ACLU Defends MILO and the Usual Libtard Suspects Attack The ACLU for Defending Free Speech

[Pogo]

There is absolutely no similarity between the history of Liberalism and what passes for Liberalism today.

Again, another wag self-identifies as having no idea what his own term means. Your inability to figure that out is on you, not me.

You say "The entire concept of Free Speech is Liberalism." Sure, as long as you are parroting the Democratic Party Line, you are free to speak.

Again --- none of this is about "Democrats". "Democrats" are members of a political party. One which didn't exist until Andy Jackson and Martin van Buren put it together, by which time Liberalism had already long established this country. Liberalism is a philosophy, and one which happens to have written the First Amendment. Ergo, you cannot be a "Liberal" and simultaneously be against Liberalism. That's an oxymoron. You can however be a Liberal and be a Democrat, or a Republican, or no political party at all. One is not necessary for the other

Liberalism / Democrats -- know the difference.

 

[Pogo]

Finally he crawls out, attempts coherent speech!

Where did I say anything about "Democrats", moron?

See what I mean about having no clue what the fuck you're talking about?

>>
Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. << (Wiki)

Now then.

Care to tell us where you know these "usual suspects" from?

Liberalism was originally a concept based on liberty. Modern day liberals bastardized it into meaning equality, which by definition requires people to give up a certain amount of liberty.

NO --- ignorami like YOU and the OP are the ones bastardizing it. That's exactly what I've been pointing out the whole time.

That's entirely YOUR fault --- not the fault of your target.

 

[saveliberty]

There is absolutely no similarity between the history of Liberalism and what passes for Liberalism today.

Again, another wag self-identifies as having no idea what his own term means. Your inability to figure that out is on you, not me.

You say "The entire concept of Free Speech is Liberalism." Sure, as long as you are parroting the Democratic Party Line, you are free to speak.

Again --- none of this is about "Democrats". "Democrats" are members of a political party. One which didn't exist until Andy Jackson and Martin van Buren put it together, by which time Liberalism had already long established this country. Liberalism is a philosophy, and one which happens to have written the First Amendment. Ergo, you cannot be a "Liberal" and simultaneously be against Liberalism. That's an oxymoron. You can however be a Liberal and be a Democrat, or a Republican, or no political party at all. One is not necessary for the other

Liberalism / Democrats -- know the difference.

You are using fuzzy history in order to create a false conclusion.

 

[Pogo]

I don't do Doublethink, comrade. You can't be a fascist and a Liberal at the same time either. Dites pas les bêtises.

...and yet here you are doing just that.

Essplain.

 

[saveliberty]

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.

liberalism | politics

Let's start from the beginning then, how do you feel about limited government? Liberalism wants it limited.

 

[saveliberty]

The problem is compounded when one asks whether this is all that government can or should do on behalf of individual freedom. Some liberals—the so-called neoclassical liberals, or libertarians—answer that it is. Since the late 19th century, however, most liberals have insisted that the powers of government can promote as well as protect the freedom of the individual. According to modern liberalism, the chief task of government is to remove obstacles that prevent individuals from living freely or from fully realizing their potential. Such obstacles include poverty, disease, discrimination, and ignorance.

Do you agree with the bold section, because that makes you a modern liberal, which different from the liberal the Founders were.

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.

liberalism | politics

Let's start from the beginning then, how do you feel about limited government? Liberalism wants it limited.

Correct. Liberalism guarantees citizen rights, and then it gets the hell out of the way. I agree with that.

You didn't answer my question to "essplain".

 

[Pogo]

The problem is compounded when one asks whether this is all that government can or should do on behalf of individual freedom. Some liberals—the so-called neoclassical liberals, or libertarians—answer that it is. Since the late 19th century, however, most liberals have insisted that the powers of government can promote as well as protect the freedom of the individual. According to modern liberalism, the chief task of government is to remove obstacles that prevent individuals from living freely or from fully realizing their potential. Such obstacles include poverty, disease, discrimination, and ignorance.

Do you agree with the bold section, because that makes you a modern liberal, which different from the liberal the Founder were.

No, that's more activist government. That's more like leftism.

I've always boiled it down to a simple equation:

• To declare "all men are created equal" --- is Liberalism.
• To them declare "therefore we have to pass Affirmative Action quotas to make them equal" --- is leftism.

Liberalism sees government as a referee. A referee will call a penalty when a player goes out of bounds --- but he doesn't actually play in the game.

 

[Pogo]

Meanwhile --- OP ran away again. No doubt to do his research on who these "usual suspects" are...

 

[flacaltenn]

This is so freaking stupid, you just cant make it up.

Reality is stranger than fiction.

Liberals Attack ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos’ Right to Free Speech

The American Civil Liberties Union is being slammed defending the right of Milo Yiannopoulos to free speech.

