Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[PaintMyHouse]

A modern liberal is the same as a liberal 230 years ago, only much smarter and dealing with a much different world.

That's not even close to accurate. In fact its LIE...

Nope. I'm a liberal so I would know.

You know nothing of classical liberalism. You are in fact a polar opposite of the concept.

Classical liberalism is modern conservative/libertarianism.

tell Dr Strangelove that....he thinks modern liberalism and classical liberalism are one on the same.

They are, only we are much smarter...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Classical liberals believed that individuals needed to be protected from government, and that business/corporations/capitalists were not threat.

The horrors of the Industrial Revolution, perpetrated by the capitalists, educated the educable.

From that came modern day liberalism/socialism that realizes that government is the protector, not the threat.

Utter nonsense. Corporations were viewed as points of corruption for government from the earliest time in this nation, by the real liberals who promoted the economics and social views that PC and I promote.

As with Unions, there is nothing inherently bad in corporations, it is only when government gets in bed with either, that damage is done.

Government in bed with the corporate world is where we get crony capitalism.
It is also where the two major political parties lose their distinctive ideological characteristics.
For example...Liberals are incensed over the existence of wealthy donors to the GOP and conservative causes.
They are equally welcoming of wealthy donors to the democrat party and liberal causes.
Liberals curse the Koch brothers. They worship George Soros and Bill Gates.
The issue culminates in hypocrisy of liberals such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who are BOTH very friendly to wealthy interests in the financial industry while in their speeches they take shots at the very same people to which they owe their very political existence.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Which is all concisely put in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"..
You people on the left have conveniently ignored the part after the comma....And you've twisted that to mean "freedom FROM religion.....
Two things. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state"....There is no right to freedom from being exposed to religion...
And finally, you may not with respect to government institutions and those funded by tax dollars may favor one religion over another. Nor is it legal to promote ANY religion.....

And yet we have laws limiting both freedoms. Please explain, if you can...

Why should I explain anything. You stated there are laws regarding this. Post them

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First off, we were discussing freedom of religion.
Second, you knwo better than to use wiki.
Third, you are a little late to the table...Any idiot knows our rights are not absolute.
Again, you were told to stop arguing.
One thing you libs never understand is to quit arguing when there is nothing about which to argue.
You're wrong about this on many levels . Even a fellow lib poster disagrees and offers support for his objection to your insistence the modern liberalism and classical liberalism are one in the same. They are not. They are polar opposites.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Which is all concisely put in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"..
You people on the left have conveniently ignored the part after the comma....And you've twisted that to mean "freedom FROM religion.....
Two things. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state"....There is no right to freedom from being exposed to religion...
And finally, you may not with respect to government institutions and those funded by tax dollars may favor one religion over another. Nor is it legal to promote ANY religion.....

And yet we have laws limiting both freedoms. Please explain, if you can...

Why should I explain anything. You stated there are laws regarding this. Post them

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First off, we were discussing freedom of religion.
Second, you knwo better than to use wiki.
Third, you are a little late to the table...Any idiot knows our rights are not absolute.
Again, you were told to stop arguing.
One thing you libs never understand is to quit arguing when there is nothing about which to argue.
You're wrong about this on many levels . Even a fellow lib poster disagrees and offers support for his objection to your insistence the modern liberalism and classical liberalism are one in the same. They are not. They are polar opposites.

He's wrong, and so are you. Explain the limitations, or go away.

And when you're done with free speech, move on to this. Freedom of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And

The U.S. Puts 'Moderate' Restrictions on Religious Freedom

 

[PoliticalChic]

But I've been generous.....I allow you to identify as any totalitarian....
communist, socialist, Liberal, Progressive, Nazi, or fascist.


You can even change the name daily!


Really....could I be more kind?

Namecalling is the sign you've lost the argument. wasn't that once your claim?

Not if I do it.

Then it is simply 'accurately describing.'

I had a professor who explained it thus:
"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."


Did you want some carrots?

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

"A swift death is kinder than what the leftist generally leaves, the existence on the verge of starvation and exposure to elements."

You've got quite the point there.



"During the early 1930s every non-apparatchik in the USSR was hungry, and the peasants were starving in their millions. The zeks [prisoners] of the gulag, from 1918 to 1956, were always somewhere in between.
The mature gulag ran on food and the deprivation of food. Illuminatingly, the history of Communism keeps bringing us back to this: the scarcity or absence of food.

[In] his natural indifference to all human suffering Frenkel was an excellent Bolshevik.It was he who advised Stalin to run the gulag on the steady deprivation of food.

