ACLU against free speech

[BookShaka]

Looks like those Liberals turds at the ACLU have finally admitted they are Leftest assholes.

They are against free speech when it is in conflict with their Leftest agenda of hate and destruction.

Typical for Left Wingers all over the world. Free speech or any or liberty is to be sacrificed for Socialism. or the vile demented Left view of "social justice".


Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.


It's hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."

The founder of the ACLU's stated goal was the destruction of the USA. So this is not surprising.

For one there are multiple founders but I assume you're referring to Rodger Baldwin rather than that subversive commie Helen Keller.

Second, he didn't call for the destruction of the USA, you're simply lying and we know that's par for the course.

I believe this is the quote you or something you read sometime was referring to:

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

Sounds harsh, but he's not calling for the destruction of the United States and if you remove the Socialism and Communism references he sounds like plenty of the wingnuts on this board who have called for open rebellion and the dismantling of our government.

For the record, I disagree with Roger Baldwin on the quote above but thankfully there are more quotes which begin to paint a broader more complex person such as:

I regard the principle of conscription of life as a flat contradiction of all our cherished ideals of individual freedom, democratic liberty and Christian teaching.

Watch out that commie also likes democracy and Christianity. Time to attack the baby Jesus. Another quote:

So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy.

And another...

would say that social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought would help other people.

Another...

The rule of law in place of force, always basic to my thinking, now takes on a new relevance in a world where, if war is to go, only law can replace it.

However in the end the guy is dead and the ACLU has a history of defending the rights of others regardless of their own political ideologies like Rush Limbaugh and the KKK both of whom are staunchly right wing.

So, **** off with your lyin' self.

I agree he didn’t explicitly state the destruction of the US is his goal, but wouldn’t a Communist America be a destroyed America? America’s values and the values of Communism do not at all match. If we could no longer call the US the “land of the free,” which would happen if it became ruled by Communism, would that not also signify the destruction of the roots of the country?

 

[westwall]

I asked you for specifics, and you respond with generalizations. In other words, you either don't really know what you are talking about, or you know, you just don't want to admit it. I will make it easier for you. How are property Rights different between socialism and fascism?

Telling people that they can't marry someone of the same sex, or passing laws to keep certain people from voting is not specific enough for you? Or, as I mentioned, laws robing women of reproductive choices are also authoritarian. You just can't accept that. Does not make it less true.

Socialists and fascist BOTH do that. Thanks for the help. Which is more authoritarian, saying women can't have an abortion, or saying they MUST have an abortion as China does? BTW, that is the reason why I am pro choice. The second a government takes the power to deny, it has also taken the power to say you must. Once again, fascism and socialism are the same.

Again , you're conflating an economic system that strives for equality with an oppressive political ideology that marginalizes selected minorities and elevate the elite. Which is more authoritarian, saying women can't have an abortion? They are equally oppressive and authoritarian.

China , like Russia, is a sham, bastardized version of socialism super imposed on an authoritarian, fascist political system You can keep bleating that fascism and socialism are the same until you turn blue but that does not make it true

PS: You seem to have avoided the question that I put to you. "Is Bernie Sanders a Fascist?? Yes or no and why.

No, I am not. They both use oppressive economic systems to get their way. One is merely more overt than the other. Yes, Bernie is ultimately a fascist. He believes in a collectivist government. ALL collectivist governments are socialist, which means they are also fascist.

What the **** is oppressive about Sanders economic policies?? Health insurance? Supporting the middle class? What? Only the very wealthy would find his policies oppressive. A social democratic philosophy is not Fascism.

Once again, you don't get the difference between economic policy and political ideology. Perhaps socialism in it's pure form can, by some measure be seen as oppressive, but to say that all socialists, including Sanders are Fascists is just plain stupid.

Take a look at the health mandates that obummer enacted. if you didn't have insurance you got fined. People who could afford health insurance, suddenly couldn't as obummercare caused insurance rates to soar. 80 million people were harmed, so that 5 million who didn't have health insurance could. That sounds pretty damned oppressive to me. Doesn't it to you? Especially when you KNOW that no one is denied care in the USA. Yes, they may have to resort to going to the ER, but THEY ARE GUARANTEED CARE.

You fundamentally don't understand that political ideology and economic ideology are absolutely linked. You have to be pretty myopic to not understand that. Most progressives simply don't care that their policies harm more than they help because ultimately most progressives only care about the power they get because of their policies. I am going to assume that you are actually a LIBERAL patriot, instead of a progressive one. I am also going to assume that you are not well educated in the difference. I am a liberal Democrat. I always have been. My grandfather, on the other hand, was a progressive. He was also an asshole, and a fairly high ranking member of the American Communist Party all through the 1920's and 30's. It is interactions that I had with those people that forever set me against them.

If you care about people, as i do. If you wish for the PEOPLE to have the maximum amount of freedom. Freedom from oppressive government, as I do. If you would like to see a world where the LGBTQ community is free to marry, as I do, my sister is lesbian and her partner is a fantastic woman. If you want to see the maximum number of people obtain healthcare, at a reasonable cost, that they can actually USE, as I do, then you must abandon the progressive mantra because ultimately they don't.