Posting on Twitter, the ACLU account signal boosted the tweets of one of its lawyers, Lee Rowland, who said it was important to protect speech—even speech we personally disagree with—to prevent the First Amendment from devolving into a popularity contest.

Both the official ACLU Twitter account and Rowland were mobbed by outraged social justice warriors who told them they were wrong to defend his basic rights.

Their arguments were replete with hyperbole denouncing him as some kind of homosexual Nazi whose words will usher in a very gay and very fabulous Fourth Reich. The hysteria couldn’t, of course, be farther from the truth.​

Oh FUCKING BULLSHIT. You swallow all your headlines whole, moron? Where does it prove the blowback came from "Liberals"? Hm?

If ACLU defended the Constitution --- which is what it always does --- and somebody attacks ACLU for it, then by definition they can't be Liberals.

Of course. Most of them are leftists -- not Liberals. That's why the distinction is made. Most of the DNC and DCCC are leftists -- not Liberals. Don't give a crap about the Constitution or words about Liberty and Freedom..

 

[flacaltenn]

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.

liberalism | politics

Let's start from the beginning then, how do you feel about limited government? Liberalism wants it limited.

Correct. Liberalism guarantees citizen rights, and then it gets the hell out of the way. I agree with that.

You didn't answer my question to "essplain".

Only "Liberal" party left are the Libertarians. So -- all this fuss is useless to the realities of the partisan war. Matter of fact -- Conservatism died with Buckley and Reagan. So we're basically left with 2 parties that LOVE Power and play and fast with the Constitution and rules of govt.

 

[Pogo]

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.

liberalism | politics

Let's start from the beginning then, how do you feel about limited government? Liberalism wants it limited.

Correct. Liberalism guarantees citizen rights, and then it gets the hell out of the way. I agree with that.

You didn't answer my question to "essplain".

Only "Liberal" party left are the Libertarians. So -- all this fuss is useless to the realities of the partisan war. Matter of fact -- Conservatism died with Buckley and Reagan. So we're basically left with 2 parties that LOVE Power and play and fast with the Constitution and rules of govt.

Agree about the Duopoly -- I describe them as a single puppetmaster who dresses half his puppets in blue and the other half in red and the audience isn't supposed to look up the strings to see the connections.

But we're talking about defining Liberalism, not about political parties.

 

[flacaltenn]

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.

liberalism | politics

Let's start from the beginning then, how do you feel about limited government? Liberalism wants it limited.

Correct. Liberalism guarantees citizen rights, and then it gets the hell out of the way. I agree with that.

You didn't answer my question to "essplain".

Only "Liberal" party left are the Libertarians. So -- all this fuss is useless to the realities of the partisan war. Matter of fact -- Conservatism died with Buckley and Reagan. So we're basically left with 2 parties that LOVE Power and play and fast with the Constitution and rules of govt.

Agree about the Duopoly -- I describe them as a single puppetmaster who dresses half his puppets in blue and the other half in red and the audience isn't supposed to look up the strings to see the connections.

But we're talking about defining Liberalism, not about political parties.

I don't want to DEFINE Liberalism. I want it BACK in the FORM of a political party.. There's a BUNCH of politically homeless Liberals been wandering around for 2 decades wondering WHEN some party would reclaim the name.

This Milo thing is a great example of how INTOLERANCE and labeling and stereotyping has been overused by the Left. They have no fear of govt. Their BIGGEST fear is their helpless victim constituency turning on them. For THAT --- Milo is a nightmare who HAS to be neutralized.

 

[Pogo]

I don't want to DEFINE Liberalism. I want it BACK in the FORM of a political party.. There's a BUNCH of politically homeless Liberals been wandering around for 2 decades wondering WHEN some party would reclaim the name.

Yeah I'm hip! And when I point that out I get called "Democrat", "leftist" and even in this thread, "fascist". None of which is productive. That's why I freak out when assclowns like the OP abuse the term.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't want to DEFINE Liberalism. I want it BACK in the FORM of a political party.. There's a BUNCH of politically homeless Liberals been wandering around for 2 decades wondering WHEN some party would reclaim the name.

Yeah I'm hip! And when I point that out I get called "Democrat", "leftist" and even in this thread, "fascist". None of which is productive. That's why I freak out when assclowns like the OP abuse the term.

Well -- let's reclaim the Liberal label. I'm not ready to start paying ACLU dues yet. But I sure as hell dont' see either brand name party showing respect for Civil Liberties or an innate fear of big intrusive concentrated power.

 

[Pogo]

I don't want to DEFINE Liberalism. I want it BACK in the FORM of a political party.. There's a BUNCH of politically homeless Liberals been wandering around for 2 decades wondering WHEN some party would reclaim the name.

Yeah I'm hip! And when I point that out I get called "Democrat", "leftist" and even in this thread, "fascist". None of which is productive. That's why I freak out when assclowns like the OP abuse the term.