Again they used norms and quotas:
for the full norm: 700 grams of bread, plus soup and buckwheatfor those not attaining the norm: 400 grams of bread, plus soup

The ‘full norm' was near-unachievable (sometimes more than 200 times higher than the Tsarist equivalent).A socialist-realist superman might manage it, for a time. But you were not meant to manage it. As the zek increasingly fell further behind the norm, he weakened further too, and his ration would soon be demoted to ‘punitive' (300 grams).

As for the rations, [historian Robert] Conquest cites those of the Japanese POW camps on the River Kwai: ‘There, prisoners got a daily ration norm of 700 grams of rice, 600 of vegetables, 100 of meat, 20 of sugar, 20 of salt, and 5 of oil…';all these items were, of course, great rarities and delicacies in the archipelago.Solzhenitsyn describes a seven-ounce loaf (218 grams): ‘sticky as clay, a piece little bigger than a matchbox…'"
Martin Amis, "Koba The Dread."



Under socialism, the hero is the one who 'improves' the way of the collective, no matter the cost in human lives....or supports the Iran Nuclear Treaty.

I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America.

Yes, liberal, socialist America.

So very much you don't 'realize.'

Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

The internment camps were ruled constitutional:

"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this."

A very conservative ruling, wouldn't you say?

...submitting to the military's concern for security, and submitting to the will of the Congress?

Sounds EXACTLY like modern conservative reasoning.

Let's remind that neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his New Dealers had any respect for the United States Constitution.

His view on concentration camps for his own citizens was consistent with that of his BFF, Joseph Stalin.


" It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress.A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63


Oh....and one more fact: the very first Justice that Roosevelt decided belonged on the Supreme Court was KKK official, Hugo Black.
In 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU




Who was a worse choice or America, Hugo Black, or Franklin Roosevelt?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The unborn baby is not 'their body.'
It is a totally different, unique individual with it's own DNA, fingerprints, organs, etc.

That just happens to be unable to live on its own.

But it is still alive. A baby that has actually been born is also not able to live without it's mother. Does that mean we should kill it?

It's not complicated....let the woman who is effected and whose business it is work it out with her doctor. It's none of anybody else's god damned business.

"It's none of anybody else's god damned business."

Well....perhaps only those opposed to murder.

That leaves you out, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. SCOTUS - U.S. v. Butler (1936):
Syllabus:
"The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]
Opinion:
"Nevertheless the Government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare"; that the phrase should be liberally [p65] construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination, and finally that the appropriation under attack was, in fact, for the general welfare of the United States." [Emphasis Added]

Your argument relies on what seems to be your definition of "general welfare." I would be interested in a further explanation...

It's not my opinion of the case I cited or the definition of "the general welfare" in Art.I, Sec 1, Cls 1. It was the opinion of SCOTUS in Jan 1936 as written by Justice Owen Roberts, which has now become the Law of the Land. I can't take credit for any wisdom which came before my birth or after that did not spring from my own mind. That would be dishonest.

You can read the opinion of Justice Roberts in US v. Butler here for his reasoning and logic:
United States v. Butler

Time for another lesson?
Sure.

1. Article I, section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;….
   1. Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.
   2. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers? If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?" 'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams
   3. According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money,but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of ArticleI, Section 8,and else where in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years. General Welfare
   4. In 1937 the Constitution was shredded. Up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes. Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness. The General Welfare Clause
      

Thus.....we are now saddled with $18.4 trillion dollars in national debt.

And you are nearly as great a mistake as Roosevelt was.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Damn, but you are a gadfly!

What I know is you pulled the tail of a she-wolf.

I don't always agree with PC, but she has tenacity.

I would never confuse tenacity with indifference to honesty, good character or outright unwarranted chutzpah.

Oooo.....look who's sulking because of the spankings I've been forced to administer.

Look for more ahead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Namecalling is the sign you've lost the argument. wasn't that once your claim?

Not if I do it.

Then it is simply 'accurately describing.'

I had a professor who explained it thus:
"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."


Did you want some carrots?

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America.

Yes, liberal, socialist America.

So very much you don't 'realize.'

Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

The internment camps were ruled constitutional:

"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this."

A very conservative ruling, wouldn't you say?

...submitting to the military's concern for security, and submitting to the will of the Congress?

Sounds EXACTLY like modern conservative reasoning.

Let's remind that neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his New Dealers had any respect for the United States Constitution.

His view on concentration camps for his own citizens was consistent with that of his BFF, Joseph Stalin.