All they care about is power, and how they can use it to enrich themselves. Do yourself a favor, don't listen to what they say, actually take a long, hard look at what they DO. That is the ultimate test. Progressives have promised the middle class all sorts of things for ages.....and they have never delivered save to a very, very few. Instead, the vast majority of the middle class suffers. You have to ask yourself why that is. I have one of my grandfathers communist newspapers from 1932. In it they very carefully document how 2% of the population of the USA controlled 76% of the wealth of this nation.

Progressive Democrats then took control of the House, and the Senate and absolutely controlled both branches for 40 continuous years. They also held the presidency for the majority of that time. At the end of that run, the wealthiest 1%, controlled 90% of the wealth (according to reports that Bill Clinton ordered in his second term) so, you have to ask yourself, who were the progressives working for? The middle class, or the wealthiest one percent who witnessed their control of the wealth of this nation concentrated like never before.

I supported bernie (even though he is a fascist overall, but I knew his crazier ideas would never pass the House so was not worried about that aspect of his beliefs) because he claimed to be anti multinational corporation (who control all of that wealth) but then he sold out to hillary so I will never support him again. Ultimately you have to make a choice between the Middle Class, and the One Percent. Every policy that the progressives have ever pushed has benefited the one percent at the expense of the middle class.

So, do some hard core reading from sources you don't regularly use. Zinn is not an acceptable source. Neither is Noam. Come up with some different POV's and then come back and tell me what you have learned on your own.

But only do this if you are truly for the middle class, and not the one percent.

 

[westwall]

If it is government mandating any sort of behavior that is collectivist. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Are you stupid?

So you agree that this LGBT thing has gone too far and is encroaching on the states declaring an official religion. Because when we hear the ACLU is shelving free speech defense for "social issues", that's code for "we want to force people to promote, condone and participate in the Church of LGBT".

I mean, that's what all this is about, as a backlash to the recent USSC "baker vs Colorado" slap to the Church of LGBT.

No. I do support the Right of the LGBTQ community to marry who they wish. I actually read the Declaration of Independence, where it explicitly states that we are all created EQUAL and that all are endowed by their Creator with unalienable RIGHTS, LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It seems to me, that if a gay person can't marry whomever they like, they are being denied the pursuit of Happiness.

Don't you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Take a look at the health mandates that obummer enacted. if you didn't have insurance you got fined. People who could afford health insurance, suddenly couldn't as obummercare caused insurance rates to soar. 80 million people were harmed, so that 5 million who didn't have health insurance could. That sounds pretty damned oppressive to me. Doesn't it to you? Especially when you KNOW that no one is denied care in the USA. Yes, they may have to resort to going to the ER, but THEY ARE GUARANTEED CARE.

First of all, there are a lot of reasons why the premiums went up, not the least of which are Republican attempts to destabilize the markets and other forms of sabotage. This is a pretty lopsided view of Obama Care and I dispute you numbers, but let me remind you that this is not about Obama Care. Sanders is proposing a single payer system which would be nothing like what we have now. You tossing out Obama care is a thinly veiled red herring to avoid discussing how Sanders policies are oppressive

 

[dudmuck]

Telling people that they can't marry someone of the same sex, or passing laws to keep certain people from voting is not specific enough for you? Or, as I mentioned, laws robing women of reproductive choices are also authoritarian. You just can't accept that. Does not make it less true.

Socialists and fascist BOTH do that. Thanks for the help. Which is more authoritarian, saying women can't have an abortion, or saying they MUST have an abortion as China does? BTW, that is the reason why I am pro choice. The second a government takes the power to deny, it has also taken the power to say you must. Once again, fascism and socialism are the same.

Again , you're conflating an economic system that strives for equality with an oppressive political ideology that marginalizes selected minorities and elevate the elite. Which is more authoritarian, saying women can't have an abortion? They are equally oppressive and authoritarian.

China , like Russia, is a sham, bastardized version of socialism super imposed on an authoritarian, fascist political system You can keep bleating that fascism and socialism are the same until you turn blue but that does not make it true

PS: You seem to have avoided the question that I put to you. "Is Bernie Sanders a Fascist?? Yes or no and why.

No, I am not. They both use oppressive economic systems to get their way. One is merely more overt than the other. Yes, Bernie is ultimately a fascist. He believes in a collectivist government. ALL collectivist governments are socialist, which means they are also fascist.

What the **** is oppressive about Sanders economic policies?? Health insurance? Supporting the middle class? What? Only the very wealthy would find his policies oppressive. A social democratic philosophy is not Fascism.

Once again, you don't get the difference between economic policy and political ideology. Perhaps socialism in it's pure form can, by some measure be seen as oppressive, but to say that all socialists, including Sanders are Fascists is just plain stupid.

