Liberals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Definition:

Liberty
Invading
Beauracratic
Erratic
Rights
Appropriating
Liars
Appopriate - vt 1. to take for one's own use
2. to take improperly, as without permission
3. to set aside for a specific use{appropriate funds)
:eek: I am preaching to the choir I'm sure ;)

Ps I know you all knew the definition but it fit so well straight from Websters I couldn't resist.....
I came up with this 'cause acronyms are fun :)
 
Last edited:
A "Liberal":

One who wants to feed the poor, house the homeless, cure the sick and spread peace and love all over the world....













.... with someone else's money. Mostly yours.
 
Okay, I'll Take the Bait

My Original:

1) we're smarter than you;
2) we know what's best;
3) we have a right to your money;
4) we have a right to tell you what to do;
5) we only respect civil rights when they're the ones WE like; and
6) we have no qualms with using the government to impose
our agenda on you (which is okay, really, since you're all just a bunch of stupid rednecks anyway).
Click to expand...

So, this is the agenda of the Right?

1) "We're smarter than you." I've heard a lot of things said about the Right, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone accuse them of claiming intellectual superiority. In fact, by working towards affecting policies that reduce regulatory controls and by letting people keep more of their money, conservatives are implicitly acknowledging that the people know better than they. Now, on the other hand, sit down with Pelosi, Boxer, and say, Kerry, and ask them what they think of us folks in the red states. Here's a hint: they won't tell you they've been hitting the library because they feel the need to catch up. Any way you slice it, intellectual snobbery is the distinct province of the Left.

2) "We know what's best." Hmmmm, let's see: assault weapons bans, gun registration, burdensome regulatory schemes, nanny state policies etc . . . all brought to us by the likes of Reagan, Gingrich, and GWB, right?

3) "We have a right to your money." Please . . . do we really need to compare the tax policies of the Left and the Right?

4) "We have the right to tell you what to do." Let's see, statements like "Turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America . . ." and "you're going to have to give some things up for the common good . . ." were said by the likes of Bob Barr and Tom DeLay, right?

5) "We have no qualms with using the government to impose
our agenda on you (which is okay, really, since you're all just a bunch of stupid rednecks anyway)." Let's see: judicial activism ("'the people' really means 'the states,' but it is rather charming that you silly laymen would expect words to mean what they say"). That judicial philosophy is championed by Justice Scalia's camp, right?

Let's face it, the core philosophy of the modern Left is a mixture of New Deal "soft" socialism and the more insidious (yet often covert) hardcore communism of 60s radicalism. With that in mind, I think you've got a hard sell ahead of you if you're going to try and turn this one around on the Right.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the side issue of comparative poverty in West Virginia, the Dishonorable Robert Byrd is one of THE fattest leftist hogs at the trough in Washigton. His shameless self aggrandizement, either by having every pork project in WVA named for him or by amassing a personal fortune in kickbacks, has not improved the lot of the poor in his state to any appreciable degree, yet billions have gone down that hole for years...and he's the first one to point the finger at Bush and the Republicans for their economic policies. What a turd.
 
vitesse9 said:
2) "We know what's best." Hmmmm, let's see: assault weapons bans, gun registration, burdensome regulatory schemes, nanny state policies etc . . . all brought to us by the likes of Reagan, Gingrich, and GWB, right?

4) "We have the right to tell you what to do." Let's see, statements like "Turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America . . ." and "you're going to have to give some things up for the common good . . ." were said by the likes of Bob Barr and Tom DeLay, right?

5) "We have no qualms with using the government to impose
our agenda on you (which is okay, really, since you're all just a bunch of stupid rednecks anyway)." Let's see: judicial activism ("'the people' really means 'the states,' but it is rather charming that you silly laymen would expect words to mean what they say"). That judicial philosophy is championed by Justice Scalia's camp, right?
Click to expand...

Gay marriage.
 
