BF2S Forums "Dear American Liberals" a letter from a law student.

lowing wrote:

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

Already covered who the liberal achievers are, politicians, celebrities, college professors, and the poor.

politicans immuned to their own laws

So you claim that E.g. a successful multi-million business owner cannot be a liberal nor a democrat?

The amount of fail in that sentence is astounding. Somewhere a Darwinist just died.

Never said CAN NOT be, the intent, was probably ISN'T.

The vast majority of business owners I am sure do not approve of Obama and his socialist agenda.

You are sure? Can I get some hard data on that? Is it impossible for you to believe that a rich company owner that employs E.g. thousands might be quite happy to pay taxes that go to the well-being of an entire nation instead of being an egocentric asshole that cares only about himself (which is apparently your idea of an ideal human being)?

The egocentric business owner thinks that employees should be grateful to have a job.
The democratic business owner sees employees as an asset, not a burden.

lowing wrote:

I never said or think anything of what you are claiming I said or think so try again

And with this statement, after having read 5 pages, I come to realize lowing has no idea what his words mean. That or he should choose his words a hell of a lot more carefully.

By the way, here is one of your more famous liberal successful business owners, Ben and Jerry's

http://www.newsweek.com/id/72016

http://www.newsweek.com/id/113776

lowing wrote:

Karbin wrote:

lowing wrote:

Since you ar eaddressing me, show me where you quoted me saying "I have money and there fore more rights then those that don't."

The ACLU is hated because it bastardizes the intention of law and takes it to the extreme. IE the issue of having the 10 commandments on govt. property, and "in God we trust" on our money as a violation of church and state.

It does say "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" but you need to finish it with, "yearning to breathe free". THe freedom to choose, the freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail, the freedom to build whatever your American dream is. It does not insinuate come to America we will pay for everything.

Your right on the quote "yearning to breathe free". Where as you see it as you have stated... I see it as you thinking, free being held back by class or station.
You seam to hold that free to be held back. Free to maintain class, free to hold place and power over others.

I don't see that as what the idea was.

As for the ACLU.....
The neo-cons do the same with their version of "extreme".
Use the example you stated. The LAW is the separation of church and state. Else the is no freedom of religion. With your statement you would place one Faith over others. You can't have it both ways.

You have just pointed out the problem. One rule for some, different rules for others.
When ANY group organizes to oppose their position, they are attacked as being "extreme", be that the ACLU or even unions.
Conservatives are only interested in maintaining the stats quo of them on top, the rest subservient to them.
That bastardizes the intention of law.

no denying that money can but justice, it is not something I agree with.

As far as the ACLU, this is your ACLU working hard for its members http://www.breitbart.tv/html/290393.html

This is your beloved ACLU http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/stokjok/Founders.html

As far as the statue of liberty quote, I am not rich, I am a middle class family man. I have never endorsed holding anyone back in America, I simply do not think they should be coddled either. Freedom is what I believe and it is what the intention of the quote means.

I am middle class, I was held back by no one other than myself and my own laziness to pursue a higher class of living. I accept that, and I am not after taking money away from someone who has done better than me  because he has it and I want it.

You are free to succeed and you are free t ofail all without govt. intervention, until now.

Talk about mixing things up :rolleyes and a fail on sooo many levels
The first link is about the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations)  NOT the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

Lets forget that you use Fox so-called News as a source.
And I have a question your you. Have you ever booked a convention?
For the past ten years I have worked with a group that did. I can tell you that the quoted price is WAYYY wrong. For a convention price is based on number of room-nights. The more room-nights the lower the price. In this case, more like $175 to $200 would be in the ball park.
But I guess, for you, as it is a labour convention it should be held in a barn and accommodations should be tents.

Now for your second link:

In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle."

Got it?   Next!

Last edited by Karbin (2009-03-08 12:43:40)

Karbin wrote:

lowing wrote:

Karbin wrote:

Your right on the quote "yearning to breathe free". Where as you see it as you have stated... I see it as you thinking, free being held back by class or station.
You seam to hold that free to be held back. Free to maintain class, free to hold place and power over others.

I don't see that as what the idea was.

As for the ACLU.....
The neo-cons do the same with their version of "extreme".
Use the example you stated. The LAW is the separation of church and state. Else the is no freedom of religion. With your statement you would place one Faith over others. You can't have it both ways.

You have just pointed out the problem. One rule for some, different rules for others.
When ANY group organizes to oppose their position, they are attacked as being "extreme", be that the ACLU or even unions.
Conservatives are only interested in maintaining the stats quo of them on top, the rest subservient to them.
That bastardizes the intention of law.

no denying that money can but justice, it is not something I agree with.

