debates between moderate Democrats and extreme ones, often excluding the conservative view entirely.

Conservatives are law-abiding, answer to something higher than themselves and ACTUALLY care about freedom of political expression.

And Republicans winning elections in no way entitles the left to suppress free speech.
O'Reilly and Hannity let the other side speak? I watch Fox News very regurally, the amount of times that I have seen Hannity and O'Reilly shout over their guests doesn't surprise me anymore.

So what version of Fox News are you watching? If you think that Americans aren't sometimes rude in political debate, how about you watch the Hannity and Colmes 'Shout Fest Specials'.

As for Liberals not caring about freedom of expression, well I'm sure that they care about freedom of speech as much as anyone else.

Lastly aquapub, what part of my comments about universities did you not understand. I said and quote "As for universities being liberal hotbeds, well it appears that there are just as many conservative uni students on this site as liberal uni students."

Do you understand why I made that comment? You seem to think that I am talking about conservative and liberal opinions being in balance on this site.

Incorrect assumption. Maybe if you had cared to properly read this comment you would understand that my comment about conservative uni students posting on this site may be ancedotal evidence that shows that Universities in America are not liberal hotbeds or "liberal brainwashing centres."

So my comments are infact very relevent, because they were in context to my argument.

But I know that analytics skills can sometimes fail people when they are a ranting on!

By the way which administration has asked journalists not to show photo's of soldier's coffins in newspaper or on the TV? Sounds like a belief in freedom of speech to me.....
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Wow, such hatred toward anything liberal.

It really isn't fair for you to just lump us all into one huge group and say we're all the same, just as it wouldn't be fair of us to do so to the conservatives.

We all have our own views and opinions, and while we may call ourselves a liberal or a conservative, you must admit that sometimes your personal views do not always coincide with those of whichever side you affiliate yourself with.

If anything, aquapub, you are showing me how seriously lacking some people are in tolerance.

Respect the fact that everyone has their own views and opinions.

And please, back up your "facts" with some sources. I am all about sources.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
aquapub said:
If Ann Coulter really is some right wing hack with nothing to say, than letting her speak would be the best way to defeat her. This is how I defeat liberals all the time. They are wrong, and I know it, so I let THEM disprove themselves. You only have to suppress speech when the speaker has a point to be reckoned with.

Liberals simply cannot handle Ann Coulter intellectually, so they prove her right and react with mindless, Neanderthal threats of violence, blatantly false personal attacks (Al Franken champions this particular feature-as I catalogued in another thread), and suppression of her speech.
While your entire post shows a real mischaracterization of what liberalism actually is, it is this specific point which I wish to address.

Listen, Coulter is a hack. She contributes nothing to real political dialogue and is entirely inflammatory. Just look at some of the things she says.

Now, while the behavior of those students was rather sophomoric and silly, they have reason to be angry. This is not a matter of letting Coulter speak, it's paying her to speak. Paying her a lot.

It cost the school $16,000 to have her come speak, you know, and that is a damned lot of money to be spent on someone with no legitimate contribution to the public sphere. The students have every right to be indignant about their tuition money being spent to have her come speak.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Engimo said:
While your entire post shows a real mischaracterization of what liberalism actually is, it is this specific point which I wish to address.

Listen, Coulter is a hack. She contributes nothing to real political dialogue and is entirely inflammatory. Just look at some of the things she says.

Now, while the behavior of those students was rather sophomoric and silly, they have reason to be angry. This is not a matter of letting Coulter speak, it's paying her to speak. Paying her a lot.

It cost the school $16,000 to have her come speak, you know, and that is a damned lot of money to be spent on someone with no legitimate contribution to the public sphere. The students have every right to be indignant about their tuition money being spent to have her come speak.


1) Liberalism in practice is about putting individual rights over individual responsibility; it is about the elites presuming that the least effective tool available to human kind-government bureaucracy-knows better than the individual and should be trusted to make as many decisions for the individual as is humanly possible. Liberalism asserts that the people are weak, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as its victim-the people-become reliant on the obscenely costly and endless government programs meant to protect people from themselves.

Liberalism has a unique ability to beautifully and efficiently solve problems in every kind of setting except reality. Human nature ALWAYS is the bane of liberal policies working.

I think I have a quite accurate perception of what liberalism is about.

2) Coulter's contribution is two fold. She reminds conservatives that they should be unapologetic about being on the right side of things and she provides mountains of ammunition for conservatives. OF COURSE YOU see her as making no real kind of contribution. But your fine with the school paying a totally unqualified, sleazy partisan (Sheehan) to use her dead son for a political smear campaign? THAT is contributing NOTHING real to the debate.

