Liberals! Where Is Your Self-Respect??

[CrusaderFrank]

Modern American Liberals are useful idiots

 

[konradv]

No, you do. You think the government should have the final say about it...and your main focus appears to be the DENIAL, not the granting, of human rights.

Your focus seems to be on government being "the other" and having a say in our lives. That would be correct. if this were a dictatorship, but since a constitutional democracy the government is actually "US". Do you see your mistake? If rights are given or taken away, we're doing it ourselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope. Being elected by the people gives the legitimacy to the government -- and that legitimacy includes the right to change laws and Constitution.

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.
a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."

Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

As fascinating as that google nugget is, it has virtually nothing to do with the post for which it is provided in response.

Oh...I forgot.....everything has to be watered-down and spoon-fed to you.


It is only the Constitution that gives legitimacy.

"...Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted,..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope. Being elected by the people gives the legitimacy to the government -- and that legitimacy includes the right to change laws and Constitution.

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges,

So? The guy has some ideas, but it is the people and the elected politicians who make the decisions.

Did you just refer to Rehnquist as 'the guy'?
Telling. Quite telling.


Decisions? No doubt.

But if those decisions are not based on the Constitution, they are illegitimate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As fascinating as that google nugget is, it has virtually nothing to do with the post for which it is provided in response.

Well, she had to say something

Your, and mini-me's, inability to comprehend, does not detract from the profound cogency of the post.

 

[konradv]

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges,

So? The guy has some ideas, but it is the people and the elected politicians who make the decisions.

Did you just refer to Rehnquist as 'the guy'?
Telling. Quite telling.

Decisions? No doubt.

But if those decisions are not based on the Constitution, they are illegitimate.

That's up to the USSC to decide, then. If they say it's OK, then it is legitimate, like abortion rights and Obamacare. It makes no sense the keep calling things illegitimate when the the court has already said it is. To say we're doing things unconstitutionally should be easily determined by case law. if it isn't, those saying it are wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The right to abortion (with limitations as described in Roe v. Wade) is constitutional law.

Therefore it is a right established by our Constitution.

So back to the point. Let me put it this way. Since the founders believed in God given rights, and since they based the framing of the Constitution at least in part on the protection of God given rights,

and since abortion is now a protected right under the Constitution,

does that not now confirm, using the founders' own founding principles,

that abortion is a God given right?

Let's review....

I'll chalk it up to your A.D.D.....but you had claimed "abortion is a right established by our Constitution,..."


So....you've retreated from that to "The right to abortion (with limitations as described in Roe v. Wade) is constitutional law."


And...you were smart enough to know which to capitalize...

Is the above correct as far as our statements?

Since we're all here to waste time, I have no problem wasting time quibbling over an immaterial point of semantics.

"United States constitutional law is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution."

I think that definition of constitutional law is satisfactory. Feel free to make a case that it's not.

If the right to abortion is constitutional law, then the right to an abortion is established in the Constitution, via constitutional law, which is the mechanism by which the US Constitution is interpreted and implemented.

1. If it ever became necessary to prove that you are a dunce....although, that would be akin to adding a dunking stool to the Titanic....this would do the trick:

"...an immaterial point..."

Further...it is proof that you are ill equipped to understand or discuss the subject.




a. There is the Constitution...and there is case law, often decided by misguided individuals who believe that there personal views surpass the views within the Constitution.

b. Therefore, my feathered friend, it is hardly semantics to differentiate between the Constitution and decisions which alter same.
To be concise, rather than judicial decisions, the way to alter the Constitution is the amendment process.





2. "I think that definition of constitutional law is satisfactory. Feel free to make a case that it's not."
Certainly simple.
Unfortunately, you are more than simple.

But...I'll try:



a. Justice Wm. Brennan, jr, in 1985, Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

How to do that?

By imposing his or any current view of what is just, no matter what the Constitution says. Figure out what result you (Liberals) want...then claim that it's in the law.


b. No…each generation remains bound by the rights its predecessor entrenched, as opposed to a doctrine in which each generation could bring its own meaning to the Constitution.

c. Brennan’s view is that those of us in the present generation are better able to judge than our benighted ancestors. Really? The American Constitution has survived for two centuries, the oldest and first such document in existence, and has inspired countless copies around the world. Through it we remain the freest and most fortunate people on earth.



d. In "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes the tendency of federal judges to ignore the text of the Constitution or statues and to adopt “the attitude of the common-law judge -- the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’”
Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, edited by Amy Gutmann (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 13.



Do you understand? Either the Constitution holds sway, or the whim of any judge does.

 

[hazlnut]

When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine…the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.


Here:
"For over a century the natural rights concept of the Founders, and of Abraham Lincoln, had served as the philosophical foundation for America. But, during the late 19th -early 20th centuries, what we know as ‘progressives’ repudiated the idea. A leading progressive, John Dewey: “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythology and social zoology.”
Dewey, “Liberalism and Social Action,” p. 17.

a. Charles Merriam: “The individualistic ideas of the ‘natural rights’ school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated.”
Merriam, “A History of American Political Theories,” p. 307.

3. Let’s be clear: the central doctrine of progressives is that government can withdraw any ‘right’ at any time, as opposed to the view that there are permanent rights founded in “nature and nature’s God.” Perhaps you recall it this way: that humans are “endowed by their Creator” with “unalienable rights.”

a. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

b. In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"




There were a fairly large number of replies….none of those Liberals, or Progressives, or Obama supporters, challenged the idea!


Is there not ANY contumely Leftists will not recoil from??
No….rather, they accepted the role of a slave, a dog….sitting up and begging, inured to the characterization!! ‘Yes master,…please, may I speak? Or even dream?’


Among those trained, schooled, conditioned....and, yes, brainwashed....there is no self-respect, no demand that they be acknowledged to be worth something as an individual.

Disheartening.
Disgusting.



The warnings weren't enough:

"As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with BIG BROTHER himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.

The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity."
Orwell

Just curious, how much food spill on your keyboard.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine…the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.


Here:
"For over a century the natural rights concept of the Founders, and of Abraham Lincoln, had served as the philosophical foundation for America. But, during the late 19th -early 20th centuries, what we know as ‘progressives’ repudiated the idea. A leading progressive, John Dewey: “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythology and social zoology.”
Dewey, “Liberalism and Social Action,” p. 17.

a. Charles Merriam: “The individualistic ideas of the ‘natural rights’ school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated.”
Merriam, “A History of American Political Theories,” p. 307.

3. Let’s be clear: the central doctrine of progressives is that government can withdraw any ‘right’ at any time, as opposed to the view that there are permanent rights founded in “nature and nature’s God.” Perhaps you recall it this way: that humans are “endowed by their Creator” with “unalienable rights.”

a. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

b. In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"




There were a fairly large number of replies….none of those Liberals, or Progressives, or Obama supporters, challenged the idea!


Is there not ANY contumely Leftists will not recoil from??
No….rather, they accepted the role of a slave, a dog….sitting up and begging, inured to the characterization!! ‘Yes master,…please, may I speak? Or even dream?’


Among those trained, schooled, conditioned....and, yes, brainwashed....there is no self-respect, no demand that they be acknowledged to be worth something as an individual.

Disheartening.
Disgusting.



The warnings weren't enough:

"As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with BIG BROTHER himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.

The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity."
Orwell

Just curious, how much food spill on your keyboard.

As you are clearly not competent to comment intelligently on the OP, the least you could do is post in proper English.

But, with your skills, you could get a job as a seeing-eye man for a blind dog.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you do. You think the government should have the final say about it...and your main focus appears to be the DENIAL, not the granting, of human rights.

You don't support the right to life anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution that's been proposed?

You don't want the government to grant personhood and the attendant rights to the fetus?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's review....

I'll chalk it up to your A.D.D.....but you had claimed "abortion is a right established by our Constitution,..."


So....you've retreated from that to "The right to abortion (with limitations as described in Roe v. Wade) is constitutional law."


And...you were smart enough to know which to capitalize...

Is the above correct as far as our statements?

Since we're all here to waste time, I have no problem wasting time quibbling over an immaterial point of semantics.

"United States constitutional law is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution."

I think that definition of constitutional law is satisfactory. Feel free to make a case that it's not.

If the right to abortion is constitutional law, then the right to an abortion is established in the Constitution, via constitutional law, which is the mechanism by which the US Constitution is interpreted and implemented.

1. If it ever became necessary to prove that you are a dunce....although, that would be akin to adding a dunking stool to the Titanic....this would do the trick:

"...an immaterial point..."

Further...it is proof that you are ill equipped to understand or discuss the subject.




a. There is the Constitution...and there is case law, often decided by misguided individuals who believe that there personal views surpass the views within the Constitution.

b. Therefore, my feathered friend, it is hardly semantics to differentiate between the Constitution and decisions which alter same.
To be concise, rather than judicial decisions, the way to alter the Constitution is the amendment process.





2. "I think that definition of constitutional law is satisfactory. Feel free to make a case that it's not."
Certainly simple.
Unfortunately, you are more than simple.

But...I'll try:



a. Justice Wm. Brennan, jr, in 1985, Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

How to do that?

By imposing his or any current view of what is just, no matter what the Constitution says. Figure out what result you (Liberals) want...then claim that it's in the law.


b. No…each generation remains bound by the rights its predecessor entrenched, as opposed to a doctrine in which each generation could bring its own meaning to the Constitution.

c. Brennan’s view is that those of us in the present generation are better able to judge than our benighted ancestors. Really? The American Constitution has survived for two centuries, the oldest and first such document in existence, and has inspired countless copies around the world. Through it we remain the freest and most fortunate people on earth.



d. In "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes the tendency of federal judges to ignore the text of the Constitution or statues and to adopt “the attitude of the common-law judge -- the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’”
Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, edited by Amy Gutmann (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 13.



Do you understand? Either the Constitution holds sway, or the whim of any judge does.

So, if a state passes a law that bans certain firearms from being owned, and you believe it's unconstitutional,

what do you do?

Question 2, why are you so loathe to directly discuss the issue of whether abortion is a God given right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges,

So? The guy has some ideas, but it is the people and the elected politicians who make the decisions.

Did you just refer to Rehnquist as 'the guy'?
Telling. Quite telling.


Decisions? No doubt.

But if those decisions are not based on the Constitution, they are illegitimate.

But the Constitution is not a person, it's a large group of words. SOMEONE has to interpret it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's review....

I'll chalk it up to your A.D.D.....but you had claimed "abortion is a right established by our Constitution,..."


So....you've retreated from that to "The right to abortion (with limitations as described in Roe v. Wade) is constitutional law."


And...you were smart enough to know which to capitalize...

Is the above correct as far as our statements?

Since we're all here to waste time, I have no problem wasting time quibbling over an immaterial point of semantics.

"United States constitutional law is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution."

I think that definition of constitutional law is satisfactory. Feel free to make a case that it's not.

If the right to abortion is constitutional law, then the right to an abortion is established in the Constitution, via constitutional law, which is the mechanism by which the US Constitution is interpreted and implemented.

1. If it ever became necessary to prove that you are a dunce....although, that would be akin to adding a dunking stool to the Titanic....this would do the trick:

"...an immaterial point..."

Further...it is proof that you are ill equipped to understand or discuss the subject.




a. There is the Constitution...and there is case law, often decided by misguided individuals who believe that there personal views surpass the views within the Constitution.

b. Therefore, my feathered friend, it is hardly semantics to differentiate between the Constitution and decisions which alter same.
To be concise, rather than judicial decisions, the way to alter the Constitution is the amendment process.





2. "I think that definition of constitutional law is satisfactory. Feel free to make a case that it's not."
Certainly simple.
Unfortunately, you are more than simple.

But...I'll try:



a. Justice Wm. Brennan, jr, in 1985, Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

How to do that?

By imposing his or any current view of what is just, no matter what the Constitution says. Figure out what result you (Liberals) want...then claim that it's in the law.


b. No…each generation remains bound by the rights its predecessor entrenched, as opposed to a doctrine in which each generation could bring its own meaning to the Constitution.

c. Brennan’s view is that those of us in the present generation are better able to judge than our benighted ancestors. Really? The American Constitution has survived for two centuries, the oldest and first such document in existence, and has inspired countless copies around the world. Through it we remain the freest and most fortunate people on earth.



d. In "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes the tendency of federal judges to ignore the text of the Constitution or statues and to adopt “the attitude of the common-law judge -- the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’”
Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, edited by Amy Gutmann (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 13.



Do you understand? Either the Constitution holds sway, or the whim of any judge does.

Is abortion in the first trimester a constitutional right or not?

 

[ilia25]

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges,

So? The guy has some ideas, but it is the people and the elected politicians who make the decisions.

Did you just refer to Rehnquist as 'the guy'?
Telling. Quite telling.


Decisions? No doubt.

But if those decisions are not based on the Constitution, they are illegitimate.

You are totally clueless. A democratically elected government can amend the Constitution at will. And there would be nothing illegitimate about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So? The guy has some ideas, but it is the people and the elected politicians who make the decisions.

Did you just refer to Rehnquist as 'the guy'?
Telling. Quite telling.


Decisions? No doubt.

But if those decisions are not based on the Constitution, they are illegitimate.

You are totally clueless. A democratically elected government can amend the Constitution at will. And there would be nothing illegitimate about it.

This is a common conservative 'argument'. How it goes, quite simply, is...

...if the Supreme Court produces a decision conservatives don't like, it must have been arrived at illegitimately. Conservatives have a habit of believing that by some miraculous process the Constitution of the United States coincided and continues to coincide precisely with the conservative agenda.

 

[sfcalifornia]

When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine…the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.


Here:
"For over a century the natural rights concept of the Founders, and of Abraham Lincoln, had served as the philosophical foundation for America. But, during the late 19th -early 20th centuries, what we know as ‘progressives’ repudiated the idea. A leading progressive, John Dewey: “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythology and social zoology.”
Dewey, “Liberalism and Social Action,” p. 17.

a. Charles Merriam: “The individualistic ideas of the ‘natural rights’ school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated.”
Merriam, “A History of American Political Theories,” p. 307.

3. Let’s be clear: the central doctrine of progressives is that government can withdraw any ‘right’ at any time, as opposed to the view that there are permanent rights founded in “nature and nature’s God.” Perhaps you recall it this way: that humans are “endowed by their Creator” with “unalienable rights.”

a. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

b. In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"




There were a fairly large number of replies….none of those Liberals, or Progressives, or Obama supporters, challenged the idea!


Is there not ANY contumely Leftists will not recoil from??
No….rather, they accepted the role of a slave, a dog….sitting up and begging, inured to the characterization!! ‘Yes master,…please, may I speak? Or even dream?’


Among those trained, schooled, conditioned....and, yes, brainwashed....there is no self-respect, no demand that they be acknowledged to be worth something as an individual.

Disheartening.
Disgusting.



The warnings weren't enough:

"As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with BIG BROTHER himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.

The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity."
Orwell

You idolize Ann Coulter.

Where's your self-respect?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine…the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.


Here:
"For over a century the natural rights concept of the Founders, and of Abraham Lincoln, had served as the philosophical foundation for America. But, during the late 19th -early 20th centuries, what we know as ‘progressives’ repudiated the idea. A leading progressive, John Dewey: “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythology and social zoology.”
Dewey, “Liberalism and Social Action,” p. 17.

a. Charles Merriam: “The individualistic ideas of the ‘natural rights’ school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated.”
Merriam, “A History of American Political Theories,” p. 307.

3. Let’s be clear: the central doctrine of progressives is that government can withdraw any ‘right’ at any time, as opposed to the view that there are permanent rights founded in “nature and nature’s God.” Perhaps you recall it this way: that humans are “endowed by their Creator” with “unalienable rights.”

a. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

b. In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"




There were a fairly large number of replies….none of those Liberals, or Progressives, or Obama supporters, challenged the idea!


Is there not ANY contumely Leftists will not recoil from??
No….rather, they accepted the role of a slave, a dog….sitting up and begging, inured to the characterization!! ‘Yes master,…please, may I speak? Or even dream?’


Among those trained, schooled, conditioned....and, yes, brainwashed....there is no self-respect, no demand that they be acknowledged to be worth something as an individual.

Disheartening.
Disgusting.



The warnings weren't enough:

"As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with BIG BROTHER himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.

The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity."
Orwell

You idolize Ann Coulter.

Where's your self-respect?

She idolizes Coulter who has said, effectively, that women are too stupid to vote. A bit of yer good ol' self-loathing going on there, I'd say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rights are precious to Conservatives?

Why then is it that the two most prominent proposed Constitutional Amendments on the conservative wishlist are those that want to take away, or prevent the expansion of, rights?

1. A personhood amendment to take away abortion rights.

2. A marriage amendment to take away same sex marriage rights.

 

[koshergrl]

Uh huh.

As I said, to lefties, the only *right* that anyone has is the right to stomp on those weaker than they are.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

This thread is good because it's helping to get all the dumb out.