Jump to content

Yes, Liberal/Democrats are truly unpatriotic


AUisAll

Recommended Posts





AUisAll........IMHO the 9th circuit is about as dangerous as terrorists.

Isn't that the same Circuit Court that reversed the vote on the Protection of Marriage Act in California?

Its definitely a troubling sign when a court rules against the will of the people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, both the courts and the principal are wrong.

Besides the 1st Amendment protection of those students' freedom of speech/expression in their choice of apparel (although courts have recognized some constraints on that freedom in a school setting), to me the situation is not unlike a case where women are told what to wear to "protect them from harassment or rape". In both cases, we should not blame the potential victim or try to control their freedom of choice, but instead focus on the would-be attackers and make it clear to them that harassment and violence WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!

But I do echo ichy's question: In what way does this make all liberals or Democrats unpatriotic? That over-generalization/stereotyping is as ridiculous as suggesting that any person in U.S. flag attire is anti-Mexico or every woman who wears a short skirt is asking to be raped!

I also think it is ridiculous to compare the 9th Circuit Court to terrorists. Until such time as that court starts beheading people, forcing people to convert or die, slaughtering innocents and threatening sovereign nations, such a comparison is extremist hyperbole IMO.

However, I recognize the right of both AUisAll and PT to have their own opinions.

(On a different topic: I suggest Herman Cain find a better editor/proofreader for his website. The proper spelling for a school official is "principal", not "principle". E.g., "A principle [sic] pulled them aside, and told them to take off their patriotic gear..." Principles matter, but I have yet to see a principle literally pull someone aside.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah the good old ninth circus, always good for an anti american, anti constitutional ruling. I'm waiting for the day when they rule the constitution is unconstitutional.

Constitution? Those people pay no attention to the Constitution, thus, have no reason to rule it unconstitutional. They can interpret a law in the most unconstitutional perspective now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 9th Circuit is just the poster child for todays Democrat party. And NO, not all Democrats are unpatriotic, just like all Democrats aren't anti-God, insane, anti-personal responsibility, liars, ignorant etc etc. It's just that the majority of Democrats are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 9th Circuit is just the poster child for todays Democrat party. And NO, not all Democrats are unpatriotic, just like all Democrats aren't anti-God, insane, anti-personal responsibility, liars, ignorant etc etc. It's just that the majority of Democrats are.

The people running it are. Most of the democrats in the congress, especially the Senate are this way. The leadership is definitely anti American unpatriotic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 9th Circuit is just the poster child for todays Democrat party. And NO, not all Democrats are unpatriotic, just like all Democrats aren't anti-God, insane, anti-personal responsibility, liars, ignorant etc etc. It's just that the majority of Democrats are.

The people running it are. Most of the democrats in the congress, especially the Senate are this way. The leadership is definitely anti American unpatriotic.

I agree. Senator Dick Durbin called American GIs worse than Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge, Nazis and the Soviet KGB. John Kerry was right there with him. Just 2 examples that spring immediately to mind but there are others.

http://littlegreenfo...zis_KGB_Pol_Pot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 9th Circuit is just the poster child for todays Democrat party. And NO, not all Democrats are unpatriotic, just like all Democrats aren't anti-God, insane, anti-personal responsibility, liars, ignorant etc etc. It's just that the majority of Democrats are.

The people running it are. Most of the democrats in the congress, especially the Senate are this way. The leadership is definitely anti American unpatriotic.

I completely agree and the majority of their voting base is as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUisAll........IMHO the 9th circuit is about as dangerous as terrorists.

Isn't that the same Circuit Court that reversed the vote on the Protection of Marriage Act in California?

Its definitely a troubling sign when a court rules against the will of the people

Not always. The "will of the people" or a majority is not always right or deserving of respect. It was the "will of the people" in the South to keep slavery legal in 1860 (Well, technically, the will of the people in political control). It was the will of the majority of voters in southern states to retain Jim Crow laws and ban interracial marriage in the 1930's-40's. I suspect there are villages in Syria and Afghanistan where the people willingly endorse the barbaric actions of ISIS or the Taliban. I'm glad courts could overturn those "wills" in the U.S. (after the 13th Amendment in the case of slavery), and wish there were courts that had the power to override the extremism of ISIS or the Taliban.

