<p>Here is a quote by Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU</p>
<p>“I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”</p>
<p>It goes on and on - do a little research and you will see.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would it be a ‘grab for control’? Why would the administration WILLINGLY take a stance that’s publicly unpopular and politically unfeasible? The White House has enough to deal with – I doubt they intentionally bailed out companies in order to support their supposedly authoritarian ends. Rather, it was a manifestation of the recession. What was Obama going to do? Completely ignore his campaign promise to end the recession? The only response was inflationary fiscal policy. Now, do I personally think the government should burden itself with such an expensive goal? No, and I’m sure they don’t either, especially given our already enormous national debt. It was simply a matter of exigence and sticky politics.</p>
<p>And regarding the ACLU – it’s a civil liberties organization, irrespective of the political ideologies of its founder. To criticize it because its founder was socialist would be a horrible case of genetic fallacy. And the biggest irony of all is that someone who supposedly supports the Tea Party and its grassroots movement promoting strict Constitutional adherence would hate the ACLU, an organization that prizes itself on strictly interpreting the Constitution to protect individual liberties.</p>
<p>How can our nation’s political values be strictly confined to those of the Constitution when most Americans cannot profess an elementary familiarity with it?</p>
<p>Moreover, if every communist power in the history of the world has come into place “overnight” by revolution, what leads you to believe that America’s “socialist takeover” will be any different?</p>
<p>Our government, like all just governments, derives its authority from a fluid social contract with its people. Over time, people have come to expect more from our government, and the government, bowing to electoral pressures, has given more in kind.</p>
<p>That’s a joke, if a conservative group was founded by the member of the KKK, I doubt you’d be saying that “the political allegiances of the founder don’t matter.”</p>
<p>Keep whistling passed the graveyard kid.</p>
<p>Our government, like all just governments, derives its authority from a fluid social contract with its people. Over time, people have come to expect more from our government, and the government, bowing to electoral pressures, has given more in kind. ~IBfootballer</p>
<hr>
<p>That makes no sense, the majority of the people were against the bailouts and the health care bill.</p>
<p>So if they really cared about “electoral pressure” then they would have done the opposite, huh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would completely ignore the political allegiance of the founder (even if he were a KKK member) if it were completely irrelevant to the group’s agenda. Again, bad case of genetic fallacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who told you that? Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Similar polls taken by CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and so on showed that a majority of Americans DID support health care reform. As for the bail out, didn’t Americans vote Obama into office on the premise that he’d end the recession? Bail-outs were Obama’s way of honoring his campaign promises, so it does follow the electoral process quite closely.</p>
<p>Forgive me, but each side of the healthcare debate claimed the majority’s will on its side, so I’m doubtful of your claim.</p>
<p>The Administration made the calculated decision that Great Depression II would stir up more electoral ill will than the loans and stock investments it put into struggling members of the automotive and banking industries. </p>
<p>Even if both of these things went against the majority will, so did President Regan’s fiscal policies. He and his staff made a calculated decision to stake their fate on unpopular decisions which they hoped would turn out well. The Obama administration has done the same thing. </p>
<p>Trying to defend the ACLU as strictly a vanguard of constitutional rights is foolish, as is trying to pretend that the ideology of its founder should have no bearing on judging the institution. Bigeast is right: any liberal would use a conservative group’s KKK origins, regardless of whether it currently acts as a racist entity, as a major point of attack.</p>
<p>People said that Bush put us on the verge of totalitarianism. He didn’t. Neither is Obama. The only “right” the Obama administration is threatening to take from us is the right not to have health insurance. It is quite reasonable to assert that given the consequences on the taxpayer of people not having insurance, people ought not have this right. Moreover, the penalty for not having health insurance is a tax penalty; hardly a sentence of 10 years hard labour.</p>
<p>“Well, the current Progressive movement is dangerously close to socialism, it’s hard to see when one philosophy ends and the other one starts.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>well what I meant about the ACLU is that I’m behind its basic principles but it seems that sometimes they like to be specific with everything. I don’t know how to explain it but it annoys me a bit.</p>
<p>conceding that one’s ideology is socialist does effectively, in American politics, render one’s ideas to the far left of mainstream, regardless of whether or not it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Health care reform has been a front-running issue for a while now and the fact that a majority would support health care reform is both sensible and probable. As for Obama’s plan specifically, public opinion becomes fuzzy at best.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Any attack of such nature would be fallacious, then. Any group should be strictly evaluated on its agenda and goals. Would groups be wrongly attacked based on their irrelevant ideological origins? Yes, probably by the fear-mongering and empty-minded extremists. Does that make the attack valid? Not at all. That’s like attacking schools like Harvard or Yale for pushing Christianity on its students simply because they were founded on Protestant ideals.</p>
<p>“We won’t be invaded by a socialist country and turned into socialist overnight, it will come through the courts, the ACLU (an organization founded by communist to spread communism), and progressive legislation.”</p>
<p>as an ACLU member, i am wondering what the **** you are talking about?
