Skip to main content

Interestingly enough, the Democrats are no longer claiming to be the party of civil liberties


Comments

delacrat said…
Steve,

This speaks to the thread on Delaware's (uppercase)democrat / fake liberal blog.

http://www.delawareliberal.net/2012/09/13/reconnecting-de-voters-to-the-democratic-brand/#comment-299809
Anonymous said…
Well they certainly didn't stop making this claim on the basis that it is and always has been complete and utter hogwash.

Other than their obsession with protecting abortion under any circumstance and a very brief flirtation with criminal defendant protections around the 1970's the Democrats have never known a civil liberty they wouldn't toss overboard in a heartbeat to advance government power and their control.

Now that they have finally just come out as full-blown national socialists the absurd pretense that they ever gave a shit about civil liberties has actually become counterproductive to their lying, scheming and propagandizing.

Ironically this admission (or omission really) is probably the only honest thing their party platform has ever revealed about what their true value are.
anonone said…
Didn't you just say that nobody cares about party platforms? So now you do , too?

Good catch, Steve. Vote Green Party this year. Gary Johnson is just another sore-loser republican, as have been all of the Libertarian Presidential Candidates.
Don't force me to point out all the sheer nutcase crap in the Green platform A1.

I would consider voting for several different Greens around the country, including Andy Groff, but not based on their platform.

Platforms are generally useless, but I thought it was interesting that Democrats would find it necessary to strike out their support for civil liberties.
Anonymous said…
"Platforms are generally useless, but I thought it was interesting that Democrats would find it necessary to strike out their support for civil liberties."

Platforms are useless except as running statements of what the party wants the world to believe they're about, i.e. their bullshit.

They can be very very instructive however insofar as how they change, particularly when it involves a significant departure from or reversal of what was long a standing plank, and even more particularly when it concerns a broad, consequential question or issue.

If the GOP, for example, omitted national security from its platform it would be a damn significant statement revealing far more about them than anything you'd learn from any party platform claptrap.

And with the Democrats, their lack of giving a shit about civil liberties is now so pervasive that even their most shallow pro forma propaganda has finally caught up with the reality of who and what they really are.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...