Well -- let's reclaim the Liberal label. I'm not ready to start paying ACLU dues yet. But I sure as hell dont' see either brand name party showing respect for Civil Liberties or an innate fear of big intrusive concentrated power.

"Reclaiming the Liberal label" is very much what I'm doing here. Hence the attacks on ignorant OPs like this one.

 

[MindWars]

I don't have a "spin". Again, just like the last thread, the OP and his article make a claim they can't back up. And I've demonstrated why the premise is inoperative.

I'd also like him to essplain what he means by "the usual libtard suspects". I wonder if he claims to personally know the tweeters cited. How else would he know they're "usual"?

He won't answer that though.

For your own benefit there is this theory that if it walks, talks and generally acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. You haven't demonstrated dick Pogo. It is simply an avoidance of the obvious, because it doesn't fit your narrative of reality.

Again with the "probability" theories, this time based on a term neither you nor the OP apparently understands.

Liberalism WROTE the Constitution. The entire concept of "Free Speech" is Liberalism. You cannot, by definition, be a Liberal and an anti-Liberal at the same time. THINK about it. They're the opposite of each other



Notice if you will the OP says nothing about "probabilities". Does it say "ACLU got slammed and it's probably Liberals"? No it does not --- it comes out with the flat declaration that not only are they what he calls "libtards" but they're "the usual suspects", as if he already knows them.

NOTHING in that is about "probabilities" so take your spin and cram it up your laundromat.

Notice another similarity with the other thread. Here too the OP has nothing to say in his own defense.

That's when Liberals were real and weren't moronic , radical, communist fkn idiots.
Today they are everything but liberals. They are fake Liberals who don't even know what the hell they're even protesting for. They're that stupid.

 

[MindWars]

I don't want to DEFINE Liberalism. I want it BACK in the FORM of a political party.. There's a BUNCH of politically homeless Liberals been wandering around for 2 decades wondering WHEN some party would reclaim the name.

Yeah I'm hip! And when I point that out I get called "Democrat", "leftist" and even in this thread, "fascist". None of which is productive. That's why I freak out when assclowns like the OP abuse the term.

Well -- let's reclaim the Liberal label. I'm not ready to start paying ACLU dues yet. But I sure as hell dont' see either brand name party showing respect for Civil Liberties or an innate fear of big intrusive concentrated power.

"Reclaiming the Liberal label" is very much what I'm doing here. Hence the attacks on ignorant OPs like this one.

In Pakistan, ‘liberal’ is a dirty word

 

[theHawk]

I don't have a "spin". Again, just like the last thread, the OP and his article make a claim they can't back up. And I've demonstrated why the premise is inoperative.

I'd also like him to essplain what he means by "the usual libtard suspects". I wonder if he claims to personally know the tweeters cited. How else would he know they're "usual"?

He won't answer that though.

For your own benefit there is this theory that if it walks, talks and generally acts like a duck, it is probably a duck. You haven't demonstrated dick Pogo. It is simply an avoidance of the obvious, because it doesn't fit your narrative of reality.

Again with the "probability" theories, this time based on a term neither you nor the OP apparently understands.

Liberalism WROTE the Constitution. The entire concept of "Free Speech" is Liberalism. You cannot, by definition, be a Liberal and an anti-Liberal at the same time. THINK about it. They're the opposite of each other



Notice if you will the OP says nothing about "probabilities". Does it say "ACLU got slammed and it's probably Liberals"? No it does not --- it comes out with the flat declaration that not only are they what he calls "libtards" but they're "the usual suspects", as if he already knows them.

NOTHING in that is about "probabilities" so take your spin and cram it up your laundromat.

Notice another similarity with the other thread. Here too the OP has nothing to say in his own defense.

In a way, you are correct. The article should had called them what they really are, progressives and/or Marxists. But it is an understandable mistake since most progressives go around calling themselves "liberals" when they are anything but.

 

[martybegan]

This is so freaking stupid, you just cant make it up.

Reality is stranger than fiction.

Liberals Attack ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos’ Right to Free Speech

The American Civil Liberties Union is being slammed defending the right of Milo Yiannopoulos to free speech.

Posting on Twitter, the ACLU account signal boosted the tweets of one of its lawyers, Lee Rowland, who said it was important to protect speech—even speech we personally disagree with—to prevent the First Amendment from devolving into a popularity contest.

Both the official ACLU Twitter account and Rowland were mobbed by outraged social justice warriors who told them they were wrong to defend his basic rights.

Their arguments were replete with hyperbole denouncing him as some kind of homosexual Nazi whose words will usher in a very gay and very fabulous Fourth Reich. The hysteria couldn’t, of course, be farther from the truth.​

The ACLU is going to find itself in a very very tough place going forward. It has been watering down its free speech credentials, mostly to do with Abortion protests, and is seeing that the new crop of progressives only think Civil Liberties apply to "good thinkers"