PETA's great ideas keep a-rollin'

[Wolter]

Both parties assault liberties just as often.

You couldn't be more wrong.

He could be a lot more wrong. I think he is wrong in that I don't think both parties assault liberties equally often, but the Dems are not saints. Not even close.

[Dr. Medulla]

Both parties assault liberties just as often.

You couldn't be more wrong.

He could be a lot more wrong. I think he is wrong in that I don't think both parties assault liberties equally often, but the Dems are not saints. Not even close.

Of course not, but unless you think that the ACLU is actually in the bag for liberals (in the contemporary political usage), it's telling that their actions draw the ire of conservatives far more than liberals. That's my only point.

[eumaas]

Both parties assault liberties just as often.

You couldn't be more wrong.

That's only true if you ignore the numerous violations of economic liberties, the right of association/disassociation, the war on terror (which the Dems and Obama support), extensive interferences in property and property rights, zoning laws, coercive social engineering, disarmament of the masses, the war on drugs, violations of the liberties of individuals who happen to not be American (Afghanis and Iraqis are individuals too and possess rights that ought not be violated), hell, you have to ignore the whole Democratic program over the course of the 20th century and into the 21st. Conservatives pretend that freedom means freedom to be a slave under a Christian master. Liberals pretend that freedom means the security and comfort of slavery. Both parties define freedom as just one set of things and ignore what runs contrary to their ideology. The moralism of the conservatives drives them to social control, but so does the paternalism of the progressive liberals. People assume that history is reconstituted every four years; it isn't. The reason the ACLU draws criticism of conservatives is that it interferes with their moralism. If the ACLU interfered more with progressive paternalism (see their stance on the second amendment to see where they deliberately do not interfere) on economic liberties etc, they'd draw more fire. Actually, they already do draw fire from the liberal left for protecting racists and holocaust deniers and the like.

[Wolter]

Both parties assault liberties just as often.

You couldn't be more wrong.

He could be a lot more wrong. I think he is wrong in that I don't think both parties assault liberties equally often, but the Dems are not saints. Not even close.

Of course not, but unless you think that the ACLU is actually in the bag for liberals (in the contemporary political usage), it's telling that their actions draw the ire of conservatives far more than liberals. That's my only point.

Oh, we are in agreement there. I think most people who call themselves "Conservatives" should really label themselves "Authoritarians." But political "Liberals" are guilty of many, many assaults on civil liberties.

[Dr. Medulla]

Both parties assault liberties just as often.

You couldn't be more wrong.

He could be a lot more wrong. I think he is wrong in that I don't think both parties assault liberties equally often, but the Dems are not saints. Not even close.

Of course not, but unless you think that the ACLU is actually in the bag for liberals (in the contemporary political usage), it's telling that their actions draw the ire of conservatives far more than liberals. That's my only point.

Oh, we are in agreement there. I think most people who call themselves "Conservatives" should really label themselves "Authoritarians." But political "Liberals" are guilty of many, many assaults on civil liberties.

Definitely. The 1990s was a batshit decade for an assault on language with all the bullshit political correctness, and most, if not all, came from liberals.

[Wolter]

You couldn't be more wrong.

He could be a lot more wrong. I think he is wrong in that I don't think both parties assault liberties equally often, but the Dems are not saints. Not even close.

Of course not, but unless you think that the ACLU is actually in the bag for liberals (in the contemporary political usage), it's telling that their actions draw the ire of conservatives far more than liberals. That's my only point.

Oh, we are in agreement there. I think most people who call themselves "Conservatives" should really label themselves "Authoritarians." But political "Liberals" are guilty of many, many assaults on civil liberties.

Definitely. The 1990s was a batshit decade for an assault on language with all the bullshit political correctness, and most, if not all, came from liberals.

Not to mention most of the non-nazi supporters of Eugenics in the early 20th century accounted themselves liberal.

[eumaas]

Here's the war score card for the 20th-21st century. I'm just focusing on wars here which by definition violate the liberties of both Americans and foreigners, who are people too by the way and don't deserve to be blown up for being born under another flag.

Entry into World War I: under the Democrat Woodrow Wilson who threw people in jail and/or deported them for pacifism and labor activism
Entry into World War II: under the Democrat FDR, see internment camps and how American dissidents and pacifists were treated during the war.
Korean War: under the Democrat Harry Truman, sent conscripted men to fight the Commies. Conscription is slavery.
Vietnam War: under the Democrat JFK, continued under the Democrat LBJ, and continued under the Republican Nixon
80s Interventions: under the Republican Reagan, very bad
90s interventions: under the Democrat Bill Clinton, also see the Waco massacre, NAFTA, all kinds of shit. The War on Drugs under Clinton involved a hell of a lot of expansion of state power and violation of liberties and provided the model for the war on terror's expansion of state power.
War on Terror: inaugurated under the Republican GWB but featured great support by Democrats even into the Iraq campaign, and it's being continued under Obama. Actually, we're stepping up the war in Afghanistan.