This is exactly what I am talking about with liberals. YOU don't value her judgment, so it wasn't that big of a deal that she received death threats and was not allowed to give the other side of the war debate. YOU don't get to decide for people what ACCEPTABLE speech is to allow. It is precisely this arrogance that leads liberals to constantly violate people's civil liberties in the pursuit of THEIR ideal world.

Liberals can be found violating civil liberties all across the board.

Labor unions violate your right to free assembly when they FORCE you to join and/or pay union dues (in the few cases in which you get to decide whether or not to join, you still have to pay, and ALL the money goes straight to Democrats-what if you oppose Democrats? You still have to give them money? What an outrage!) in order to get or keep a job.

Their race preference policies force employers to hire unqualified people who they don't want to hire, just to appease the paranoid bigots of the black community.

Don't get me started on guns.

They launch lawsuits to force Christians-and only Christians-to take down any religious symbols about Christmas, while making it so that kids have to recite the seven pillars of Islam to graduate the seventh grade (that ACTUALLY happened in a school district in California).

If you want to go to a university, you almost always have to pay money that will help obscenely biased professors propagandize for Democrats. THAT is FAR MORE outrageous to do with students' tuitions.

There are a plethora of others. Don't buy the hype. Liberals are not the guardians of civil liberties, they are a Trojan horse to them.
 
Last edited:

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
aquapub said:
1) Liberalism in practice is about putting individual rights over individual responsibility; it is about the elites presuming that the least effective tool available to human kind-government bureaucracy-knows better than the individual and should be trusted to make as many decisions for the individual as is humanly possible. Liberalism asserts that the people are weak, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as its victim-the people-become reliant on the obscenely costly and endless government programs meant to protect people from themselves.

Liberalism has a unique ability to beautifully and efficiently solve problems in every kind of setting except reality. Human nature ALWAYS is the bane of liberal policies working.

I think I have a quite accurate perception of what liberalism is about.
No, you don't.

2) Coulter's contribution is two fold. She reminds conservatives that they should be unapologetic about being on the right side of things and she provides mountains of ammunition for conservatives. OF COURSE YOU see her as making no real kind of contribution. But your fine with the school paying a totally unqualified, sleazy partisan (Sheehan) to use her dead son for a political smear campaign? THAT is contributing NOTHING real to the debate.
When did I say that I approved of Sheehan being paid? You're putting words in my mouth, mister. I object to Sheehan as well. I find her to be overly radical and blatantly partisan, and I don't feel that she provides much contribution to debate.

This is exactly what I am talking about with liberals. YOU don't value her judgment, so it wasn't that big of a deal that she received death threats and was not allowed to give the other side of the war debate. YOU don't get to decide for people what ACCEPTABLE speech is to allow. It is precisely this arrogance that leads liberals to constantly violate people's civil liberties in the pursuit of THEIR ideal world.
The fact that I don't value her judgement is based on the fact that she is a demagogue and a partisan hack that genuinely produces no positive contribution to debate, not the fact that she is a right-winger. I think that Michael Moore (who is not nearly as bad as Coulter) is biased and partisan as well, and I object to many of the things that he says. It's not a matter of ideology, it's a matter of her being a terrible, terrible person that is entirely irrational. I have no problem with right-wingers as a whole, I have a problem with loudmouthed hacks.

Labor unions violate your right to free assembly when they FORCE you to join and/or pay union dues (in the few cases in which you get to decide whether or not to join, you still have to pay, and ALL the money goes straight to Democrats-what if you oppose Democrats? You still have to give them money? What an outrage!) in order to get or keep a job.
What? Labor unions are private organizations, you realize. Last time I checked, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private organizations, only governmental institutions. Even if it may be de facto forcing you to join (which is not the case - especially as of late), there is no law on the books that forces you to join a labor union, in the same way that there is no law that forces you to register for a specific political party to get promotions in civil service occupations. My father, for example, was essentially forced to register as a Republican in order to get any advancement in his job. Is that corrupt? Yes. Is it illegal? No.
They launch lawsuits to force Christians-and only Christians-to take down any religious symbols about Christmas, while making it so that kids have to recite the seven pillars of Islam to graduate the seventh grade (that ACTUALLY happened in a school district in California).
Yeah. Let's get that Christian Persecution Complex rolling! You know what we should do? Point out isolated incidents as examples of the actions and philosophies of an entire group of people! Hey, last time I checked, nearly every senior governmental official is a Christian, about 88% of the country is Christian, and Christian lobbying groups have huge political power. Not only that, I highly doubt the whole "Islam" thing, and if that is true, it is just as egregious a breach of the 1st Amendment as the institutionalization of Christianity and is guaranteed to not be supported by any sane person.