As far as the ACLU, this is your ACLU working hard for its members http://www.breitbart.tv/html/290393.html

This is your beloved ACLU http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/stokjok/Founders.html

As far as the statue of liberty quote, I am not rich, I am a middle class family man. I have never endorsed holding anyone back in America, I simply do not think they should be coddled either. Freedom is what I believe and it is what the intention of the quote means.

I am middle class, I was held back by no one other than myself and my own laziness to pursue a higher class of living. I accept that, and I am not after taking money away from someone who has done better than me  because he has it and I want it.

You are free to succeed and you are free t ofail all without govt. intervention, until now.

Talk about mixing things up :rolleyes and a fail on sooo many levels
The first link is about the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations)  NOT the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

Lets forget that you use Fox so-called News as a source.
And I have a question your you. Have you ever booked a convention?
For the past ten years I have worked with a group that did. I can tell you that the quoted price is WAYYY wrong. For a convention price is based on number of room-nights. The more room-nights the lower the price. In this case, more like $175 to $200 would be in the ball park.
But I guess, for you, as it is a labour convention it should be held in a barn and accommodations should be tents.

Now for your second link:

In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle."

Got it?   Next!

Sorry, 'bout the AFL-CIO thing, hate them to

as for ACLU:

"This farce lasted from 1940 to 1968, a period during which the ACLU was no longer investigated by any Congressional committee, presumably because of its self proclaimed exclusion of communists from its fold. It was during this period that many respectable non-communist personalities from presidents to entertainers, from diplomats to clergymen, joined the now “patriotic” ACLU.  They even cooperated with the FBI in exposing communist front activities.

There is substantial evidence indicating conclusively, that during the “clean” period, many of the “non communist” officials of the ACLU remained active in communist fronts, and were perhaps even more effective than if they were “dues paying” and “card carrying” members of the party due to their new low profiles. In 1968 the ACLU hierarchy decided the ruse had gone on long enough, so they opened membership once more to all the real “card carrying commies” that had been previously barred. In a cursory check of the ACLU Board and National Committee members since its inception, the Reports of investigating Committees of the Congress have revealed that almost 80% of them had affiliated themselves with communist activities over the years.

It should be noted also that while not all ACLU members are communists,
BUT - it can be safely stated that there are NO communist front groups that don’t have ACLU members."


Next!

Discussion? About how you think that having the slightest left-wing ideologies automatically precludes you from doing anything successful in life?

Bullshit.

DrunkFace wrote:

Spark wrote:

Discussion? About how you think that having the slightest left-wing ideologies automatically precludes you from doing anything successful in life?

Bullshit.

Because this is your average successful liberal.
http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/alcohol_research.jpg

So that's what you think I look like and do in life?

Spoiler (highlight to read):
And yes, I know you are exercising sarcasm. But I bet lowing thinks that without the [sarcasm]-tags.

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Discussion? About how you think that having the slightest left-wing ideologies automatically precludes you from doing anything successful in life?

Bullshit.

Yup like that, so either disagree and argue or move along.

Oh hi Bill Gates.

Oh, hey there Richard Branson.

etc, etc

Sorry Bono, couldn't here you over Varegg talking.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yup like that, so either disagree and argue or move along.

Oh hi Bill Gates.

Oh, hey there Richard Branson.

etc, etc

Hi, how are things down in the valley?

lol what.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Sorry Bono, couldn't here you over Varegg talking.

He is a jack-off, nothing worse than a celebrity with a cause, mainly their own publicity

Still a pretty successful liberal lol.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Hi, how are things down in the valley?

lol what.

ya know, valley, the bottom of the mountain that I reside obviously.

How are things down in the valley, can quite tell from way up here

... I'm not sure if that's your attempt at humour or something?

Anywho, i live on a hill.

Right-O, so going by your previous statement 'liberals can't be prosperous', show me exactly how the three people i've named don't contradict that.

k go

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lol what.

ya know, valley, the bottom of the mountain that I reside obviously.

How are things down in the valley, can quite tell from way up here

... I'm not sure if that's your attempt at humour or something?

Anywho, i live on a hill.

Right-O, so going by your previous statement 'liberals can't be prosperous', show me exactly how the three people i've named don't contradict that.

k go

Oh  isee where you are going now, ok

Never said they could not be prosperous, so before we begin, lets start by you showing me where I said that, ya know, so we don't get off on the wrong foot.