Take a look at the health mandates that obummer enacted. if you didn't have insurance you got fined. People who could afford health insurance, suddenly couldn't as obummercare caused insurance rates to soar. 80 million people were harmed, so that 5 million who didn't have health insurance could. That sounds pretty damned oppressive to me. Doesn't it to you? Especially when you KNOW that no one is denied care in the USA. Yes, they may have to resort to going to the ER, but THEY ARE GUARANTEED CARE.

You fundamentally don't understand that political ideology and economic ideology are absolutely linked. You have to be pretty myopic to not understand that. Most progressives simply don't care that their policies harm more than they help because ultimately most progressives only care about the power they get because of their policies. I am going to assume that you are actually a LIBERAL patriot, instead of a progressive one. I am also going to assume that you are not well educated in the difference. I am a liberal Democrat. I always have been. My grandfather, on the other hand, was a progressive. He was also an asshole, and a fairly high ranking member of the American Communist Party all through the 1920's and 30's. It is interactions that I had with those people that forever set me against them.

If you care about people, as i do. If you wish for the PEOPLE to have the maximum amount of freedom. Freedom from oppressive government, as I do. If you would like to see a world where the LGBTQ community is free to marry, as I do, my sister is lesbian and her partner is a fantastic woman. If you want to see the maximum number of people obtain healthcare, at a reasonable cost, that they can actually USE, as I do, then you must abandon the progressive mantra because ultimately they don't.

All they care about is power, and how they can use it to enrich themselves. Do yourself a favor, don't listen to what they say, actually take a long, hard look at what they DO. That is the ultimate test. Progressives have promised the middle class all sorts of things for ages.....and they have never delivered save to a very, very few. Instead, the vast majority of the middle class suffers. You have to ask yourself why that is. I have one of my grandfathers communist newspapers from 1932. In it they very carefully document how 2% of the population of the USA controlled 76% of the wealth of this nation.

Progressive Democrats then took control of the House, and the Senate and absolutely controlled both branches for 40 continuous years. They also held the presidency for the majority of that time. At the end of that run, the wealthiest 1%, controlled 90% of the wealth (according to reports that Bill Clinton ordered in his second term) so, you have to ask yourself, who were the progressives working for? The middle class, or the wealthiest one percent who witnessed their control of the wealth of this nation concentrated like never before.

I supported bernie (even though he is a fascist overall, but I knew his crazier ideas would never pass the House so was not worried about that aspect of his beliefs) because he claimed to be anti multinational corporation (who control all of that wealth) but then he sold out to hillary so I will never support him again. Ultimately you have to make a choice between the Middle Class, and the One Percent. Every policy that the progressives have ever pushed has benefited the one percent at the expense of the middle class.

So, do some hard core reading from sources you don't regularly use. Zinn is not an acceptable source. Neither is Noam. Come up with some different POV's and then come back and tell me what you have learned on your own.

But only do this if you are truly for the middle class, and not the one percent.

Democrats did have the house from the mid 50's to the mid 90's. But republicans had the senate in the 80's. You need to get your facts straight before dictating who is an acceptable source.

Growing inequality is caused by many factors. Such as outsourcing jobs overseas. The slow degradation of unions. Growing inequality is just a basic characteristic of capitalism, not the blame of one part or the other. Producing ever higher profits to please shareholders takes priority over workers. This applies the healthcare as equally as anything else.

 

[Silhouette]

If it is government mandating any sort of behavior that is collectivist. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Are you stupid?

So you agree that this LGBT thing has gone too far and is encroaching on the states declaring an official religion. Because when we hear the ACLU is shelving free speech defense for "social issues", that's code for "we want to force people to promote, condone and participate in the Church of LGBT".

I mean, that's what all this is about, as a backlash to the recent USSC "baker vs Colorado" slap to the Church of LGBT.

No. I do support the Right of the LGBTQ community to marry who they wish. I actually read the Declaration of Independence, where it explicitly states that we are all created EQUAL and that all are endowed by their Creator with unalienable RIGHTS, LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It seems to me, that if a gay person can't marry whomever they like, they are being denied the pursuit of Happiness.

Don't you?

No, because once you grant one set of behaviors that is repugnant to children's share of the marriage contract (both mother and father) since time immemorial, you MUST grant all of them. Including polygamy. How fair do you think it is to deny polygamists the right to marry who they want to if they cannot be happy otherwise? If making someone happy is guaranteed in the Constitution, it must be weighed against how it makes others SAD. It makes boys SAD to be told a contract his lesbian "parents' have forbids him for life from a father under his roof. It makes girls SAD to be told a contract her gay "parents" have forbids her from a mother for life under her roof.

A person's right to happiness ends where it makes others sad by proximity.

Please cite the 14th Amendment and tell me how once gays can escape regulation of the majority in their state re: marriage, even when it makes children sad, that other behavioral groups cannot gain that same immunity? (remember, affecting children negatively is no longer a disqualifier for those applying to marry in order to be "happy"...)