Even with a vote of 99.9% to 0.1%, I would never support "the people's" right to legalize slavery again, imprison homosexuals, ban non-Christian religions, or tolerate rape and murder. "Majority rules" is NOT always right. Even Jefferson spoke of "inalienable" rights, rights that no "people" or simple majority could take away from the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, both the courts and the principal are wrong.

Besides the 1st Amendment protection of those students' freedom of speech/expression in their choice of apparel (although courts have recognized some constraints on that freedom in a school setting), to me the situation is not unlike a case where women are told what to wear to "protect them from harassment or rape". In both cases, we should not blame the potential victim or try to control their freedom of choice, but instead focus on the would-be attackers and make it clear to them that harassment and violence WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!

But I do echo ichy's question: In what way does this make all liberals or Democrats unpatriotic? That over-generalization/stereotyping is as ridiculous as suggesting that any person in U.S. flag attire is anti-Mexico or every woman who wears a short skirt is asking to be raped!

I also think it is ridiculous to compare the 9th Circuit Court to terrorists. Until such time as that court starts beheading people, forcing people to convert or die, slaughtering innocents and threatening sovereign nations, such a comparison is extremist hyperbole IMO.

However, I recognize the right of both AUisAll and PT to have their own opinions.

(On a different topic: I suggest Herman Cain find a better editor/proofreader for his website. The proper spelling for a school official is "principal", not "principle". E.g., "A principle [sic] pulled them aside, and told them to take off their patriotic gear..." Principles matter, but I have yet to see a principle literally pull someone aside.)

Yes they were wrong but I'm not surprised in the least. This is California after all. Every bad idea that has worked it's way into the American conscience started there. Hardcore leftists run that state, especially the education system. This is the same bunch that elected Jerry Moonbeam Brown governor again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUisAll........IMHO the 9th circuit is about as dangerous as terrorists.

Isn't that the same Circuit Court that reversed the vote on the Protection of Marriage Act in California?

Its definitely a troubling sign when a court rules against the will of the people

Not always. The "will of the people" or a majority is not always right or deserving of respect. It was the "will of the people" in the South to keep slavery legal in 1860 (Well, technically, the will of the people in political control). It was the will of the majority of voters in southern states to retain Jim Crow laws and ban interracial marriage in the 1930's-40's. I suspect there are villages in Syria and Afghanistan where the people willingly endorse the barbaric actions of ISIS or the Taliban. I'm glad courts could overturn those "wills" in the U.S. (after the 13th Amendment in the case of slavery), and wish there were courts that had the power to override the extremism of ISIS or the Taliban.

Even with a vote of 99.9% to 0.1%, I would never support "the people's" right to legalize slavery again, imprison homosexuals, ban non-Christian religions, or tolerate rape and murder. "Majority rules" is NOT always right. Even Jefferson spoke of "inalienable" rights, rights that no "people" or simple majority could take away from the individual.

To put a finer point on your examples, it was the will of the Democrat party to keep slavery AND the Jim Crowe laws that THEY wrote. Your examples are quite extreme when all I was talking about was a vote on protecting traditional marriage. Are you saying that traditional marriage is as potentially harmful to society as slavery and Jim Crow laws so a prescient 9th Circuit nipped that vote in the bud?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quietfan....maybe my choice of words weren't the best (I'm not an Obama orator with a teleprompter) but didn't mean to make a direct companion between the 9th district and terrorists in terms of bodily harm. But I do mean the 9th district's power and decisions can cause harm to our country, just in a different way. I stand by that belief. As far as patriotism is concerned I iike Mark Twain's comment........"Patriotism is supporting my country all the time, and my gov't when they deserve it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUisAll........IMHO the 9th circuit is about as dangerous as terrorists.

Isn't that the same Circuit Court that reversed the vote on the Protection of Marriage Act in California?

