:stupid:

Sad thing is that is where he gets his news.

joeborden,

Your signature reads that you are a "card carrying member of the ACLU". ACLU, of course, contains the word liberty.

So tell me, do you support the purchase a gun to hunt or protect a home? Do you support a worker to have the liberty of keeping most (if not all) of his/her earned income? Do you support an employer having the liberty to hire the best candidate that he/she feels is best for the job, rather than adhere to federally-mandated quota based on discriminatory skin color? Do you support the idea of a consumer to purchase what he likes from whatever country its manufactured, without the blockade of tariffs and trade quotas created by the state to placate Big Union lobbyists? Do you support a parent to have the liberty of selecting which school and which district to send their child, even if its homeschooling, and receive a refund in their taxes that were going to public schools? Do you support a consumer's choice in which type of vehicle to buy, whether its a diesel VW or a Hummer H2? Do you support an elderly man's decision to allocate his own wealth to his closest relatives, without the government "double dip" taxing the amount again via coersion?

Answering "no" to any of these questions makes me wonder about your commitment to true traditional liberty.

BTW, did "Tom Tomorrow" create a similar cartoon when the US bombed the crapola out of Bosnia and Serbia, against another dictator who possessed zero threat to the United States?

Civil Liberties--not liberty. The former is a completely different bird. Civil liberties is a legal term denoting the amount of autonomy we can maintain as citizens of the United States. Liberty is a broader philosophical term about autonomy in general.

P.S. While I am not a member of the ACLU, they do support gun ownership (provided you don't go around using your guns on humans). They do support hiring practices that are typical in this nation and they support homeschooling because they have sued on the behalf of parents who wanted their children homeschooled.

So, you need to get your facts straight.

Sorry, klutz, but my facts are in order. You just needed to watch from the sidelines and wait around a little while. :rolleyes:

I didn't ask joeborden for the PolySci 101 textbook definition of the ACLU, I asked joeborden for his personal point of view. Based on his response, I was going to see if he supports classical/traditional liberalism as would've been championed by Ayn Rand or Adam Smith, or merely existing "civil liberties" not already restricted or regulated by law. Obviously, he's likely the latter, and I was going to make the brief comparison between traditional liberty and today's "civil liberty".

BTW... True liberty proponents are upset that Tommy Chong is being sent to prison (filled with violent scumbags) for 9 months for selling bongs over the Internet. (An honest question...) What is the ACLU's official position on a case like this?

Look people, the ACLU supports NAMBLA but tried to sue the BSA. Case closed. They are an organization full of buffoons.

Quote:...the ACLU supports NAMBLA

Now, this I didn't know. I wouldn't mind seeing a link to a story on this one. Seeing as how sex with a minor is not only illegal, but also considered coersion, I don't understand how any libertarian ("civil" or otherwise) would support this organization.

Motown Bronco Wrote:

Quote:...the ACLU supports NAMBLA

Now, this I didn't know. I wouldn't mind seeing a link to a story on this one. Seeing as how sex with a minor is not only illegal, but also considered coersion, I don't understand how any libertarian ("civil" or otherwise) would support this organization.

I, AS a Libertarian, don't know any Libertarian that supports the ACLU. You're right though, they did say a 13 Y/O has the right to sex. I'd have to dig the story up. It's been a while and it was posted on another board. You'll have to gemme a little time.

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98913,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98913,00.html</a>

<a href='http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1388' target='_blank'>http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/NEWS/n....asp?story=1388</a>

<a href='http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/NAMBLASexLiberation.pdf' target='_blank'>http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/NAM...xLiberation.pdf</a>




Oh, and they support partial-birth abortion as well:

<a href='http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=14332&c=148' target='_blank'>http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/Rep...?ID=14332&c=148</a>

....and the right of a teen NOT to inform their parents of an abortion:

<a href='http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=13111&c=223' target='_blank'>http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/Rep...?ID=13111&c=223</a>

So RebelKev, you're a Libertarian?

Have you got into any Nozick?

If so, what do you think?

KlutzDio I Wrote:So RebelKev, you're a Libertarian?

Have you got into any Nozick?

If so, what do you think?

He's a little too much of an anarchist for me. I agree with rules and laws so long as they don't hinder my right to do anything I want without affecting someone else's rights. I am for limited government because I feel the bigger the government, the fewer the rights we have (It's a survival instinct). I don't agree with everything Bush has done but feel the Democrats would be worse. Also, they are lost in their own hunger for power because they could find MUCH more to ***** about but choose to complain about things that weren't even Bush's fault to begin with. Ie. bitching about the war and other issues even though they voted for it.