 

[westwall]

Take a look at the health mandates that obummer enacted. if you didn't have insurance you got fined. People who could afford health insurance, suddenly couldn't as obummercare caused insurance rates to soar. 80 million people were harmed, so that 5 million who didn't have health insurance could. That sounds pretty damned oppressive to me. Doesn't it to you? Especially when you KNOW that no one is denied care in the USA. Yes, they may have to resort to going to the ER, but THEY ARE GUARANTEED CARE.

First of all, there are a lot of reasons why the premiums went up, not the least of which are Republican attempts to destabilize the markets and other forms of sabotage. This is a pretty lopsided view of Obama Care and I dispute you numbers, but let me remind you that this is not about Obama Care. Sanders is proposing a single payer system which would be nothing like what we have now. You tossing out Obama care is a thinly veiled red herring to avoid discussing how Sanders policies are oppressive

Trying to blame the repubs for the faults of obummercare is a lie dude. Here is the architect of obummercare saying he had to rely on the stupidity of the America electorate (that would be you, among others) to pass this ridiculous law.



As far as single payer goes, it is not workable. California just tried to enact single payer and discovered to their chagrin that the cost would be more than double their entire State budget as it currently exists.

 

[westwall]

Socialists and fascist BOTH do that. Thanks for the help. Which is more authoritarian, saying women can't have an abortion, or saying they MUST have an abortion as China does? BTW, that is the reason why I am pro choice. The second a government takes the power to deny, it has also taken the power to say you must. Once again, fascism and socialism are the same.

Again , you're conflating an economic system that strives for equality with an oppressive political ideology that marginalizes selected minorities and elevate the elite. Which is more authoritarian, saying women can't have an abortion? They are equally oppressive and authoritarian.

China , like Russia, is a sham, bastardized version of socialism super imposed on an authoritarian, fascist political system You can keep bleating that fascism and socialism are the same until you turn blue but that does not make it true

PS: You seem to have avoided the question that I put to you. "Is Bernie Sanders a Fascist?? Yes or no and why.

No, I am not. They both use oppressive economic systems to get their way. One is merely more overt than the other. Yes, Bernie is ultimately a fascist. He believes in a collectivist government. ALL collectivist governments are socialist, which means they are also fascist.

What the **** is oppressive about Sanders economic policies?? Health insurance? Supporting the middle class? What? Only the very wealthy would find his policies oppressive. A social democratic philosophy is not Fascism.

Once again, you don't get the difference between economic policy and political ideology. Perhaps socialism in it's pure form can, by some measure be seen as oppressive, but to say that all socialists, including Sanders are Fascists is just plain stupid.

Take a look at the health mandates that obummer enacted. if you didn't have insurance you got fined. People who could afford health insurance, suddenly couldn't as obummercare caused insurance rates to soar. 80 million people were harmed, so that 5 million who didn't have health insurance could. That sounds pretty damned oppressive to me. Doesn't it to you? Especially when you KNOW that no one is denied care in the USA. Yes, they may have to resort to going to the ER, but THEY ARE GUARANTEED CARE.

You fundamentally don't understand that political ideology and economic ideology are absolutely linked. You have to be pretty myopic to not understand that. Most progressives simply don't care that their policies harm more than they help because ultimately most progressives only care about the power they get because of their policies. I am going to assume that you are actually a LIBERAL patriot, instead of a progressive one. I am also going to assume that you are not well educated in the difference. I am a liberal Democrat. I always have been. My grandfather, on the other hand, was a progressive. He was also an asshole, and a fairly high ranking member of the American Communist Party all through the 1920's and 30's. It is interactions that I had with those people that forever set me against them.

If you care about people, as i do. If you wish for the PEOPLE to have the maximum amount of freedom. Freedom from oppressive government, as I do. If you would like to see a world where the LGBTQ community is free to marry, as I do, my sister is lesbian and her partner is a fantastic woman. If you want to see the maximum number of people obtain healthcare, at a reasonable cost, that they can actually USE, as I do, then you must abandon the progressive mantra because ultimately they don't.

All they care about is power, and how they can use it to enrich themselves. Do yourself a favor, don't listen to what they say, actually take a long, hard look at what they DO. That is the ultimate test. Progressives have promised the middle class all sorts of things for ages.....and they have never delivered save to a very, very few. Instead, the vast majority of the middle class suffers. You have to ask yourself why that is. I have one of my grandfathers communist newspapers from 1932. In it they very carefully document how 2% of the population of the USA controlled 76% of the wealth of this nation.

Progressive Democrats then took control of the House, and the Senate and absolutely controlled both branches for 40 continuous years. They also held the presidency for the majority of that time. At the end of that run, the wealthiest 1%, controlled 90% of the wealth (according to reports that Bill Clinton ordered in his second term) so, you have to ask yourself, who were the progressives working for? The middle class, or the wealthiest one percent who witnessed their control of the wealth of this nation concentrated like never before.

I supported bernie (even though he is a fascist overall, but I knew his crazier ideas would never pass the House so was not worried about that aspect of his beliefs) because he claimed to be anti multinational corporation (who control all of that wealth) but then he sold out to hillary so I will never support him again. Ultimately you have to make a choice between the Middle Class, and the One Percent. Every policy that the progressives have ever pushed has benefited the one percent at the expense of the middle class.