" It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress.A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63


Oh....and one more fact: the very first Justice that Roosevelt decided belonged on the Supreme Court was KKK official, Hugo Black.
In 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU




Who was a worse choice or America, Hugo Black, or Franklin Roosevelt?

Opinionated tripe.

It's funny to hear a Bush loving neocon like yourself rant against a president who listened to his generals and put security first in a time of war.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Namecalling is the sign you've lost the argument. wasn't that once your claim?

Not if I do it.

Then it is simply 'accurately describing.'

I had a professor who explained it thus:
"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."


Did you want some carrots?

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America.

Yes, liberal, socialist America.

So very much you don't 'realize.'

Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

The internment camps were ruled constitutional:

"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this."

A very conservative ruling, wouldn't you say?

...submitting to the military's concern for security, and submitting to the will of the Congress?

Sounds EXACTLY like modern conservative reasoning.

Let's remind that neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his New Dealers had any respect for the United States Constitution.

His view on concentration camps for his own citizens was consistent with that of his BFF, Joseph Stalin.


" It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress.A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63


Oh....and one more fact: the very first Justice that Roosevelt decided belonged on the Supreme Court was KKK official, Hugo Black.
In 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU




Who was a worse choice or America, Hugo Black, or Franklin Roosevelt?

Let's hear you tell us Michelle Malkin is full of it.

Quoting her on her book In Defense of Internment:

"I was compelled to write this book after watching ethnic activists, historians, and politicians repeatedly play the World War II internment card after the September 11 attacks.

The Bush Administration’s critics have equated every reasonable measure to interrogate, track, detain, and deport potential terrorists with the "racist" and "unjustified” World War II internment policies of President Roosevelt.

To make amends for this "shameful blot" on our history, both Japanese-American and Arab/Muslim-American activists argue against any and all uses of race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in shaping current homeland security policies. Misguided guilt about the past continues to hamper our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks."

Now watch how I've just compelled PC to either shut up, post something totally unresponsive to the above, or blurt out some more personal insults

lol

In Defense of Internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh but until the point at which any litigation resolves the issue, it IS protected free speech...
I cite the "Crucifix in Urine" case.
Christians were highly offended by this display.
There were lawsuits demanding the exhibit be removed. The courts ruled the display while offensive to some was indeed protected free speech
A more recent example it the ongoing issue with Westboro Baptist Church. Unfortunately, their right to free speech while offensive, untrue and harms others, is protected.
Has complainants prevailed in court in either one of these issues, the speech would then no longer be protected.

So, basically murder is protected free speech up until the point where the judge says "you murdered someone and you're sentenced to death" then?

Your "Crucifix in Urine" case would be an example of where the courts have ruled that someone is protected. If they had ruled otherwise then it wouldn't have been protected. No one is saying that libel isn't tricky. It's basically self censorship, but censorship it is. Often law is judged by humans who aren't the most consistent of animals.

The point here is that free speech IS limited and it's limited by laws on libel.
Just as laws on murder mean if you murder someone you're supposed to get locked up for life or frazzled. However various people go to court and they get off. Doesn't mean murder is legal until you get proven guilty. It's illegal no matter what. You just might not get caught, you might not get convicted etc.

Libel is illegal, however you might not get caught, you might not get sued, you might not end up paying anything.

Holy shit....Can you come up with a better disconnect than that?
How in the hell can you make the great leap from speech or written word to murder is a mystery.
That isn't a straw man argument. You used an entire hay field for that one

Well done, you've managed to completely ignore the point. I wonder why you feel the need to completely ignore it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh but until the point at which any litigation resolves the issue, it IS protected free speech...
I cite the "Crucifix in Urine" case.
Christians were highly offended by this display.
There were lawsuits demanding the exhibit be removed. The courts ruled the display while offensive to some was indeed protected free speech
A more recent example it the ongoing issue with Westboro Baptist Church. Unfortunately, their right to free speech while offensive, untrue and harms others, is protected.
Has complainants prevailed in court in either one of these issues, the speech would then no longer be protected.

So, basically murder is protected free speech up until the point where the judge says "you murdered someone and you're sentenced to death" then?

Your "Crucifix in Urine" case would be an example of where the courts have ruled that someone is protected. If they had ruled otherwise then it wouldn't have been protected. No one is saying that libel isn't tricky. It's basically self censorship, but censorship it is. Often law is judged by humans who aren't the most consistent of animals.

