News Who else can not stand the liberal agenda?

[gravenewworld]

First of all, there is no such thing as an "independent" political stance. That is clearly loaded language reminiscent of a "scientist" like yourself believing in "objectivity". It is about as clear as Fox claiming to be "fair and balanced".

You lean "slightly" to the left yet here you are lambasting against these "liberals". This is weaseled language and reminiscent of the "I can't be racist, because I'm black".

For those of you claiming that the ACLU is "liberal":
Liberals don't do this.
The ACLU is nothing but an interest group with a specific jurisprudence in interpreting the constitution. Law is not liberal, it is not conservative - law is not political! However, some of you without legal knowledge (this is a physics forum, after all) definitely show huge ignorance by making these grand uneducated claims.

There is no "liberal agenda". America is a neoliberal country that has been run by conservative interests since WWII. It is about big businesses, individualistic ideology, and capitalist markets. To cry about these "communists/socialists/liberals" is akin to supporting the status quo. It is akin to screaming at your dead uncle's funeral. This is a country that has outlawed same-sex marriage in a large number of states, yet you continue to whine about a so-called liberal agenda? Give me a break. Let the political scientists deal with the political.

No such thing as an independent stance? This is clearly loaded language reminiscent of a "lawyer" like yourself believing in "justice". It is about as clear as the corporate lawyer who claims they are doing the right thing by defending entities like big tobacco.


Leaning "slightly to the left" is not the same as the far leaning left wing liberal we were originally referring to. So what would you call it then when I would agree with conservatives on things like immigration while agreeing somewhat with someone on the left with something like universal health care? There does exist a GRAY area.



Law not political?

Do you really believe that? I bet someone like Rosa Parks would beg to differ.


The ACLU is nothing more than an organization of extremely liberal thinkers bent on using the law to promote their liberal ideology.



No liberal agenda? So liberals have no goals? ANY person that is a political scientist (who are the people we should leave politics to according to you) has a goal. This is a country where things like saying "under God" in our own pledge of allegiance, the 2nd amendment, and any notion of morality are constantly being attacked by the liberal agenda. No liberal agenda? Give me a break.

 

[russ_watters]

Law is not liberal, it is not conservative - law is not political!

That is a very odd statement.

 

[opus]

No such thing as an independent stance? This is clearly loaded language reminiscent of a "lawyer" like yourself believing in "justice". It is about as clear as the corporate lawyer who claims they are doing the right thing by defending entities like big tobacco.

Wrong, because lawyers are legal practitioners. Lawyers do not make up "laws" to "protect" big business. These laws are in place by politicians - so if you have problems with big tobacco, you don't lobby the bar association, you talk to your political representative.

Leaning "slightly to the left" is not the same as the far leaning left wing liberal we were originally referring to. So what would you call it then when I would agree with conservatives on things like immigration while agreeing somewhat with someone on the left with something like universal health care? There does exist a GRAY area.

Ideology is not an issue. Issues are issues. People can be conservative on certain issues, liberal in others. But to mix and match doesn't make someone an "independent". "Moderate" is a legitimate political stance. These political ideologies are orientations that have been historically grounded. Why do you think the left is so horrible at policy formulations? Liberalism is traditionally full of gray areas, and it is why excessive in-fighting and internal disagreements weaken the "left" in general. In the US, that is particularly visible with the Democrats. You have Black Democrats that for all intents and purposes, are extremely socially conservative but mostly economically liberal. It is generally the conservative right with a much more black/white worldview that is less tolerant of ambiguity, which makes the very idea attractive - simplify the world for simple solutions. This conservative way of thinking has been shown in numerous studies. The latest was published in Nature Neuroscience.

Law not political?

Do you really believe that? I bet someone like Rosa Parks would beg to differ.