Also, look up the case history of the ACLU sometime, they sue on behalf of Christians more often than I wager you would think.

If you want to go to a university, you almost always have to pay money that will help obscenely biased professors propagandize for Democrats. THAT is FAR MORE outrageous to do with students' tuitions.
What? If you disagree with a professor's political views, you have absolutely every right to object to the university and argue with the professor (in the proper place, of course), or exercise your freedom of choice and simply do not attend the unviersity.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Engimo said:
1) No, you don't.



2) When did I say that I approved of Sheehan being paid? You're putting words in my mouth, mister. I object to Sheehan as well. I find her to be overly radical and blatantly partisan, and I don't feel that she provides much contribution to debate.



3) The fact that I don't value her judgement is based on the fact that she is a demagogue and a partisan hack that genuinely produces no positive contribution to debate, not the fact that she is a right-winger. I think that Michael Moore (who is not nearly as bad as Coulter) is biased and partisan as well, and I object to many of the things that he says. It's not a matter of ideology, it's a matter of her being a terrible, terrible person that is entirely irrational. I have no problem with right-wingers as a whole, I have a problem with loudmouthed hacks.



4) What? Labor unions are private organizations, you realize. Last time I checked, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private organizations, only governmental institutions. Even if it may be de facto forcing you to join (which is not the case - especially as of late), there is no law on the books that forces you to join a labor union, in the same way that there is no law that forces you to register for a specific political party to get promotions in civil service occupations. My father, for example, was essentially forced to register as a Republican in order to get any advancement in his job. Is that corrupt? Yes. Is it illegal? No.


5) Yeah. Let's get that Christian Persecution Complex rolling! You know what we should do? Point out isolated incidents as examples of the actions and philosophies of an entire group of people! Hey, last time I checked, nearly every senior governmental official is a Christian, about 88% of the country is Christian, and Christian lobbying groups have huge political power. Not only that, I highly doubt the whole "Islam" thing, and if that is true, it is just as egregious a breach of the 1st Amendment as the institutionalization of Christianity and is guaranteed to not be supported by any sane person.

6) Also, look up the case history of the ACLU sometime, they sue on behalf of Christians more often than I wager you would think.



7) What? If you disagree with a professor's political views, you have absolutely every right to object to the university and argue with the professor (in the proper place, of course), or exercise your freedom of choice and simply do not attend the unviersity.


1) In response to that devastating comeback, yes I do.

2) If you didn't want to miscommunicate your disapproval for either getting paid, then you should have expressed your disdain for both. But either way, it is resolved now.

3) Michael Moore is worse than Coulter because his (like Franken's) works don't withstand ten seconds of serious scrutiny and fact-checking. Coulter ususally gets her facts right. Regardless of her value to YOU, she is an appropriate counterpart for Sheehan on the war, and her civil liberties are just as important.

4) If you are a carpenter and every carpenter job in all the land is unionized, and the Supreme Court has legitimized every one of these jobs forcing you to give money to Democrats to join, you have no choice but to pay Democrats. You bet your ass that's a violation of free assembly. Ask your liberal allies at the ACLU. And if your father was forced to do that then his rights were violated too (which I doubt actually happened) but 9x out of 10, it is liberals who do thing like this because they are always the ones who have to operate outside of public support. It is why liberals love the judicial branch so much. It is unaccountable to the people, hence, a friend of the left.

5) I'm sure there were people like you saying things like that to blacks in the 1960s too. But I have watched this happen my whole life. It is FAR from isolated, it is standard operating procedure for the left.

6) Based on your other assumptions and acts of bigotry on this thread, I don't trust anything you say about that.

7) And if 95% of the colleges are like that where do you go? This "freedom to choose" you speak of isn't actually real.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
3) Michael Moore is worse than Coulter because his (like Franken's) works don't withstand ten seconds of serious scrutiny and fact-checking. Coulter ususally gets her facts right. Regardless of her value to YOU, she is an appropriate counterpart for Sheehan on the war, and her civil liberties are just as important.
Every statement in that paragraph is untrue. If you can name a single falsehood in one of Franken's books that he has not recanted or apologized for, I will be incredibly impressed. Coulter gets things wrong all the time. Let's look at a quote from the mouth of the beast, shall we?