Its definitely a troubling sign when a court rules against the will of the people

Not always. The "will of the people" or a majority is not always right or deserving of respect. It was the "will of the people" in the South to keep slavery legal in 1860 (Well, technically, the will of the people in political control). It was the will of the majority of voters in southern states to retain Jim Crow laws and ban interracial marriage in the 1930's-40's. I suspect there are villages in Syria and Afghanistan where the people willingly endorse the barbaric actions of ISIS or the Taliban. I'm glad courts could overturn those "wills" in the U.S. (after the 13th Amendment in the case of slavery), and wish there were courts that had the power to override the extremism of ISIS or the Taliban.

Even with a vote of 99.9% to 0.1%, I would never support "the people's" right to legalize slavery again, imprison homosexuals, ban non-Christian religions, or tolerate rape and murder. "Majority rules" is NOT always right. Even Jefferson spoke of "inalienable" rights, rights that no "people" or simple majority could take away from the individual.

To put a finer point on your examples, it was the will of the Democrat party to keep slavery AND the Jim Crowe laws that THEY wrote. Your examples are quite extreme when all I was talking about was a vote on protecting traditional marriage. Are you saying that traditional marriage is as potentially harmful to society as slavery and Jim Crow laws so a prescient 9th Circuit nipped that vote in the bud?

I agree with you up to a point: You are of course correct in that traditional marriage, for those who choose it, is certainly not as harmful as slavery or Jim Crow. I have no problem whatsoever with those who choose traditional marriage for themselves or within the confines of their religious faith. (I have, and will again if/when I remarry.) Of course, I don't think gay marriage for those who choose it is a threat to society either. However I would have serious grievances with anyone who chose to practice slavery or Jim Crow standards (separate bathrooms, entrances, public lunch counters, etc.) for themselves.

Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws thought they were defending "traditional marriage" in outlawing interracial marriage. I do think recognizing one and only one particular group's definition of marriage (e.g., only between a man and a woman) is wrong for a system supposedly based on liberty and religious freedom. So I cannot defend it as something the "will of the people" is entitled to enforce on others.

My point of course was not to compare the relative merits of one example over another, but simply to say the "will of the people" or the vote of the majority is NOT automatically sacrosanct or universally valid.

(Concern about the names of particular parties in history--"Democrat", "Republican", "Bullmoose", etc.--is something of a red herring. I am referring to political philosophies, not what proponents of a philosophy called themselves at any given point in history. In 1860 Democrats were generally more conservative than Republicans. Today labels have changed and Democrats are generally the more liberal of the two. If party name was more important than political philosophy, why would so many southerners have defected from the Democratic party to the GOP in the last half century? Certainly not because of the Republicans' name or liberal past!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quietfan....maybe my choice of words weren't the best (I'm not an Obama orator with a teleprompter) but didn't mean to make a direct companion between the 9th district and terrorists in terms of bodily harm. But I do mean the 9th district's power and decisions can cause harm to our country, just in a different way. I stand by that belief. As far as patriotism is concerned I iike Mark Twain's comment........"Patriotism is supporting my country all the time, and my gov't when they deserve it."

I had never heard that Mark Twain quote, but I like it. For the most part, it describes my patriotism.

With some caveat...I live in Alabama because my roots and relatives are here. I likely would not have had the desire or the means to emigrate from the Confederacy in 1860, and most likely wouldn't if we seceded again today. But I could never have supported the Confederacy as a country in 1860, and most likely would not support the new country if we seceded today...not that I would commit civil violence or actively betray it. If that made me unpatriotic in that respect, I'd accept the label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUisAll........IMHO the 9th circuit is about as dangerous as terrorists.

Isn't that the same Circuit Court that reversed the vote on the Protection of Marriage Act in California?

Its definitely a troubling sign when a court rules against the will of the people

Not always. The "will of the people" or a majority is not always right or deserving of respect. It was the "will of the people" in the South to keep slavery legal in 1860 (Well, technically, the will of the people in political control). It was the will of the majority of voters in southern states to retain Jim Crow laws and ban interracial marriage in the 1930's-40's. I suspect there are villages in Syria and Afghanistan where the people willingly endorse the barbaric actions of ISIS or the Taliban. I'm glad courts could overturn those "wills" in the U.S. (after the 13th Amendment in the case of slavery), and wish there were courts that had the power to override the extremism of ISIS or the Taliban.