So, do some hard core reading from sources you don't regularly use. Zinn is not an acceptable source. Neither is Noam. Come up with some different POV's and then come back and tell me what you have learned on your own.

But only do this if you are truly for the middle class, and not the one percent.

Democrats did have the house from the mid 50's to the mid 90's. But republicans had the senate in the 80's. You need to get your facts straight before dictating who is an acceptable source.

Growing inequality is caused by many factors. Such as outsourcing jobs overseas. The slow degradation of unions. Growing inequality is just a basic characteristic of capitalism, not the blame of one part or the other. Producing ever higher profits to please shareholders takes priority over workers. This applies the healthcare as equally as anything else.

Dems held the Senate from the 1940's to the 1990's. Can you ******* add? Dipshit.

 

[westwall]

If it is government mandating any sort of behavior that is collectivist. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Are you stupid?

So you agree that this LGBT thing has gone too far and is encroaching on the states declaring an official religion. Because when we hear the ACLU is shelving free speech defense for "social issues", that's code for "we want to force people to promote, condone and participate in the Church of LGBT".

I mean, that's what all this is about, as a backlash to the recent USSC "baker vs Colorado" slap to the Church of LGBT.

No. I do support the Right of the LGBTQ community to marry who they wish. I actually read the Declaration of Independence, where it explicitly states that we are all created EQUAL and that all are endowed by their Creator with unalienable RIGHTS, LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It seems to me, that if a gay person can't marry whomever they like, they are being denied the pursuit of Happiness.

Don't you?

No, because once you grant one set of behaviors that is repugnant to children's share of the marriage contract (both mother and father) since time immemorial, you MUST grant all of them. Including polygamy. How fair do you think it is to deny polygamists the right to marry who they want to if they cannot be happy otherwise? If making someone happy is guaranteed in the Constitution, it must be weighed against how it makes others SAD. It makes boys SAD to be told a contract his lesbian "parents' have forbids him for life from a father under his roof. It makes girls SAD to be told a contract her gay "parents" have forbids her from a mother for life under her roof.

A person's right to happiness ends where it makes others sad by proximity.

Please cite the 14th Amendment and tell me how once gays can escape regulation of the majority in their state re: marriage, even when it makes children sad, that other behavioral groups cannot gain that same immunity? (remember, affecting children negatively is no longer a disqualifier for those applying to marry in order to be "happy"...)

So long as a polygamist doesn't try and have the government pay for his or her lifestyle (as those asshole mormons have done for decades) I simply don't care. So long as they do not harm anyone it is their business so long as it is consensual. Children are obviously not to be considered as fair game. Child sex laws need to be strengthened IMO, but what ADULTS do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not my business. Why do you think it is yours? What makes you so special?

 

[Flash]

To be fair, the right has demonstrated they’re against free speech when they don’t agree with the message. Just look at the NFL controversy... those players were within their rights to protest the way they did and many on the right sought to punish them for exercising their right to free speech and to protest bc they didn’t agree with the reason/method of the protests.

You are confused.

There is no such thing as free speech in the work place. Nobody is saying that the NFL Players can't do their vile shit if the team owners allow it. They are just saying they don't want to see the NFL do their vile shit.

The ACLU is advocating legal government policy that restricts free speech for social justice reasons, which is clearly in violation of the Bill of Rights.

Big difference between the two.

.

 

[Flash]

[QU

What the **** is oppressive about Sanders economic policies?? Health insurance? Supporting the middle class? What? Only the very wealthy would find his policies oppressive. A social democratic philosophy is not Fascism.

Once again, you don't get the difference between economic policy and political ideology. Perhaps socialism in it's pure form can, by some measure be seen as oppressive, but to say that all socialists, including Sanders are Fascists is just plain stupid.

You don't think it is oppressive for the ******* government to force you to buy health insurance at a bloated price just to subsidize the filthy welfare queens?

It is always oppressive for the government to take your money and then give it to somebody else no matter how they do it.

You don't understand the concept of Liberty, do you?

 

[Silhouette]

If it is government mandating any sort of behavior that is collectivist. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Are you stupid?

So you agree that this LGBT thing has gone too far and is encroaching on the states declaring an official religion. Because when we hear the ACLU is shelving free speech defense for "social issues", that's code for "we want to force people to promote, condone and participate in the Church of LGBT".

I mean, that's what all this is about, as a backlash to the recent USSC "baker vs Colorado" slap to the Church of LGBT.

No. I do support the Right of the LGBTQ community to marry who they wish. I actually read the Declaration of Independence, where it explicitly states that we are all created EQUAL and that all are endowed by their Creator with unalienable RIGHTS, LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It seems to me, that if a gay person can't marry whomever they like, they are being denied the pursuit of Happiness.

Don't you?