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Nice, Ann.

Also, the Columbia Journalism Review states that there are over twenty items in Coulter's book that "would not pass [a fact-check] without major debate."

http://cjr.org/issues/2002/6/slander-scherer.asp

For more analysis of the falsehoods in her books:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html



4) If you are a carpenter and every carpenter job in all the land is unionized, and the Supreme Court has legitimized every one of these jobs forcing you to give money to Democrats to join, you have no choice but to pay Democrats. You bet your ass that's a violation of free assembly. Ask your liberal allies at the ACLU. And if your father was forced to do that then his rights were violated too (which I doubt actually happened) but 9x out of 10, it is liberals who do thing like this because they are always the ones who have to operate outside of public support. It is why liberals love the judicial branch so much. It is unaccountable to the people, hence, a friend of the left.
I'm not sure why you think I would lie about my father, but you're welcome to be skeptical for absolutely no reason at all. :confused:

Can you explain how the Supreme Court has any sway over the internal operations of private organizations, and how such sway would constitute a violation of the right to assembly?

5) I'm sure there were people like you saying things like that to blacks in the 1960s too. But I have watched this happen my whole life. It is FAR from isolated, it is standard operating procedure for the left.
Except in the 1960's there were no black members of the government, blacks were denied voting rights, were second-class citizens, and did not comprise the vast majority of the country.

The government is nearly-entirely Christian, there are no laws depriving Christians of rights, Christians are not treated as second-class citizens, and they comprise about 88% of the country. Is there a reason that the majority would be persecuting itself? The bottom line is that there is no Christian persecution going on, as this is a predominantly Christian country. Any thing you point out that you mark as such is simply an isolated incident or not persecution at all.

6) Based on your other assumptions and acts of bigotry on this thread, I don't trust anything you say about that.
I think that calling me a bigot is rather harsh and entirely baseless, but I'll let the ad hominem's slide. A simple google search for "ACLU defends Christians" turns up:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html

Let's look at it, shall we?

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

And the best:

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

There are many others, of course, but if the ACLU is so against Christians, why would they take a pro-bono case for Jerry Falwell, a well-known Christian evangelist?
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Gee...maybe poor Ms. Coulter should take a lesson from Bush and get those pre-screened audiences?

I don't think universities are liberal hotbeds, I think they're truth hotbeds, and they resent someone coming in there and lying right to their face.

And let's face it, Ms. Coulter is a master at lying, distortion and manipulating facts.

It takes someone of the caliber of Peter Beinhart to wipe away the facade of heavy makeup and reveal the ignorant witch beneath! LOL
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hoot said:
Gee...maybe poor Ms. Coulter should take a lesson from Bush and get those pre-screened audiences?

I don't think universities are liberal hotbeds, I think they're truth hotbeds, and they resent someone coming in there and lying right to their face.

And let's face it, Ms. Coulter is a master at lying, distortion and manipulating facts.

It takes someone of the caliber of Peter Beinhart to wipe away the facade of heavy makeup and reveal the ignorant witch beneath! LOL

What a steaming load. Not ONE of you liberals has been able to debunk her. Franken tried, but he was laughed out of town. Busting him was easier than almost any liberal liar yet.

EVERY SINGLE non-partisan study done on campuses across the country demonstrates OVERWHELMINGLY that faculty at universities are very, very far left of where mainstream America is.

Nice try. Stop lying.




Another example of how liberal (hence, opposed to debate, thought, and freedom of speech) campuses are happened recently to Dinesh D'Souza. He is one of the most brilliant conservatives I have ever read. On 1-24-06 I saw him on the news explaining why he was disinvited to speak at a school after liberal teachers threatened to quit if he was allowed to speak. (Some free exchange of ideas). I think the reason liberals always try to shut down conservative voices instead of showing a spine, having some confidence in their own arguments, and confronting them is that they know they cannot contend with their points. Liberals do not think. They only feel. They operate on hysteria and conspiracy theories, never on facts and logic. This is why they always throw the Constitution out the window when it comes time to practice what they preach.
 
Last edited:

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Simon W. Moon said:
Really?
The first one?
I've seen this canard trotted out so many times that I've lost count. The standard thing is for them to say "See? It says socialist right there in the name- National Socialist Party."
To which I say, "Well North Korea must be democratic. See? It says democratic right in the name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
I've also seen that claim made quite often. Party names don't mean much. It's hard to expect much from aquapub.
 
Top Bottom