Here is an article to skim over dealing with politics and law dealt in Latin America. Lawyers, as I repeat, are legal practitioners. They are not politicians. Politicians are the ones that make the law. The Supreme Court justices are not the one to blame when Bush does unconstitutional things. This however, has been captured and exploited by the conservatives in America by "picking" judges that "interpret" the law a "certain way", i.e. a "conservative judge". It is completely against the idea of Lady Justice and the law being "blind". Judges pick the best answer, not the "right" answer. Rosa Parks was arrested. She committed a crime. What she did was start a movement that changed American (civil rights movement) and had an unconstitutional law removed (segregation). The law was not changed because it morally "wrong", it was changed because it was "inconsistent" with the constitution. This is similar to same-sex marriage in Canada; the constitution in Canada forbids discrimination on sexual orientation.

The ACLU is nothing more than an organization of extremely liberal thinkers bent on using the law to promote their liberal ideology.

Which is why they are defending Westboro Church? Your groundless accusations are pathetic.

No liberal agenda? So liberals have no goals? ANY person that is a political scientist (who are the people we should leave politics to according to you) has a goal. This is a country where things like saying "under God" in our own pledge of allegiance, the 2nd amendment, and any notion of morality are constantly being attacked by the liberal agenda. No liberal agenda? Give me a break.

Political scientists are scientists, they study "what is", not "what ought to be". Your grand liberal conspiracy theory is a joke, and while it may resonate with your fellow conservatives on this board, it fools no one that has a sense of rationality. "Activist judges"? Give me a break.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You waved your hands and said "Look over here!"

Don't paraphrase what I said.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But that's besides the point. *I* do not have the authority to say what is and isn't Constitutional and neither does the ACLU.

You are correct, only the courts can do that. But you do have the right to be heard in court and so does the ACLU. I appreciate your plain speaking on your differences with them.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

I just feel like quiping on how judges are only accused of being "activist judges" when they do something social conservatives don't like. No such thing as conservative activists?

Also, if only liberals have agendas, explain the Wedge Document.

 

[Moonbear]

I share concerns about SS, but so far, I haven't seen any candidate of any political party come up with a good, workable solution for that problem.

Isn't amnesty for illegals what the Republican administration has been proposing most recently? I lose track...that position seems to get batted back and forth faster than a ping pong ball in a roomful of cats between the two parties. I think it depends which party thinks they can capitalize on it in any given year...the liberals sympathizing over the "plight" of the illegal worker, or the conservative corporations getting away with cheap, off-the-books illegal labor. I look at it that, just like we were taught in grade school, if you cut in line, you get sent to the back of the line when you get caught.

I didn't know that "Happy Holidays" was a liberal agenda. Can't find it on anyone's party platforms. I'm actually pretty sure the kerfuffle over that is part of the agenda of the extreme religious right; nobody else notices, or wouldn't if they weren't griping about it to everyone they meet.

I support the ACLU. I don't always agree with their positions...sometimes they go overboard, and other times they're spot on. But, they help people take their cases to court and be heard, and that's what's important. Even if they lose every case, it means people had their day in court and we have a more clearly defined answer to the question posed. That's not inherently bad.

What IS the current "liberal agenda" on affirmative action? I don't even think it's discussed anymore as an issue by either side, because it has become fairly outdated. It's more of something that needs to be evaluated on a region-by-region basis. Discrimination is still pretty overt in some parts of the country, but pretty absent in others, so there's no longer a need for any blanket rules on that that apply everywhere.

And, what about the economy? That's pretty vague. Though, I'll admit I have not heard much of anything from the Democratic party that shows they have good ideas on repairing the economy, mostly I still just hear about them bashing the Republicans for their destruction of the economy. I'm more inclined to think the economy has natural upswings and downfalls, and they usually correct themselves.

 

[ShawnD]

I'm more inclined to think the economy has natural upswings and downfalls, and they usually correct themselves.

This is partially true. Taxes and regulation play a role in the economy, but interest rates are also very important. Interest rates are set by the federal reserve, which is a private company that theoretically has no political ties. Theoretically.

It's my opinion that the federal reserve has more power on the economy than either party. Raising or lower the interest rates changes how much money can be borrowed for business ventures, or buying a house, or buying a car. Look at this subprime mortgage thing that is/was hitting the economy; whose fault was that? Did the republicans do that, or was caused by banks and their eagerness to lend everybody money?