Under the first four wars and under the war on terror there has been a shitload of expansion in state power at the expense of the individual, and the Dems have supported it.

[eumaas]

There's also the whole social engineering thing which is deeply offensive (as offensive to me as the theocratic impulse of the Republicans), and documented in several posts by Carson:
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/12/v ... ublik.html
The overwhelming majority of such social engineering projects are coercive in nature.

I am not a machine to be oiled and set in my proper place. No human is.

[Dr. Medulla]

He could be a lot more wrong. I think he is wrong in that I don't think both parties assault liberties equally often, but the Dems are not saints. Not even close.

Of course not, but unless you think that the ACLU is actually in the bag for liberals (in the contemporary political usage), it's telling that their actions draw the ire of conservatives far more than liberals. That's my only point.

Oh, we are in agreement there. I think most people who call themselves "Conservatives" should really label themselves "Authoritarians." But political "Liberals" are guilty of many, many assaults on civil liberties.

Definitely. The 1990s was a batshit decade for an assault on language with all the bullshit political correctness, and most, if not all, came from liberals.

Not to mention most of the non-nazi supporters of Eugenics in the early 20th century accounted themselves liberal.

A bit of history that social democrats in Canada don't know about (or don't care to know; e.g., my mother). Tommy Douglas, the first social democrat to be elected premier of Saskatchewan (on D-Day, no less), may have been responsible for some noble actions, such as rural electrification and universal health insurance, to name two, but in the 1950s, the NDP forcibly removed Metis from traditional territories in northern Saskatchewan and transported them to grain belt areas, where they were taught to be farmers. That they were transferred via cattle cars in some instances makes it even more unsettling. That's a big reason why northern Aboriginals (Indians and Metis) tend to vote conservative—partly because Aboriginal people are generally conservative (fiscally and socially) but also because they just want to be left alone by the do-gooders.

[JennyB]

PETA lost me when they advocated for euthanizing the Michael Vick dogs. Best Friends animal sanctuary proved them wrong. Actually, PETA lost me wayyyy before that with their celebrity and supermodel fetish.

[Flex]

PETA lost me when they advocated for euthanizing the Michael Vick dogs. Best Friends animal sanctuary proved them wrong. Actually, PETA lost me wayyyy before that with their celebrity and supermodel fetish.

That's probably about the only thing I like about them.

[Dr. Medulla]

PETA lost me when they advocated for euthanizing the Michael Vick dogs. Best Friends animal sanctuary proved them wrong. Actually, PETA lost me wayyyy before that with their celebrity and supermodel fetish.

They were recently in the news for what appears to be a poor track record for finding homes for animals—a 4% success rate.

[JennyB]

PETA lost me when they advocated for euthanizing the Michael Vick dogs. Best Friends animal sanctuary proved them wrong. Actually, PETA lost me wayyyy before that with their celebrity and supermodel fetish.

They were recently in the news for what appears to be a poor track record for finding homes for animals—a 4% success rate.

That's such bullshit (PETA's claims about needing to euthanize, not what you wrote Hooks). They need only look at the Best Friends model -- they take animals, many times as a "last resort" (like the Vick dogs) and do a tremendous job rehabilitating most of them. They have a very successful adoption rate, and those dogs that are unadoptable get to spend the rest of their lives in a great environment. Yes, they have good funding, but I can't imagine they get more donations than PETA. Even Stray Rescue, the local shelter where I volunteer, has adopted out over 7,000 dogs and cats over 10 plus years...and it's also no-kill. Best Friends kind of calls us its ghetto cousins...so if Stray Rescue can have such a success rate, why does PETA have to euthanize a majority of its shelter animals? They suck. They suck hard.

[Dr. Medulla]

PETA lost me when they advocated for euthanizing the Michael Vick dogs. Best Friends animal sanctuary proved them wrong. Actually, PETA lost me wayyyy before that with their celebrity and supermodel fetish.

They were recently in the news for what appears to be a poor track record for finding homes for animals—a 4% success rate.

That's such bullshit (PETA's claims about needing to euthanize, not what you wrote Hooks). They need only look at the Best Friends model -- they take animals, many times as a "last resort" (like the Vick dogs) and do a tremendous job rehabilitating most of them. They have a very successful adoption rate, and those dogs that are unadoptable get to spend the rest of their lives in a great environment. Yes, they have good funding, but I can't imagine they get more donations than PETA. Even Stray Rescue, the local shelter where I volunteer, has adopted out over 7,000 dogs and cats over 10 plus years...and it's also no-kill. Best Friends kind of calls us its ghetto cousins...so if Stray Rescue can have such a success rate, why does PETA have to euthanize a majority of its shelter animals? They suck. They suck hard.

Were a person of a conspiratorial bent, you'd think that they're some kind of front group whose entire intent is to alienate and fuck up the animal rights movement. I mean, hell, when they protest dairy practices, they do it by showing up at elementary schools and freak out children. Gee, that seems a winning tactic. So much of PETA makes sense if you think they're intentionally fucking up.

[Rat Patrol]