I disagree with every party to an extent. I do not agree with the LP's isolationist stance and do not believe in partial birth abortion.

......and I pray that this works:

<a href='http://www.freestateproject.org/' target='_blank'>Free State Project</a>

...because neither of the mainstream parties will have a leg to stand on in reference to the governing of states.

Motown Bronco Wrote:Sorry, klutz, but my facts are in order. You just needed to watch from the sidelines and wait around a little while. :rolleyes:

I didn't ask joeborden for the PolySci 101 textbook definition of the ACLU, I asked joeborden for his personal point of view. Based on his response, I was going to see if he supports classical/traditional liberalism as would've been championed by Ayn Rand or Adam Smith, or merely existing "civil liberties" not already restricted or regulated by law. Obviously, he's likely the latter, and I was going to make the brief comparison between traditional liberty and today's "civil liberty".

BTW... True liberty proponents are upset that Tommy Chong is being sent to prison (filled with violent scumbags) for 9 months for selling bongs over the Internet. (An honest question...) What is the ACLU's official position on a case like this?

I would bet the ACLU supports Chong's right to sell bongs and smoke as much pot as he wants, as long as he doesn't impede on anyone else's rights in the process.

The ACLU, as I understand them (I'm not a member, nor do I carry any cards) does support gun ownership and home schooling. But, I'm not really sure, so I'll have to do some checking.

Kev, they support the right to abortion simply because in all reality, doctors should know when to abort a fetus, not some gray-haired, white-legged politicians up on Washington. It is more of a question of personal liberty and laissez-faire policies to allow patients and doctors the decision of when and when not to abort fetuses.
They support teenagers' rights not to have parental consent because some parents out there will abuse their kid if they find out she's pregnant. Not all parents will do this, but some parents would. Notifying parents their kid is about to have an abortion will open the door for some maniacal parents to beat their kid silly for getting pregnant in the first place (I don't really see how teenagers these days have time to get pregnant with all the freaking soccer they play). Some parents, furthermore, will go to the unsuspecting father's home (who is also a kid, more than likely) and beat that kid up for knocking up their daughter.

To be completely honest with you all, I could care less about abortion for several reasons:
1. I cannot give an abortion.
2. I cannot have an abortion.
3. I practice safe-sex as do the babes I sleep with.
4. I don't have any children at risk of getting pregnant.

Therefore, I could give a shee-aht about abortion. Abortion will not become a question in your life if one lives responsibly. But, if they made abortion illegal tomorrow, I could care less. If that happens, though, I'd bet some illegal abortions would take place, especially among the well-to-do irresponsible sluts.
What we really need to do is mandate abortion for those potential parents of low-moral worth. You know, the parents that'll let their kids annoy the two-total crap out of you, the hyper-irresponsible parents whose kids can do no wrong. Those type people should not be allowed to breed, but I know that this is ridiculous and will never happen.

But back to the other dude, Ayn Rand presents flawed, pseudo-philosophy. She basically criticizes Neitzschean subjectivism, then reiterates Neitzschean philosophy but calls it objectivism. She obviously didn't proofread her own books or she would have caught her own mistakes.
I know little abou t Smith, other than that he was an 18th century economist. What does he have to do with economic practices today?

Since I'm really at a loss on exactly what the ACLU does support and not support, I'll find their site and see for myself and also look for weaknesses in their positions. Without really knowing, though, I do read headlines and I know the ACLU supports organizations that have no friends, i.e. the Nazis and PETA.

RebelKev Wrote:He's a little too much of an anarchist for me. I agree with rules and laws so long as they don't hinder my right to do anything I want without affecting someone else's rights. I am for limited government because I feel the bigger the government, the fewer the rights we have (It's a survival instinct). I don't agree with everything Bush has done but feel the Democrats would be worse. Also, they are lost in their own hunger for power because they could find MUCH more to ***** about but choose to complain about things that weren't even Bush's fault to begin with. Ie. bitching about the war and other issues even though they voted for it.

I disagree with every party to an extent. I do not agree with the LP's isolationist stance and do not believe in partial birth abortion.

Then you are not a libertarian. You do not support the political party known as the Libertarian Party and you do not support the political philosophy of libertarianism.