Gay Marriage (Amendment) & (Opposing) Roe v. Wade

Liberals always start harping on gay marriage and abortion as examples of how the Right is trying to shove its agenda down their throats. But, what they fail to understand is that conservatives object to the manner in which these issues become "rights" just as much as they object to the substance thereof. Plain and simple, conservatives have DEMANDED that the people-- not the unelected, and politically unaccountable members of the federal judiciary-- create or abolish constitutional rights. The current debate over gay marriage seeks a Constitutional amendment to decide the issue rather than waiting around and letting the judiciary "find" a fundamental right to gay marriage nowhere stated in the text of the Constitution. With respect to Roe v. Wade, conservatives simply seek to undue the same sort of judicial activism.

Here's another way to put it: the only way rights may be constitutionally added or removed from the Constitution is through the amendment process. But Liberals have not been willing to respect this principle, seeking instead to use the courts to create and remove such rights under the guise of judicial review. It's the same principle whether the 9th circuit decides to "interpret" a personal right out of the Second Amendment or whether the Warren Court decides to "find" a right to an abortion in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Whatever your views on gay marriage and Abortion, you have to admit that it is the Left, not the Right, who seeks to subvert the will of the people by avoiding the amendment process. Conservatives are doing nothing heavy handed by demanding that this constitutional process be respected.

So, IMHO, these two issues are non-starters.
 
Last edited:
the only way rights may be constitutionally added
Click to expand...
Silly me, I didn't know our rights only existed if specified on paper. I thought I was living in America where it is understood that the Bill of Rights is considered inclusive, not exclusive.

The constitutional amendments exist to affirm and delineate rights that are already thought to exist, or to take certain rights away as being in the national good.

An amendment on marriage mainly takes away the ability of states to define marriage IN THAT STATE. Now which party is usually cited as being for state's rights?



I'm neither a liberal or conservative. You both can be the pot talking to the kettle until you're black in the face. Talking about the liberal spending habits in light of the current deficit is really absurd.
 
its about integration and slavery....(one of the few times liberals were right!)

Let me explain. Since after the war, the liberal north has dictated to the south what they should be like(the north).....In some cases it was needed(read my posts title).....However, the liberal north has now decided that "We were right then, so we must still be right now!":rolleyes: ......Making almost all of their arguments appear to be social issues based in emotion :barf: .....'94 ban,'86 ban, .50 ban, abortion :( ....
 
Silly me, I didn't know our rights only existed if specified on paper. I thought I was living in America where it is understood that the Bill of Rights is considered inclusive, not exclusive.
Click to expand...

Handy, you're right, to a point. 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

I guess the question comes down to what rights were "retained by the people." Now, I believe that the rights referred to in the 9th Amendment were the traditional rights of Englishmen circa 1776 (e.g. the right to property, due process, to bear arms etc.). I don't believe the rights referred to in the Constitution were whatever social cause du jour the radical Left wants to impose on us. Do you really think the founders would have envisioned a fundamental right to gay marriage as part of the panoply of unenumerated rights protected by the Constitution? What about the right to an abortion? If not, then you're back to the Amendment process.

And, a federal gay marriage amendment would not be necessary if the federal courts hadn't demonstrated a long pattern of judicial activism. Call it a preemptive strike if you want.
 
Last edited:
Do you really think the founders would have envisioned a fundamental right to gay marriage as part of the panoply of unenumerated rights protected by the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Do YOU think the founders would have conceived of an entitlement system for those who are "married", and then would have tried to protect that exclusive entitlement with an Amendment?


Equal protection under the law.
 
Handy, you're moving the goal post:

Do YOU think the founders would have conceived of an entitlement system for those who are "married", and then would have tried to protect that exclusive entitlement with an Amendment?


Equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

Whether the founders would have conceived, as you call it, "an entitlement system for those who are 'married,'" is irrelevant. The issue still remains:

1) if the "right" is not enumerated in the Constitution, or
2) it is not protected by the 9th Amendment, then

it may only be added or restricted by a constitutional Amendment. That is exactly what is being proposed.

And, the Equal Protection argument holds no water because homosexuals are not members of a suspect class. They'd only get rational basis review. Besides, no one is telling them they can't get married-- they have the same right as you or I: to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I suppose bigamists and people who want to marry their brothers or sisters are also being denied "equal protection of the law"?
 