I understand that the founder was a communist, but that doesn’t mean the group is trying to spread communism. If i am a facist and i start a tennis team, i am trying to spread facism?</p>
<p>Go and look up some of the things that the ACLU has done, then try and explain how some of it is communist.</p>
<p>Brown v Board of ed, YEAH MAN THATS SOME COMMUNISM THERE!</p>
<p>In 1967, the ACLU successfully argued against state bans on interracial marriage, in the case of Loving v. Virginia. COMMUNISM!</p>
<p>In the 1980s, the ACLU filed suit to challenge the Arkansas 1981 creationism statute, which required the teaching in public schools of the biblical account of creation as a scientific alternative to evolution. The law was declared unconstitutional by a Federal District Court. ITS LIKE A MIRROR INTO SOVIET RUSSIA!</p>
<p>Please think before you speak/type</p>
<p>yeah the ACLU doesn’t have anything to do with communism lol</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, what is the distinction you folks draw between communism and socialism?</p>
<p>“Out of curiosity, what is the distinction you folks draw between communism and socialism?”</p>
<p>As somewhat of a socialist, i find socalism as more for the good of the society based on strict government regulation to ensure the benefit of all, And i describe communism as a strict literal distribution of wealth</p>
<p>The ACLU would abhor the policies of men like Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Fidel Castro. The ACLU pursues its goals through the courts, a process which is abhorred in communism. Therefore, I fail to see why the ACLU is communist.</p>
<p>“For example, did you know the liberal groups are protesting/picketing at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq/Afganistan”-BIGeastBEAST</p>
<p>The only example of this that i can find from my database of the past 3 years of almost every CNN,FOX,MSNBC, Economist, and Time article is the Westboro Baptist Church (A Conservative Church), who only do this because they believe that all soldiers are gay (no, im not kidding). Considering almost every liberal supports gay rights, i find your argument faulty and fallacious.</p>
<p>extemp: you are misinformed. Westboro Baptist Church does these protests because they think US troop deaths are God’s punishment for American tolerance of homosexuality, and are thus celebrating God’s wrath being imposed upon a nation of sinners</p>
<p>“extemp: you are misinformed. Westboro Baptist Church does these protests because they think US troop deaths are God’s punishment for American tolerance of homosexuality, and are thus celebrating God’s wrath being imposed upon a nation of sinners”</p>
<p>either way, and i admit i was misinformed, this is still just rampant homophobia, something liberals/democrats/ACLU does NOT support.</p>
<p>The ACLU, because they operate upon a doctrine of law which they think must be applied as universally as law would be, would support the right of the WBC to do a lot of the things they do. I believe they submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the recently argued case of a soldier’s family suing the WBC for distress caused by their jeering demonstration at their son’s funeral. They believe that while their speech is horrible, it is protected by the Constitution.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t believe their demonstration is protected, and neither does mainstream liberalism to the best of my belief.</p>