 

[wildman]

What is interesting is that what is "liberal" or what is "conservative" seems to change quite rapidly. Take abortion. Do you all realize that 5 of the 7 Justices who voted for Wade vs. Roe were Republicans? And the dissenting opinion was written by a liberal Democrat? It is true, check it out on the web. So the conservatives helped bring us Roe (some libs also voted for it) and now everyone says the liberals brought it. Strange.

The same can be said of the economy and of foreign involvements

PS. Amnesty for illegals was Bush's original plan. So does that make Bush a liberal? Just asking.

 

[wildman]

The worse thing the ACLU has done recently is support the government in using the RICO law against the pro-life protestors. This would have devastated the Constitutional right to protest. The ACLU in its pro abortion fanaticism couldn’t bring itself to defend the Constitution.

 

[BobG]

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.

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...

Any process that can't withstand errors by the people executing that process isn't going to last. A lot of the checks and balances are aimed specifically at the fact that the quality of personnel in the different branches can go up and down - and hopefully, all won't go down at the same time. In other words, the Constitution itself doesn't put much faith in the branches it creates.

kach22i's comment is a little vague as to whether he's referring to the current quality of the Executive Branch and Congress or to the branches in general, but the ability to bring court cases to challenge laws passed by Congress or to challenge the interpretation of laws by the Executive Branch certainly is one of the safeguards against the varying quality of personnel in the other two branches.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So does that make Bush a liberal? Just asking.

'Liberal' and 'conservative' are labels that are useful to people who have something to sell. People who have accepted these labels are the buyers.

 

[ShawnD]

'Liberal' and 'conservative' are labels that are useful to people who have something to sell. People who have accepted these labels are the buyers.

Usually they mean new vs old. In USSR, a conservative would be a hard line communist who wants a complete command economy, while a liberal would be somebody who wants to introduce free market policies. In the US it's the other way around. In Europe it apparently switches as you go from country to country. UK is probably similar to US, and France would probably be similar to USSR (in terms of labels).

Can anyone in Europe verify?

 

[binzing]

This is why I like my governor for pres. (Richardson) he is somewhat in the middle, but still is planning for the universally important issues, the war, health care, and the environment among others, even if I am 3 years short of voting age. The GOP is just that, OLD and stuck in the ways of the past. The Democrats are just as their mascot is, stubborn. One of my main concerns is the environment,...you know...the thing that supports us ALL...Left..Right...middle...whatever the hell.

 

[Pelt]

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

I don't know of any politician in either party who supports "corporate welfare" on general principle, nor can we ignore the fact that corporate and farm subsidies have a long, popular tradition in a Congress that has largely been in Democratic hands for the past eighty years. Last I checked, the political landscape on gun rights shaped up to favor squabbling amongst Democrats than point of contention betweens conservatives and liberals.

 

[ray b]

while some parts of the liberal agenda are miss guided
the neo-conned religious right agenda is pure EVIL

progressive is always better then regressive

the simple fact that the religious right think they have a god who is on their side
and that is a clear and present danger to all who don't share that view
and the rightwing fails to see any need to share anything anyway

 

[wildman]

Religous people are easily fooled. Any con man knows that.

 

[Pelt]

Religous people are easily fooled. Any con man knows that.

Non-religious people are easily fooled. Any con man knows that. See I can say random things, too. ;)

 

[ray b]

Non-religious people are easily fooled. Any con man knows that. See I can say random things, too. ;)

while true, everyone can be conned
Non-religious people are somewhat less likely to follow fools,
esp those who claim to do a gods will, or talk to him

interesting that the rightwing has managed to label liberal as wrong
now there is a major con job if there ever was one

 

[LightbulbSun]

-"Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"

You're actually being reasonable for saying "Happy Holidays" over "Merry Christmas." Since there is more than one winter holiday during December I think "Happy Holidays" is a nice encompassing saying. I think people who get all flustered over what holiday mantra they use are insecure and narrow-minded.