Last edited:
The whole marriage thing is not, at its heart, a homosexual issue. The issue is; why does the Federal government, with a mandate to treat all of its citizens equally, offer additional legal protections and entitlements to only those who engage in a traditional, sexual union?

I say sexual union because the Federal government will not consider a man and woman married if they do not or have not had sex. It is a standard for immigration status and a standard for annulling a marriage.


So how is it that the Federal government is offering "equal protection under law", if the only people who can legally form this type of protectionist union agree to have heterosexual sex? You're supporting an amendment that would formally make bedroom activities the standard for determining property rights, next-of-kin medical decisions and guardianship of minors.

If that happens to sound stupid to you as well, here's the amendment to support:

The United States will no longer recognize "marriage" as a legal status granting extra rights and privledges to those who enter into it. "Marriage" is a traditional religion based institution which has nothing to do with rights as recognized by this secular government. This prohibition does not prevent states from recognizing civil unions between any such people who wish to form one for the purpose of establishing legal protections.

You want to protect marriage? Stop making it the legal business of the government, then no one will need the government to recognize theirs.
 
The whole marriage thing is not, at its heart, a homosexual issue. The issue is; why does the Federal government, with a mandate to treat all of its citizens equally, offer additional legal protections and entitlements to only those who engage in a traditional, sexual union?

I say sexual union because the Federal government will not consider a man and woman married if they do not or have not had sex. It is a standard for immigration status and a standard for annulling a marriage.


So how is it that the Federal government is offering "equal protection under law", if the only people who can legally form this type of protectionist union agree to have heterosexual sex? You're supporting an amendment that would formally make bedroom activities the standard for determining property rights, next-of-kin medical decisions and guardianship of minors.
Click to expand...

First of all, I think you overstate the federal government's "mandate to treat all of its citizens equally." The Equal Protection analysis as applied to the federal government (through the due process clause of the 5th Amendment) requires only that unequal treatment be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, unless the class unequally treated is a suspect class or quasi-suspect class. As stated before, homosexuals are not members of either class. So, certainly for our purposes, there is no absolute mandate for the federal government to "treat all of its citizens equally."

Second, marriage is not primarily a "sexual union." Marriage is primarily a contract. And, both the states and the federal government have the authority to regulate contracts. For instance, no state would allow contracts for the killing of another person. Such a contract would be void because its purpose is clearly illegal. So, if you acknowledge that the government has the authority to regulate contracts, you can't deny that the government has the authority to regulate marriage.

As for your idea for a constitutional amendment, if you could get it passed and ratified I would have no trouble with it. That's what the amendment process is for.
 
Actually, it is about the family - the basic building block of all civilized societies - and even most all of the remaining uncivilized ones. The marriage of a man and a woman is the beginning of a family.
 
LAK,

The problem is that two old plutonic spinsters might be living together and be the only family in the world to each other. Why aren't they "family" enough to inherit property or make medical decisions for each other? Why can't these two people who own a house together not file joint taxes? What is so important about "marriage" that some other version of family doesn't have the same access to GOVERNMENT entitlements?
 
The gay issue is something that I am very passionate about. To call yourself a citizen of the home of the free nowadays is a joke!

Why would you want to turn our government in the opposite direction of progress by including an amdendment that is just as ignorant as slavery?

Homosexuality is genetic, its not a choice. Think about it. Did YOU choose to be straight? When you look at a beautiful woman do you think the feeling you get is a choice? No it isnt, its a natural unavoidable compulsion.

Gays should enjoy the same rights as the the rest of us. Open up your mind people. DOes the presence of gays out there make you want to turn gay? THere is no gay agenda except they are tired of being treated like sub-humans. They are different, get over it.

I thought Republicans are for LESS goverment intrusion? Oh, or does that only apply if you are in the millionaire tax bracket? I am really tired of people on here bashing Liberals. I am a Liberal and I am for sensible gun rights.

Liberal = free Liberate= to free , in other words free your minds people

Conservative= to conserve, stay the same. imagine if we stayed the same as the days when women were stoned to death in public for premarital sex as they were in the bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top