The point here is that free speech IS limited and it's limited by laws on libel.
Just as laws on murder mean if you murder someone you're supposed to get locked up for life or frazzled. However various people go to court and they get off. Doesn't mean murder is legal until you get proven guilty. It's illegal no matter what. You just might not get caught, you might not get convicted etc.

Libel is illegal, however you might not get caught, you might not get sued, you might not end up paying anything.

Libel is NOT illegal. Neither is slander. The term "illegal" applies only to criminal statutes.
Here's an education for you....
If someone calls you an asshole and then through lets say social media, slanders you to the point where your reputation or you means to make a living have been harmed, you cannot seek the police to rectify the problem. You must seek redress in the civil courts. However, if you confront this person and punch him in the face, you could be held on criminal sanctions, because there exists statutes which bar one person from physically causing harm to another.
Now you do have the option outside of the criminal courts to seek damages from the RESULT of the punch, but the criminal courts handle the punch itself.
We can ratchet that up to murder. If someone kills another person, it is up to the criminal courts to determine if the killing was a crime. However, in order for the family to recover any damages, they again must seek a remedy in the civil courts.
The OJ Simpson lawsuit ( Goldman V Simpson) even though the criminal Part resolved the criminal case as a not guilty, in Goldman, the jury decided they Simpson was indeed liable for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. The jury awarded the Goldman's $33 million..To date, Simpson has never spent a single day in prison for the deaths of Goldman and Brown-Simpson

illegal: definition of illegal in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Not necessarily.

"Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law:"

However it is used mainly by criminal law.

But it's neither here not there.

If free speech is 100%, then you could say whatever you like. Libel is one thing which prevents you saying whatever you like..... does it not?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not if I do it.

Then it is simply 'accurately describing.'

I had a professor who explained it thus:
"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."


Did you want some carrots?

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

So very much you don't 'realize.'

Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

The internment camps were ruled constitutional:

"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this."

A very conservative ruling, wouldn't you say?

...submitting to the military's concern for security, and submitting to the will of the Congress?

Sounds EXACTLY like modern conservative reasoning.

Let's remind that neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his New Dealers had any respect for the United States Constitution.

His view on concentration camps for his own citizens was consistent with that of his BFF, Joseph Stalin.


" It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress.A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63


Oh....and one more fact: the very first Justice that Roosevelt decided belonged on the Supreme Court was KKK official, Hugo Black.
In 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU




Who was a worse choice or America, Hugo Black, or Franklin Roosevelt?

Opinionated tripe.

It's funny to hear a Bush loving neocon like yourself rant against a president who listened to his generals and put security first in a time of war.

"...a president who listened to his generals...."

What???

Joseph Stalin was one of FDR's generals?


Hmmm.....could be.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The unborn baby is not 'their body.'
It is a totally different, unique individual with it's own DNA, fingerprints, organs, etc.

That just happens to be unable to live on its own.

But it is still alive. A baby that has actually been born is also not able to live without it's mother. Does that mean we should kill it?

A baby can live without its mother. Plenty of women in history have died in childbirth and the child has lived.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

The internment camps were ruled constitutional:

"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this."

A very conservative ruling, wouldn't you say?

...submitting to the military's concern for security, and submitting to the will of the Congress?

Sounds EXACTLY like modern conservative reasoning.

Let's remind that neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his New Dealers had any respect for the United States Constitution.

His view on concentration camps for his own citizens was consistent with that of his BFF, Joseph Stalin.


" It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress.A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63


Oh....and one more fact: the very first Justice that Roosevelt decided belonged on the Supreme Court was KKK official, Hugo Black.
In 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU




Who was a worse choice or America, Hugo Black, or Franklin Roosevelt?

Opinionated tripe.

It's funny to hear a Bush loving neocon like yourself rant against a president who listened to his generals and put security first in a time of war.

"...a president who listened to his generals...."

What???

Joseph Stalin was one of FDR's generals?


Hmmm.....could be.

You don't really know much about history do you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not if I do it.

Then it is simply 'accurately describing.'

I had a professor who explained it thus:
"The master is allowed, the donkey is not."


Did you want some carrots?

Sanitize that carrot first.

You must be thinking of Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
It was a

So very much you don't 'realize.'

Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?

And those are where today?

Let's review...to illustrate your childish pattern....

1. You: "I didn't realize liberal socialist America had gulags, or starvation. In fact it was you who said there are virtually no poor people in America."

2. Some brilliant poster who regualrly puts you in your place...last seat in the dumb row:
"Recall the fate of Japanese-Americans under Roosevelt?