Even with a vote of 99.9% to 0.1%, I would never support "the people's" right to legalize slavery again, imprison homosexuals, ban non-Christian religions, or tolerate rape and murder. "Majority rules" is NOT always right. Even Jefferson spoke of "inalienable" rights, rights that no "people" or simple majority could take away from the individual.

To put a finer point on your examples, it was the will of the Democrat party to keep slavery AND the Jim Crowe laws that THEY wrote. Your examples are quite extreme when all I was talking about was a vote on protecting traditional marriage. Are you saying that traditional marriage is as potentially harmful to society as slavery and Jim Crow laws so a prescient 9th Circuit nipped that vote in the bud?

I agree with you up to a point: You are of course correct in that traditional marriage, for those who choose it, is certainly not as harmful as slavery or Jim Crow. I have no problem whatsoever with those who choose traditional marriage for themselves or within the confines of their religious faith. (I have, and will again if/when I remarry.) Of course, I don't think gay marriage for those who choose it is a threat to society either. However I would have serious grievances with anyone who chose to practice slavery or Jim Crow standards (separate bathrooms, entrances, public lunch counters, etc.) for themselves.

Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws thought they were defending "traditional marriage" in outlawing interracial marriage. I do think recognizing one and only one particular group's definition of marriage (e.g., only between a man and a woman) is wrong for a system supposedly based on liberty and religious freedom. So I cannot defend it as something the "will of the people" is entitled to enforce on others.

My point of course was not to compare the relative merits of one example over another, but simply to say the "will of the people" or the vote of the majority is NOT automatically sacrosanct or universally valid.

(Concern about the names of particular parties in history--"Democrat", "Republican", "Bullmoose", etc.--is something of a red herring. I am referring to political philosophies, not what proponents of a philosophy called themselves at any given point in history. In 1860 Democrats were generally more conservative than Republicans. Today labels have changed and Democrats are generally the more liberal of the two. If party name was more important than political philosophy, why would so many southerners have defected from the Democratic party to the GOP in the last half century? Certainly not because of the Republicans' name or liberal past!)

Too much here to argue but I'll address the last question. Most of the time people refuse to acknowledge the democrat party as the inherently racist party it has always been. The racism today is just different and is best characterized as the soft racism of low expectations. Democrats have worked really hard projecting their history onto others and have even entertained revisionist history to distance themselves from their sordid past. Democrats have never been big proponents of freedom and liberty and have almost completely sold out to politics of egalitarianism.

Its not hard for me to see why the constituencies have changed. You claim that 1860 democrats were more conservative but it took a republican President to set slaves free in 1863. What does conservative and what does liberal mean? Republicans still embrace policies of freedom and liberty but democrats,..not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AUisAll........IMHO the 9th circuit is about as dangerous as terrorists.

Isn't that the same Circuit Court that reversed the vote on the Protection of Marriage Act in California?

Its definitely a troubling sign when a court rules against the will of the people

Not always. The "will of the people" or a majority is not always right or deserving of respect. It was the "will of the people" in the South to keep slavery legal in 1860 (Well, technically, the will of the people in political control). It was the will of the majority of voters in southern states to retain Jim Crow laws and ban interracial marriage in the 1930's-40's. I suspect there are villages in Syria and Afghanistan where the people willingly endorse the barbaric actions of ISIS or the Taliban. I'm glad courts could overturn those "wills" in the U.S. (after the 13th Amendment in the case of slavery), and wish there were courts that had the power to override the extremism of ISIS or the Taliban.

Even with a vote of 99.9% to 0.1%, I would never support "the people's" right to legalize slavery again, imprison homosexuals, ban non-Christian religions, or tolerate rape and murder. "Majority rules" is NOT always right. Even Jefferson spoke of "inalienable" rights, rights that no "people" or simple majority could take away from the individual.