No, because once you grant one set of behaviors that is repugnant to children's share of the marriage contract (both mother and father) since time immemorial, you MUST grant all of them. Including polygamy. How fair do you think it is to deny polygamists the right to marry who they want to if they cannot be happy otherwise? If making someone happy is guaranteed in the Constitution, it must be weighed against how it makes others SAD. It makes boys SAD to be told a contract his lesbian "parents' have forbids him for life from a father under his roof. It makes girls SAD to be told a contract her gay "parents" have forbids her from a mother for life under her roof.

A person's right to happiness ends where it makes others sad by proximity.

Please cite the 14th Amendment and tell me how once gays can escape regulation of the majority in their state re: marriage, even when it makes children sad, that other behavioral groups cannot gain that same immunity? (remember, affecting children negatively is no longer a disqualifier for those applying to marry in order to be "happy"...)

So long as a polygamist doesn't try and have the government pay for his or her lifestyle (as those asshole mormons have done for decades) I simply don't care. So long as they do not harm anyone it is their business so long as it is consensual. Children are obviously not to be considered as fair game. Child sex laws need to be strengthened IMO, but what ADULTS do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not my business. Why do you think it is yours? What makes you so special?

We are all mandated to protect children. That includes their bodies & their minds. You don't think any old marriage contract shared with kids can hurt them with lifelong binding terms. I do. I think marriages like polygamy & motherless or fatherless marriages can hurt children's pursuit of happiness. There is nothing "special" about that regard because i share it with the majority of Americans & the world.

Adults pursuit of happiness is checked up short when that pursuit proximally harms others. It's the reason polygamy is still illegal & you know it. So how & why along that same reasoning do we allow the adult pursuit of happiness in motherless or fatherless marriage contracts to bind children to that sadness for life?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

[QU

What the **** is oppressive about Sanders economic policies?? Health insurance? Supporting the middle class? What? Only the very wealthy would find his policies oppressive. A social democratic philosophy is not Fascism.

Once again, you don't get the difference between economic policy and political ideology. Perhaps socialism in it's pure form can, by some measure be seen as oppressive, but to say that all socialists, including Sanders are Fascists is just plain stupid.

You don't think it is oppressive for the ******* government to force you to buy health insurance at a bloated price just to subsidize the filthy welfare queens?

It is always oppressive for the government to take your money and then give it to somebody else no matter how they do it.

You don't understand the concept of Liberty, do you?

Giving your money to others? You don't understand the concept of insurance, do you?

How is this for giving your money to other people? Government saves money on the subsidies that people who no longer have insurance would have gotten, and uses it to fund tax giveaways to the wealthy?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

ACLU Quadrupled Membership, Gained $120 Million In Donations After Trump's Election | HuffPost

 

[Marion Morrison]

I have asked you to do a simple thing and all you can do is resort to insults in a wild effort to avoid that very simple thing. What has you so scared dude?

I gave you an answer, if you don't like it answer it yourself or you're being kind of pointless here, you haven't demonstrated, sourced or answered any questions yourself.

Property rights were virtually non existent for the civilian population of Soviet Russia. You lived where the State told you. So, what about the fascist? Here is their take on private property.


"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.-Ernst Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939)

Oh boy. Yes an authoritarian government wanted you to use your property for the common good of the nation. That's not unusual to some extend in any form of government be it Capitalism, Fascism (not diametrically opposed btw) or any other. Hitler also said this about private property:

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" There were private corporations that worked with the Nazi regime. It's never a good idea when private industries collude so closely with government that's the heart of corruption, just look at Scott Pruitt for that.

Anyway, Nazi Germany and private industry:

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
There have been others, however, who considered the regime as an instrument of big business by which the latter emerged from the Great Depression even more powerful than before.5 "Big Business" is indeed the right term with regard to the second hypothesis, because it did not deal with industry in general, but focused on "organized capitalism," namely industrial organizations, cartels, and trusts such as the companies of heavy industry or IG Farben. In a well-known early book, Franz Neumann pointed to the increased strength accruing to this kind of capitalism as well as to an alleged community of interest with the Nazi Party regarding territorial expansion of the Reich. Therefore Neumann felt entitled to speak of an alliance between the party and big industry, supplemented by the military and the bureaucracy. According to his view, each of these, in furthering its aims, was dependent on the other three.6 Similarly, Arthur Schweitzer detected a coalition of the party, the generals, and big business, which originally was quite successful in achieving its mutual aims-above all rearmament and the suppression of trade unions. However, this first phase of the Third Reich-termed "partial fascism" by Schweitzer-gave way to "full fascism" from 1936 onwards due to internal disunity among big business and the generals,

Oh no, the Nazis had private industry that had influence on government and vica-versa, Yeah, that's not Communism nor is it of the left.

What are Trump's views on Eminent domain?

Opinion | Donald Trump’s history of eminent domain abuse

For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.

As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.

Trump turned to a government agency – the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) – to take Coking’s property….

Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”

Kind of falls under that government telling citizens what they think of private property, eh? But you're probably OK with that and it's totally cool for government to kick people out so that some rich asshole has room for his casino. Talk about government picking winners and losers, sheesh. Anyway, kind of authoritarian.

