Kindergarten and the Kafkaesque

[_ldsfaqs]

Darth.....

Just because you're a trained lawyer, and you talk a lot of crap, and you somehow have so much time to talk crap, but your crap is entirely lacking wisdom and truth, doesn't somehow make your arguments valid.

Let me try and put our main argument another way to try and get you to comprehend.

IF the ACLU was not "primarily" a liberal organization they would:

1. Equally represent ALL civil liberty cases, they don't.

2. They would not represent cases that are clearly against civil liberties.
For example, why does a Church or Property owner not have the "liberty" to say what occurs on their property but individuals who walk on that property do?

You don't support one liberty by violating others.....

This makes them primarily a liberal organization, both by many of their "positions" as stated above, and by many of their cases.

The fact that they support civil liberties "period" and thus is supportive of of cases that involve conservative issues, doesn't somehow mean they are not a liberal focused organization.

Further, your gun control claim is invalid also because simply because the ACLU has conservatives in it, and thus they support conservative causes which directly goes against their "position" by the way, doesn't somehow make them not liberal still.

Anyway, bottom line is that if they go against "civil liberty" in ANY WAY, then that makes them more "liberal" than FOR civil liberties and certainly not conservative or pro-conservative.

It's really simple. If they "just and only" were a civil liberties organization, then obviously they couldn't be called liberal. But they are not, they at times go all liberal, which shows their LIBERAL BENT.... Get it yet???

Something or someone doesn't have to be "in toto" liberal to be liberal, or primarily liberal.

[_ldsfaqs]

By the way, Ldsfaqs, under your schema, the Green Party candidate would've course receive just as much media exposure as the Republican Party candidate. Right?

Of course, why not....? He was apparently legitimately elected by his constituents right?
If not, then sounds like he doesn't qualify at the federal level.

[_ldsfaqs]

(Yes, I am aware that the Fairness Doctrine is about issues and the Equal Time Rule is about candidates. Ldsfaqs' grand idea looks more like the Fairness Doctrine than the Equal Time Rule to me.)

And you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

The Fairness doctrine is specifically designed to FORCE a radio station for example (specifically mind you, not applying it to other media) to equally represent alternative views. In other words, if you have a conservative host, you have a liberal host, if you have a conservative guest, you have a liberal guest.

It was specifically designed to Liberals to try and eliminate the conservative domination of the Radio Airwaves. Instead of using the free market, they want to force their ideology into it.

My plan so we can "know our candidates" has nothing to do and is in no way related to the fairness doctrine. It's not anti-freedom, it's not anti-market place, etc. It simply allows us to know who people are who are running for office, so we can make an informed vote, period......

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

Being a big fan of Kafka, I can tell that the person who wrote the article in the OP isn't familiar with his work at all.

[_Bond James Bond]

Who was John Stuart Mill?

Of his own free will, on a half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Esoteric. I like it.