Nozick's book was quite boring. The problems I had with his positions was he assumes we all have the same moral fiber, that we all want the same things and we all will behave responsibly. He does not account for greed and I think the society he outlines in Anarchy, State and Utopia would likely turn out like Medeival Europe.

Then again, I think Nozick was writing at a time when contemporary liberalism was running rampant (1970s) and he wanted to counter that "movement" with something a little more conservative and old-fashioned. He definitely wrote the book to counter John Rawls, his Harvard U. colleague.

Have you ever checked out the Constitution of Liberty by Hayek? I think your positions run similar to his, then again, you can't really categorize Hayek. He's took free-wheeling. Not a democrat, not a republican, not a liberal, not a libertarian, he's just Hayek.

I'm not a Libertarian because I don't support ALL of their issues? Hogwash. I walk lock-step with NO one but AM a Libertarian.

Alright,

1. There's the philosophical position of libertarianism.

2. There's the political party known as the Libertarian Party.

The two are not the same. The former is a philosophy created by Robert Nozick and some who came after him. The latter is the brainchild of libertarian political philosophers. Both have their weaknesses, but basically, if you support laws then you are not a libertarian. This is a big point where the Libertarian Party breaks with Robert Nozick.

I think we have a problem of vernacular here. I'm using terms as I learned them and I think you are speaking completely in political terms.

T-Monay820 Wrote::stupid:

Hey, Stupido, speaking of contradictions. . .

You apparently want to invade France next? And you think communists and dictators suck? Or just communist dictators? Free market dictators are okay in your world?

Pass some of that my way, will ya? It's puff, puff PASS. Keep it in rotation. :chair:

rickheel Wrote:Sad thing is that is where he gets his news.

Hey Rick! When you changing that sig like you promised six months ago?

BUSH WAS WRONG

Can you add (just as a personal favor to me):

I'M A MINDLESS SHILL SUCKING THE ****** OF CORPORATE AMERICA

Thanks buddy! :ownd:

Motown Bronco Wrote:joeborden,

Your signature reads that you are a "card carrying member of the ACLU". ACLU, of course, contains the word liberty.

So tell me, do you support the purchase a gun to hunt or protect a home? Do you support a worker to have the liberty of keeping most (if not all) of his/her earned income? Do you support an employer having the liberty to hire the best candidate that he/she feels is best for the job, rather than adhere to federally-mandated quota based on discriminatory skin color? Do you support the idea of a consumer to purchase what he likes from whatever country its manufactured, without the blockade of tariffs and trade quotas created by the state to placate Big Union lobbyists? Do you support a parent to have the liberty of selecting which school and which district to send their child, even if its homeschooling, and receive a refund in their taxes that were going to public schools? Do you support a consumer's choice in which type of vehicle to buy, whether its a diesel VW or a Hummer H2? Do you support an elderly man's decision to allocate his own wealth to his closest relatives, without the government "double dip" taxing the amount again via coersion?

Answering "no" to any of these questions makes me wonder about your commitment to true traditional liberty.

BTW, did "Tom Tomorrow" create a similar cartoon when the US bombed the crapola out of Bosnia and Serbia, against another dictator who possessed zero threat to the United States?

Motown Bronco:

There are things the ACLU does that I do not agree with. Overall, though, I'm pretty happy with their defense of the constitution. Thus, I continue to carry their card.

Sure, I support responsible gun ownership, even though less than 2% of the guns in this country are used to defend a home (really, that means you'll have to wear it into the locker room at the gym, carry it to the shower, take it on airplanes. . .don't you get tired of toting that thing around, Jesse James?). Many more are used to accidentally shoot somebody who you know. Ooops! Sorry Grandma!

Hunting is okay too. I like venison.

I like earning money and keeping it all. Let's get corporate America and the military-industrial comlex off our teat and we'll all be happier. Maybe real world wages would go UP again.

I love the idea of no affirmative action but I think history has been pretty clear about which side the good ole boy network sides with. . .thus I support hiring capable candidates of all skin hues, nationalities, etc.

Blah blah I'm tired of answering your questions. Now you answer mine.

Have you ever stuck a ***** in your ****** just for kicks?

Do you often dress in women's underwear?

When masturbating, do you use hand lotion or petroleum jelly?

Yup, that's right. It IS none of my business! Do you see the analogy or shall I spell it out for you?