So, we see that CAPITALISM is the enemy of both the socialists, and the fascists. Funny.

No, we do not see that at all. Super duper funny.

How about these famous fascist quotes? Do they sound familiar to you?

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

When has a United States President ever not pledged more employment opportunities? You know, like Trump and considering there was private industry in Nazi Germany this is more of a campaign promise than anything.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth."

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.-(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).

Yeah, I'm really not surprised by any of this. Considering Germany like everyone else was getting out of the world depression and sacrifices were asked of everyone, this doesn't really shock me as in the United States, and into WWII citizens were asked to sacrifice for country.

Anyway, I mean you're saying funding public education makes one a Nazi now? I'm sure Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would be thrilled about you throwing them in the right wing authoritarian pot.

Or how about a quote from the biggest fascist of all?

"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual....This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture....The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.- (Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.)

You're kidding, right? Hitler is rather famously not being inclusive about Jews and minorities here, he is rebuilding a country that was embarrassed in the last world war and he found his scapegoats and blaming them for all of Germany's ills. Kind of like Trump accusing Mexicans of being rapists and drug dealers or wanting to infringe on the rights of Muslims. This is straight up right wing, Hitler very much lied, he told the people what they wanted to hear and he had Communists as his competitors and he said quite a few things that were contradictory.

For Hitler being such a commie it's amazing that it's right wing nationalists and supremacists who still fawn over him. Why is that?

Or how about Hitlers views on Marx?

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.- (Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186).

Whenever you look at how the government of either power treated its people it becomes obvious that they are one and the same.

Yeah, like I said above, I don't trust Hitler to tell the truth about anything.

Why no quotes about Hitler's religion? I mean, Communists are famously athiests.

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement)
was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

“I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the
character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has
never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred
years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its
amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been
rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be
built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or
irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long
as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.”

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”


So, we could quote Hitler all day long, he lied to his own people so why do you believe him now?

There was private property and private industry in Nazi Germany, there was not in the USSR. Germany was a Christian country, most communist countries are not. Communism is based on the collective in practice, a classless system, Nazi Germany was not regardless of some of the rhetoric. Sure there are overtures to shared responsibilities however that's not uncommon in any country including ours especially times of war and economic hardship both of which were experienced in Germany.

Next thing you know you're going to tell me what an anarchist Trump is.

TL; DR You're a leftist ******, parroting the Globalist "Nazi" demonizing of Trump.

What's it like to be so UnAmerican?

What's it like to live in the cult of personality? You're a good little German ain't ya'? Man, it's still early you guys should at least try to hide your hardons, you look to eager to please.

I'm so German, I'm a cracker, ******. Stop obsessing over my penis, it's not for you.

FYI: Crackers don't come from Germany.

 

[theliq]

Looks like those Liberals turds at the ACLU have finally admitted they are Leftest assholes.

They are against free speech when it is in conflict with their Leftest agenda of hate and destruction.

Typical for Left Wingers all over the world. Free speech or any or liberty is to be sacrificed for Socialism. or the vile demented Left view of "social justice".


Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

Leaked Internal Memo Reveals the ACLU Is Wavering on Free Speech

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."

The American Civil Liberties Union will weigh its interest in protecting the First Amendment against its other commitments to social justice, racial equality, and women's rights, given the possibility that offensive speech might undermine ACLU goals.

"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," wrote ACLU staffers in a confidential memo obtained by former board member Wendy Kaminer.


It's hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly retreat from a full-throated defense of the First Amendment. Moving forward, when deciding whether to take a free speech case, the organization will consider "factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur."

Why do you have to swear and abuse...TNUC

 

[theliq]

I gave you an answer, if you don't like it answer it yourself or you're being kind of pointless here, you haven't demonstrated, sourced or answered any questions yourself.

Property rights were virtually non existent for the civilian population of Soviet Russia. You lived where the State told you. So, what about the fascist? Here is their take on private property.


"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.-Ernst Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939)

Oh boy. Yes an authoritarian government wanted you to use your property for the common good of the nation. That's not unusual to some extend in any form of government be it Capitalism, Fascism (not diametrically opposed btw) or any other. Hitler also said this about private property:

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" There were private corporations that worked with the Nazi regime. It's never a good idea when private industries collude so closely with government that's the heart of corruption, just look at Scott Pruitt for that.

Anyway, Nazi Germany and private industry:

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/cap...storicalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
There have been others, however, who considered the regime as an instrument of big business by which the latter emerged from the Great Depression even more powerful than before.5 "Big Business" is indeed the right term with regard to the second hypothesis, because it did not deal with industry in general, but focused on "organized capitalism," namely industrial organizations, cartels, and trusts such as the companies of heavy industry or IG Farben. In a well-known early book, Franz Neumann pointed to the increased strength accruing to this kind of capitalism as well as to an alleged community of interest with the Nazi Party regarding territorial expansion of the Reich. Therefore Neumann felt entitled to speak of an alliance between the party and big industry, supplemented by the military and the bureaucracy. According to his view, each of these, in furthering its aims, was dependent on the other three.6 Similarly, Arthur Schweitzer detected a coalition of the party, the generals, and big business, which originally was quite successful in achieving its mutual aims-above all rearmament and the suppression of trade unions. However, this first phase of the Third Reich-termed "partial fascism" by Schweitzer-gave way to "full fascism" from 1936 onwards due to internal disunity among big business and the generals,

Oh no, the Nazis had private industry that had influence on government and vica-versa, Yeah, that's not Communism nor is it of the left.

What are Trump's views on Eminent domain?

Opinion | Donald Trump’s history of eminent domain abuse

For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.

As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.

Trump turned to a government agency – the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) – to take Coking’s property….

Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”

Kind of falls under that government telling citizens what they think of private property, eh? But you're probably OK with that and it's totally cool for government to kick people out so that some rich asshole has room for his casino. Talk about government picking winners and losers, sheesh. Anyway, kind of authoritarian.

So, we see that CAPITALISM is the enemy of both the socialists, and the fascists. Funny.

No, we do not see that at all. Super duper funny.

How about these famous fascist quotes? Do they sound familiar to you?

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

When has a United States President ever not pledged more employment opportunities? You know, like Trump and considering there was private industry in Nazi Germany this is more of a campaign promise than anything.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth."

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.-(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).

Yeah, I'm really not surprised by any of this. Considering Germany like everyone else was getting out of the world depression and sacrifices were asked of everyone, this doesn't really shock me as in the United States, and into WWII citizens were asked to sacrifice for country.

Anyway, I mean you're saying funding public education makes one a Nazi now? I'm sure Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would be thrilled about you throwing them in the right wing authoritarian pot.

Or how about a quote from the biggest fascist of all?

"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual....This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture....The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.- (Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.)

You're kidding, right? Hitler is rather famously not being inclusive about Jews and minorities here, he is rebuilding a country that was embarrassed in the last world war and he found his scapegoats and blaming them for all of Germany's ills. Kind of like Trump accusing Mexicans of being rapists and drug dealers or wanting to infringe on the rights of Muslims. This is straight up right wing, Hitler very much lied, he told the people what they wanted to hear and he had Communists as his competitors and he said quite a few things that were contradictory.

For Hitler being such a commie it's amazing that it's right wing nationalists and supremacists who still fawn over him. Why is that?

Or how about Hitlers views on Marx?

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.- (Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186).

Whenever you look at how the government of either power treated its people it becomes obvious that they are one and the same.

Yeah, like I said above, I don't trust Hitler to tell the truth about anything.

Why no quotes about Hitler's religion? I mean, Communists are famously athiests.

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement)
was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

“I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the
character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has
never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred
years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its
amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been
rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be
built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or
irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long
as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.”

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”


So, we could quote Hitler all day long, he lied to his own people so why do you believe him now?

There was private property and private industry in Nazi Germany, there was not in the USSR. Germany was a Christian country, most communist countries are not. Communism is based on the collective in practice, a classless system, Nazi Germany was not regardless of some of the rhetoric. Sure there are overtures to shared responsibilities however that's not uncommon in any country including ours especially times of war and economic hardship both of which were experienced in Germany.

Next thing you know you're going to tell me what an anarchist Trump is.

TL; DR You're a leftist ******, parroting the Globalist "Nazi" demonizing of Trump.

What's it like to be so UnAmerican?

What's it like to live in the cult of personality? You're a good little German ain't ya'? Man, it's still early you guys should at least try to hide your hardons, you look to eager to please.

I'm so German, I'm a cracker, ******. Stop obsessing over my penis, it's not for you.

FYI: Crackers don't come from Germany.

And FYI...We know they come from U...because U R completely CRACKERS...


lol

 

[Silhouette]

The ACLU is advocating legal government policy that restricts free speech for social justice reasons, which is clearly in violation of the Bill of Rights.

Big difference between the two.

.

Since when do social groups have rights? I understand that people have certain protections because of how they were born; but not because of some behavior they picked up and decided to join a group that seeks to force the majority to buckle to its knees in preference. That's the state establishing a religion.

Yes, it is.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The ACLU is advocating legal government policy that restricts free speech for social justice reasons, which is clearly in violation of the Bill of Rights.

What you say, Bubba !!?? What is the ACLU advocating exactly. ?? They drafted a policy that says that may refuse to represent defendants in certain first amendment cases. Where the **** does the Bill of Rights say that any attorney has to take every case that they become aware of?? YOU are confused,

 

[Silhouette]

The ACLU is advocating legal government policy that restricts free speech for social justice reasons, which is clearly in violation of the Bill of Rights.

What you say, Bubba !!?? What is the ACLU advocating exactly. ?? They drafted a policy that says that may refuse to represent defendants in certain first amendment cases. Where the **** does the Bill of Rights say that any attorney has to take every case that they become aware of?? YOU are confused,

I think the point is that ACLU are hypocrites who are undermining their own credibility by saying they are for freedom of speech but only in "certain situations". Either there's freedom of speech or there isn't.