To put a finer point on your examples, it was the will of the Democrat party to keep slavery AND the Jim Crowe laws that THEY wrote. Your examples are quite extreme when all I was talking about was a vote on protecting traditional marriage. Are you saying that traditional marriage is as potentially harmful to society as slavery and Jim Crow laws so a prescient 9th Circuit nipped that vote in the bud?

I agree with you up to a point: You are of course correct in that traditional marriage, for those who choose it, is certainly not as harmful as slavery or Jim Crow. I have no problem whatsoever with those who choose traditional marriage for themselves or within the confines of their religious faith. (I have, and will again if/when I remarry.) Of course, I don't think gay marriage for those who choose it is a threat to society either. However I would have serious grievances with anyone who chose to practice slavery or Jim Crow standards (separate bathrooms, entrances, public lunch counters, etc.) for themselves.

Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws thought they were defending "traditional marriage" in outlawing interracial marriage. I do think recognizing one and only one particular group's definition of marriage (e.g., only between a man and a woman) is wrong for a system supposedly based on liberty and religious freedom. So I cannot defend it as something the "will of the people" is entitled to enforce on others.

My point of course was not to compare the relative merits of one example over another, but simply to say the "will of the people" or the vote of the majority is NOT automatically sacrosanct or universally valid.

(Concern about the names of particular parties in history--"Democrat", "Republican", "Bullmoose", etc.--is something of a red herring. I am referring to political philosophies, not what proponents of a philosophy called themselves at any given point in history. In 1860 Democrats were generally more conservative than Republicans. Today labels have changed and Democrats are generally the more liberal of the two. If party name was more important than political philosophy, why would so many southerners have defected from the Democratic party to the GOP in the last half century? Certainly not because of the Republicans' name or liberal past!)

Too much here to argue but I'll address the last question. Most of the time people refuse to acknowledge the democrat party as the inherently racist party it has always been. The racism today is just different and is best characterized as the soft racism of low expectations. Democrats have worked really hard projecting their history onto others and have even entertained revisionist history to distance themselves from their sordid past. Democrats have never been big proponents of freedom and liberty and have almost completely sold out to politics of egalitarianism.

Its not hard for me to see why the constituencies have changed. You claim that 1860 democrats were more conservative but it took a republican President to set slaves free in 1863. What does conservative and what does liberal mean? Republicans still embrace policies of freedom and liberty but democrats,..not so much.

I think that represents an amazing ability to believe almost anything. Why did white southerners reject the Democratic Party and become overwhelmingly Republican?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quietfan is like a candle in the wind of simplistic - not to say idiotic - thinking.

Or perhaps more accurately a fart in a hurricane? :big:

Well, maybe the physical equivalent, but I have more respect for the quality of your posts. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Democrats have never been big proponents of freedom and liberty and have almost completely sold out to politics of egalitarianism.

Its not hard for me to see why the constituencies have changed. You claim that 1860 democrats were more conservative but it took a republican President to set slaves free in 1863. What does conservative and what does liberal mean? Republicans still embrace policies of freedom and liberty but democrats,..not so much.

I fully respect your right to that opinion! Of course I also respectfully disagree.

My opinion, equally personal and ultimately of equally debatable veracity, is the opposite. When I look at Republican efforts to limit freedom of choice in marital partners, limit freedom of choice in reproductive rights, disrespect or disenfranchise minorities, promote religious exclusion or conformity, etc., it is hard for me see them as the party of freedom and liberty. But that of course is merely my opinion, neither more or less deserving of respect than yours.

http://www.merriam-w.../egalitarianism

Egalitarianism--

1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs

2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

I thought it was "self evident" that "all men are created equal". ..Did not realize it was a bad thing to "sell out to".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quietfan is like a candle in the wind of simplistic - not to say idiotic - thinking.

Or perhaps more accurately a fart in a hurricane? :big:

Well, maybe the physical equivalent, but I have more respect for the quality of your posts. ;)

Surely you are not implying my farts lack quality? :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...