"Although FDR himself called them "concentration camps,"..."
Did the United States put its own citizens in concentration camps during WWII?



3. The court jester, you: "And those are where today?"



Your latest post has changed your status from merely a hint of stupidity to an announcement.

The internment camps were ruled constitutional:

"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this."

A very conservative ruling, wouldn't you say?

...submitting to the military's concern for security, and submitting to the will of the Congress?

Sounds EXACTLY like modern conservative reasoning.

Let's remind that neither Franklin Roosevelt nor his New Dealers had any respect for the United States Constitution.

His view on concentration camps for his own citizens was consistent with that of his BFF, Joseph Stalin.


" It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress.A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 63


Oh....and one more fact: the very first Justice that Roosevelt decided belonged on the Supreme Court was KKK official, Hugo Black.
In 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU




Who was a worse choice or America, Hugo Black, or Franklin Roosevelt?

Let's hear you tell us Michelle Malkin is full of it.

Quoting her on her book In Defense of Internment:

"I was compelled to write this book after watching ethnic activists, historians, and politicians repeatedly play the World War II internment card after the September 11 attacks.

The Bush Administration’s critics have equated every reasonable measure to interrogate, track, detain, and deport potential terrorists with the "racist" and "unjustified” World War II internment policies of President Roosevelt.

To make amends for this "shameful blot" on our history, both Japanese-American and Arab/Muslim-American activists argue against any and all uses of race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in shaping current homeland security policies. Misguided guilt about the past continues to hamper our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks."

Now watch how I've just compelled PC to either shut up, post something totally unresponsive to the above, or blurt out some more personal insults

lol

In Defense of Internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And she chooses option number one. Stunned silence.

lol, I'm a miracle worker.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
I advocate for species-cide, the death of all humanity, but I know what is and isn't pro-life.

You may, you are a vile creature, but you advocate for the death of all Jews (or Zionists as you Nazi fucks call them) well in advance of the rest of humanity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"...a president who listened to his generals...."

What???

Joseph Stalin was one of FDR's generals?


Hmmm.....could be.

Funny, I always thought of FDR as one of Stalin's Lieutenants...

 

[sealybobo]

Liberals are the power in the political realm....and they illustrate what Lord Action meant about power absolutely corrupting those who control it.



1." ...do any of you actually remember a time when liberals truly supported and believed in freedom of speech.... genuine,bona fide agreement with the principle that liberty includes allowing those with whom you disagree to have access to the marketplace of ideas, and that this marketplace itself will decide which are the best ones. You know, Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," and all that?

I can't either. Probably nobody can who was not born during or before World War II,



2.... those on the Left do not believe in free speech. They simply do not accept the fundamental principle that people of all opinions ought to be able to express those opinions without being punished for it, or at least hindered to the greatest degree possible in their ability to express themselves.



3. [Thus the] editorial in Harvard's student newspaper The Crimson, in which Sandra Korn, a student columnist and "women's studies" major (who didn't see that one coming?) obligingly calls for academic totalitarianism,

"Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. .... No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?



"Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.



"The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...


There, in a nutshell, is the modern liberal attitude toward freedom of speech, and by extension freedom of thought. If research doesn't substantiate the cultural goals and priorities of today's Neo-Fascists, then we must ensure that it "does not continue." Why liberals hate freedom of speech



If speech refutes the Left's positions on any number of issues, then it has to be silenced. "Academic justice" means suppression of all those naughty things that people might say that contradict us.


As far as speech is concerned, the Left definitely prefers a command economy over the free market.

Fuck the troops.

America is wrong Isis is right

Christianity is a fairytale

Let illegal Mexicans become us citizens

Carson is an uncle Tom n"'get

Poor people should get abortions.

Gays are good people.

Corporations are evil.

I love free speech.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...a president who listened to his generals...."

What???

Joseph Stalin was one of FDR's generals?


Hmmm.....could be.

Funny, I always thought of FDR as one of Stalin's Lieutenants...

Hmmmm......well, he did take orders from Stalin....

....FDR forbid his army from aligning with anti-Nazi resistance in Germany,.....which would have shortened the war.


1. The Allied command was not allowed to support or associate itself with the anti-Nazi resistance. Following Stalin's orders, only unconditional surrender would be considered....an order which prolonged the war by as much as a year: the army which would have overthrown Hitler and surrendered to the Allies would not be allowed to expect any hand in determining conditions of their post-war treatment.



a. "A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime.
The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans — and particularly those German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so,were discouraged from making the attemptby their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country."
German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia