Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Who else can not stand the liberal agenda?

  1. Dec 4, 2007 #1
    -amnesty for illegals
    -"Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"
    -Affirmative Action

    to just name a few things

    I am glad that I am an INDEPENDENT. As a scientist myself, I am glad that I haven't fallen for the liberal pitfall like so many of the other scientists out there who claim that they are "open minded" when in reality the only way they look at things is from a skewed liberal perspective. I am also glad and will not be afraid at all to go against the grain of 90% of the people on this board who are pretty much liberal, even if it pisses off the liberal mods.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2007 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I am the resident outspoken republican, and I would agree that the Democratic party pushes the extreme issues, but just for fun, I see that the same works for the Republican party:

    -Corporate welfare
    -Farm subsidies
    -Stem Cells (euthenasia, Terry Schaivo, etc. - these are actually related to the abortion issue)
    -Various religious issues

    It seems to me that both sides play to those in extreme of their party. The reality is that most people who donate money are to the outside of the mainstream, so that's who they target their ideas to. That creates a particular problem (and we've seen examples of the doublespeak here) that during election season, they must pull money from their base of diehards while seeming centrist enough to get the independent/undecided vote.

    That aside, it doesn't sound to me like you are an "independent" per se, just an independent-minded liberal. It sounds like you are fed up with a party that should, but doesn't fit your needs. I'm largely the mirror of that on the other side of the fence.
  4. Dec 4, 2007 #3
    I also can not stand the Rep. stance on those issues. There really doesn't exist a "true" independent, but rather people who lie slightly to the left or slightly to the right. I will admit that I am oh so slightly to the left. But I CAN'T STAND all the liberal crap I hear from a lot of scientists at work, in industry, and during my undergrad education.
  5. Dec 4, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Now that you've admitted you hate America and its constitution, the feds will be at your door shortly :tongue:
    (the ACLU is a group that strictly defends the constitution)

    Anyway, what are your specific concerns? You listed "-economy" which I don't quite understand.
  6. Dec 4, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can stand the ACLU most of the time, and I don't know what you (gnw) mean by "economy". From Russ' list I can stand some versions of the abortion argument, but those versions are not at all common among typical conservatives.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  7. Dec 4, 2007 #6
    Do you actually believe that?
  8. Dec 4, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Most of the time. They often get carried away with stupid little things that nobody should care about, like that "happy holidays" thing on the basis of it being government imposed religion. That kind of political correctness happens in Canada too, even though our constitution does not separate church and state, and it really disturbs me even though I'm not a christian. I don't go around calling the menorah a "holiday candle", so why should a christmas tree be called a "holiday tree"; it just boggles the mind.

    They have taken some pretty hard line stands, and their arguments can be upsetting while they very strictly follow the constitution. A few on wiki are:

    1). Pedophiles convicted before Megan’s Law should not receive retroactive application of Megan's Law.
    Megan's Law is basically a law that requires sex offenders to advertise they are sex offenders. Megan's Law is constitutional, but retroactive applicaiton is not. Think of it like this: if alcohol were to become illegal tomorrow, you cannot be charged for drinking a beer today because it was not yet illegal to drink a beer. Your constitution clearly states that retroactive punishment is unconstitutional.

    2). ACLU defended Oliver North (Iran Contra *******) because he was forced to testify against himself.
    The 5th amendment states that nobody can be forced to testify against oneself. This guy probably deserves the chair, but it's not worth throwing your constitution down the toilet just to get 1 guy. If it's ok to ignore that amendment for one person, why not everyone else?

    3). ACLU defended some retarded church group's right to protest a funeral with slanderous signs.
    The idea here is that you should not be able to stop peaceful protest. A free society is built on the right to protest.

    They do what they can to stop bad rulings from becoming the standard. Torture should not be used against anybody, so they defend the most evil person to prove a point. The right to protest was put in place to protect speech that people didn't want to hear, because you don't need a law to protect speech people love to hear. Nobody should be forced to incriminate themselves, because then what is the point of having a trial in the first place? People seem to forget that the rules in the constitution were put there for a reason. Founding fathers didn't just arbitrarily make up some ground rules that can be bent and manipulated whenever the hell you feel like it.

    edit: if you search for ACLU on youtube, you'll find a bunch of skits from the Half-Hour News Hour. I don't know if I've seen all the videos, but all the ones I've seen are factually correct.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  9. Dec 5, 2007 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Correction: the ACLU is a group that strictly defends the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution.
  10. Dec 5, 2007 #9
    Do you have an example of where the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution is different from your own?
  11. Dec 5, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Their interpretation of the second amendment is a little screwy, but they've promised to stay neutral on that issue.
  12. Dec 5, 2007 #11
    What is their interpretation of the second amendment, and what is yours?
  13. Dec 5, 2007 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The second amendment says "people" have the right to have arms. In every other place in the constitution, people = citizens. The ACLU has chosen to interpet people as meaning state-run militia. The stupid part is that the "militia" is defined as being basically everyone, yet the ACLU ignores this and remains neutral on the issue. So much for that amendment; it's not as important as the others anyway :rolleyes:

    definition of "militia" according to wordweb
    1). Civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army - reserves
    2). The entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

    With all the time spent fighting against christmas trees, they forgot to buy a dictionary.
  14. Dec 5, 2007 #13
    Someone should be defending the Constitution.

    If left to the Executive branch or Congress the Constitution would be a distant memory or an Urban Legend.
  15. Dec 5, 2007 #14
    You interpret the second amendment to mean that all the people have the right to bear arms. The ACLU interprets the second amendment to mean that only people in state-run militias have the right to bear arms. Do I get you right? If not, please clarify. Has the Supreme court handed down any decisions that agree with your interpretation, or do they side with the screwy one?
  16. Dec 5, 2007 #15
    Jimmy Snyder! Here is something that is wrong with Democrats - your argument style. Rather than debating by raising points, you would rather pick fly-feces out of pepper. Many of the points raised by the right-wing posters have been well though out and bring new ideas to the floor. What have you brought, exactly? :mad:

    If you have an issue with another poster's opinion, rather than trying to attack their opinion one example at a time, come up with examples yourself. Who cares what his interpretation of the second amendment is? If the ACLU does not have an accurate view of any part of the Constitution, it is worth questioning.

    All of this having been said, the ACLU does have many skewed views and are willing to, in many cases, cast aside courtesy and basic human tolerance and dignity for the sake of a small group's rights. In the grand scheme, very few of their actions do good for us all. Now, you may reply with something to the effect of, "Isn't defending the Constitution good for everyone?" Here's your answer: no. If the general population feels strongly about one way of doing anything, and that disagrees with the fundamentals of the Constitution, then the Constitution no longer represents America as a whole, does it?

    Radical as that idea may be, it is my personal opinion. And the ACLU says I have the right to have that opinion :rofl:

    Moreover, the liberal agenda is messed up. Important issues are being cast aside over something like Global Warming. I hate to break it to anyone who still believes we can change Global Warming, like a teenager still waiting up for Santa Claus, but the Earth simply goes through change. We have been through more than one Ice Age, for example. What does this show? The Earth gets hotter and colder periodically. Now, I'm not saying that people don't expedite the process, but eventually the Earth is going to be hot. And it's going to be cold again, too. Rather, we should be working on ways to cut pollution, something that the Earth doesn't do to itself naturally.:wink:

    I digress... the point is, if any liberal took the time to really think about a subject, they would realize that there are more important things to be concerned about than what they are willing to philibuster about for hours and waste time with.
  17. Dec 5, 2007 #16
    For real!? The Constitution was formed by the same founding fathers that created these branches. To lose faith in one, is to lose faith in the other...
  18. Dec 5, 2007 #17
    Naught but questions. I'm sorry they made you mad.

    What makes you think I have an issue with anyone's opinion? Which of my questions do you consider to be attacks?

    Me. That's why I asked.

    Of course.

    This is a strawman argument. The issue is not whether the Constitution represents America as a whole (whatever that means), but rather whether the Constitution is still the law of the land.
  19. Dec 5, 2007 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For real?
  20. Dec 5, 2007 #19
    Here's the deal, Jimmy. First, don't edit or paraphrase my quotes.

    Second, all you did there was do exactly what I said Democrats do. You waved your hands and said "Look over here!" in the all areas you wanted everyone to look, and then tried to attack select pieces of my argument.

    And very clearly, each one of your posts disagreed with the previous poster's politics. Politics are opinion. So maybe you never said, "Gee, I disagree with that opinion." But simple logic says you do.

    And in response to what you believe of my "strawman argument:" Why is America a free country? Because its populace rebelled against an unfair series of laws that barred them from representation and economic freedom. If the Constitution ever became a hindrance rather than a protection against injustice, then it should very much so be ignored.

    [Not that I am saying that is currently the case, seeing as the document is still the cornerstone for our society.]

    This being said, you say that the question is whether or not the Constitution is still the law of the land. Well, then, why does the ACLU also seek to change laws they feel are unfair? Are not those laws also "laws of the land"?

    And I thank you for agreeing that questioning what is wrong with the ACLU is appropriate. But you forgot to address the part before that about how their views are currently skewed. Comments on how to fix a private organization that takes interpreting the laws into its own hands?

    BTW - we already have an organization that determines whether laws are appropriate or adequate. It is known as the Supreme Court. And if memory serves, some of the greatest movements ended there. Say, Brown vs. Board of Education. Why does the ACLU think it is their task to do what the justice system already does?
  21. Dec 5, 2007 #20
    Yes, for real.

    If you honestly can't trust in one part of the goverment structure set in place, then you shouldn't be able to trust any part of it. All of the pieces are set in place to work in conjunction with one another, or at least that's what I've been taught since fourth grade.

    I just simply do not feel that any aspect of the government can be dismissed without dismissing that whole thing. It would be like pulling a piece out of a house of cards. It's bound to come tumbling down.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook