The more "selective" defenders of liberty?

[manifold]

Who tends to be more "selective" in their defense of individual liberty, liberals or conservatives?

Please discuss and provide examples.

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberals, hands down, are the biggest hypocrites to walk the planet. On any subject. Here are the commies at ACLU, big liberals all of them:
Floyd Abrams, Ira Glasser and Joel Gora: The ACLU Approves - WSJ.com

 

[Oscar Wao]

Both

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, I'm wondering where the crowd is that bitched that under the Patriot Act Bush and Cheney were reading the letters from Auntie Em... now that we have an administration arguing that they have a right to scan ALL e-mails, even that of American citizens, that they have the right to infiltrate chat rooms and snoope on Americans, that under the new financial reforms banks will be required to collect and gather ANY peronal information the administration wants and report it to the government, etc., etc.

 

[ihopehefails]

Who tends to be more "selective" in their defense of individual liberty, liberals or conservatives?

Please discuss and provide examples.

This is a trick question because I haven't seen any 'liberals' defend any concept of individual liberty because they are all communist so its not in there nature.

 

[ihopehefails]

Well, I'm wondering where the crowd is that bitched that under the Patriot Act Bush and Cheney were reading the letters from Auntie Em... now that we have an administration arguing that they have a right to scan ALL e-mails, even that of American citizens, that they have the right to infiltrate chat rooms and snoope on Americans, that under the new financial reforms banks will be required to collect and gather ANY peronal information the administration wants and report it to the government, etc., etc.

The worst is that people on the left do it for different reasons than Bush. Bush did it for a genuine need for national security while the left does it to maintain idealogical purity within the nation. How many times have terrorist threats have been linked to the tea party for no reason whatsoever?

 

[Oscar Wao]

So when it's a Republican, it's National Security but when it's a Democrat it's "ideology."

Partisan hackery at its finest.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What liberty is more basic than that of economic liberty? To keep the fruits of one's labors?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So when it's a Republican, it's National Security but when it's a Democrat it's "ideology."

Partisan hackery at its finest.

That's an oversimplification... but you're close.

 

[manifold]

Who tends to be more "selective" in their defense of individual liberty, liberals or conservatives?

Please discuss and provide examples.

This is a trick question because I haven't seen any 'liberals' defend any concept of individual liberty because they are all communist so its not in there nature.

Are you serious?

Never heard of such emotionally charged issues as abortion and gay-marriage?

 

[manifold]

What liberty is more basic than that of economic liberty? To keep the fruits of one's labors?

A bit off topic, but a valid point nonetheless.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who tends to be more "selective" in their defense of individual liberty, liberals or conservatives?

Please discuss and provide examples.

This is a trick question because I haven't seen any 'liberals' defend any concept of individual liberty because they are all communist so its not in there nature.

Are you serious?

Never heard of such emotionally charged issues as abortion and gay-marriage?

Those aren't personal liberty issues. They are issues of government support. No state denies a woman a right to an abortion. The arguments are chiefly over whether the gov't should pay for them or not. Similarly no state denies the right of any two people to marry. They deny the benefits that accrue to married people however.
So as is typical for liberals, they want other people to pay for their lifestyles.

 

[Ravi]

This is a trick question because I haven't seen any 'liberals' defend any concept of individual liberty because they are all communist so its not in there nature.

Are you serious?

Never heard of such emotionally charged issues as abortion and gay-marriage?

Those aren't personal liberty issues. They are issues of government support. No state denies a woman a right to an abortion. The arguments are chiefly over whether the gov't should pay for them or not. Similarly no state denies the right of any two people to marry. They deny the benefits that accrue to married people however.
So as is typical for liberals, they want other people to pay for their lifestyles.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is a trick question because I haven't seen any 'liberals' defend any concept of individual liberty because they are all communist so its not in there nature.

Are you serious?

Never heard of such emotionally charged issues as abortion and gay-marriage?

Those aren't personal liberty issues. They are issues of government support. No state denies a woman a right to an abortion. The arguments are chiefly over whether the gov't should pay for them or not. Similarly no state denies the right of any two people to marry. They deny the benefits that accrue to married people however.
So as is typical for liberals, they want other people to pay for their lifestyles.

Not to defend liberals BUT just a few years ago it was illegal for Homosexuals to have sex. States DID in fact prevent them from being married with or without benefits.

Before Roe vs Wade it was ILLEGAL to have an abortion in this Country. States DID in fact have laws stating that and prosecuted women and health care providers for doing those procedures.

 

[kwc57]

This is a trick question because I haven't seen any 'liberals' defend any concept of individual liberty because they are all communist so its not in there nature.

Are you serious?

Never heard of such emotionally charged issues as abortion and gay-marriage?

Those aren't personal liberty issues. They are issues of government support. No state denies a woman a right to an abortion. The arguments are chiefly over whether the gov't should pay for them or not. Similarly no state denies the right of any two people to marry. They deny the benefits that accrue to married people however.
So as is typical for liberals, they want other people to pay for their lifestyles.

Do what?! Gay marriage and abortion has everything to do with personal liberty and nothing to do with having the "government pay for it". Where did you come up with that? BTW, I'm conservative......and I have no idea how you reached your conclusion.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

All for me and none for thee. It isn't really a partisan issue, unfortunately. It is just different places of application of the none for thee.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you serious?

Never heard of such emotionally charged issues as abortion and gay-marriage?

Those aren't personal liberty issues. They are issues of government support. No state denies a woman a right to an abortion. The arguments are chiefly over whether the gov't should pay for them or not. Similarly no state denies the right of any two people to marry. They deny the benefits that accrue to married people however.
So as is typical for liberals, they want other people to pay for their lifestyles.

Not to defend liberals BUT just a few years ago it was illegal for Homosexuals to have sex. States DID in fact prevent them from being married with or without benefits.

Before Roe vs Wade it was ILLEGAL to have an abortion in this Country. States DID in fact have laws stating that and prosecuted women and health care providers for doing those procedures.

So homosexuals have only been having sex for the past couple of years?
Actually the statutes were against "sodomy" and I dont think they specified the sex of the people involved. They ranked up there with ordinances against driving sheep across the Brooklyn Bridge or serving ale to midgets or the other laws on the books never enforced.

Before Roe v Wade is irrelevant now that we are after Roe. At one time it was legal to bar blacks from voting. But today no state has such a law.

 

[kwc57]

Those aren't personal liberty issues. They are issues of government support. No state denies a woman a right to an abortion. The arguments are chiefly over whether the gov't should pay for them or not. Similarly no state denies the right of any two people to marry. They deny the benefits that accrue to married people however.
So as is typical for liberals, they want other people to pay for their lifestyles.

Not to defend liberals BUT just a few years ago it was illegal for Homosexuals to have sex. States DID in fact prevent them from being married with or without benefits.

Before Roe vs Wade it was ILLEGAL to have an abortion in this Country. States DID in fact have laws stating that and prosecuted women and health care providers for doing those procedures.

So homosexuals have only been having sex for the past couple of years?
Actually the statutes were against "sodomy" and I dont think they specified the sex of the people involved. They ranked up there with ordinances against driving sheep across the Brooklyn Bridge or serving ale to midgets or the other laws on the books never enforced.

Before Roe v Wade is irrelevant now that we are after Roe. At one time it was legal to bar blacks from voting. But today no state has such a law.

Your reply still doesn't speak to your notion that the idea behind all of this is for the government to pay for it instead of personal liberty. Both parties want a (big) government to enforce their social agenda thru law....they are usually just on the opposite end of the spectrum as to what they want enforced. Therefore, both parties are for personal liberty as seen thru the goggles of their party.....meaning they are both for limiting someone's liberty in one form or fashion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not to defend liberals BUT just a few years ago it was illegal for Homosexuals to have sex. States DID in fact prevent them from being married with or without benefits.

Before Roe vs Wade it was ILLEGAL to have an abortion in this Country. States DID in fact have laws stating that and prosecuted women and health care providers for doing those procedures.

So homosexuals have only been having sex for the past couple of years?
Actually the statutes were against "sodomy" and I dont think they specified the sex of the people involved. They ranked up there with ordinances against driving sheep across the Brooklyn Bridge or serving ale to midgets or the other laws on the books never enforced.

Before Roe v Wade is irrelevant now that we are after Roe. At one time it was legal to bar blacks from voting. But today no state has such a law.

Your reply still doesn't speak to your notion that the idea behind all of this is for the government to pay for it instead of personal liberty. Both parties want a (big) government to enforce their social agenda thru law....they are usually just on the opposite end of the spectrum as to what they want enforced. Therefore, both parties are for personal liberty as seen thru the goggles of their party.....meaning they are both for limiting someone's liberty in one form or fashion.

Where has the GOP opposed homosexual marriages? Not state sponsorship of them, but the marriages themselves?
On abortion it is the right of the child to live which is the individual right, not the right of the mother to murder her unborn child. The GOP doesn't support the individual right of murderers to kill.

 

[sweetie]

FOGGY IN NOLA LIMBAUGHS: "What liberty is more basic than that of economic liberty? To keep the fruits of one's labors?"

..

...get math, you squawking parrot republican cheerleaders:..YOUR great big stinking phony hero REAGAN FACILITATED A DOUBLING OF "THE BUDGET" AND A TRIPLING OF "THE DEFICIT!"

..(not that you republicrat dumbasses understand either 'the budget' or 'the deficit'...as they are 'measured' in the illion$ of 'dollars'..and you republicrat folks are worse than stooooooooopid when it comes to the basic realities of even one 'dollar')

...the rest of you, have a good day!..