This is a facile and right-sided argument, even though you point the finger at some on the right in a few of your examples.
I do think the right does a better job on some measures, it's worse on others and equally bad on a few. The argument was right-sided, because your claim was left sided, and in my view trading on a history of civil rights advocacy that is no longer consistent with reality.
Show me an example of the left assaulting freedom of religion and/or speech.
What do you think laws against hate speech are? They are express and deliberate assaults on freedom of speech.
The freedom to practice religion has been challenged time and again by activists from the left. Forcing a baker to close because they won't serve a gay wedding for religious reasons? Every attempt to ban anyone from praying at a graduation or in a school (including specific instances where there have been attempts to prohibit religious student groups from using space that other student groups are allowed to use). I mean if you're serious, you can find thousands of instances of deliberate encroachments on religious freedoms, and that's before you even get into big ticket obvious ones like the facts behind the Hobby Lobby Case for instance.
If you are referring to Kim Davis, you are framing exactly the kind of funhouse mirror objection I complained about. The left doesn't want a thrice-divorced lowly bureaucratic functionary to deny rights of others to marry within their legal rights to do so simply because *she* has a religious objection to them marrying. If she weren't such a laughable messenger, what she did would be even more maddening.
I've written enough on the Kim Davis threads that you don't need to speculate on my opinion about her. I never supported her in the least, my only objections where about a federal judge crafting a remedy.
* 4A spying? You'll have to spell out for me what your objection is. There is a point to be had here, but I want to understand if you are exaggerating to make one, instead.
Show me the probable cause the government has to collect each phone record that they collected. The government was specifically barred from such dragnets by the Constitution, and both parties are acting unconstitutionally in allowing access to any phone record without a probable cause showing specific to the person who generated that phone record.
* The 5A and Ferguson. If I understand your concern you are saying that only the left is concerned that police might be getting aware with murder of blacks.
No, don't you wish that strawman was true though.
You're quite content with the finding of the Brown GJ not to press charges.
Yes, can you articulate a specific reason based on the relevant facts why you are not?
Are you ok with the proven and reprehensible long-standing oppression of blacks by the Ferguson police? If not, would you suspect there might be any cause for concern about how the GJ was managed by the city?
No to the first, and the fact that the first place you jump is not to the specifics of the case but to generalized societal issues is exactly why the left has lost the mantle as the defender of civil rights. You've forgotten, at your heart, that this is about individuals, and that you can't craft justice by being unfair to any individual in pursuit of a greater good.
On the second question, as with anyone who truly cares about these issues, if you can demonstrate that the grand jury was actually corrupt that would make a difference. But all you're doing is speculating and casting aspersions, because in that world view it
must be true.
Explain when the left said they wanted to jail climate change deniers. Are you concerned that the only semi-organized and official political body in the world that disbelieves that there is a man-made cause to global warming is the US Republican Party? Every other country in the world that I know of accepts it as a fact. The scientists who "deny" it are few and far between. Many of them wear tin foil helmets to keep people from stealing their thoughts.
Lol, I see you've found the instance, bet you about choked when you found it. The left is all about punishing wrong thoughts, safe spaces, hate speech, and yes jailing climate change skeptics is even further down that trail. It still adds up to a conclusion that if you believe the left is championing civil rights, you've lost touch with where they actually are and definitely with where they are heading.
* You oppose taxing certain goods differently than others, I gather. Why are cigarette or gas taxes a sign of taxing a disfavored behavior? We have had taxes on both types of commodities (and many others) for decades, and both parties are equally "complicit" in their assessment.
I didn't say I opposed it. To my knowledge most, if not all, of the sin taxes are actually state taxes and not ergo unconstitutional as they would be at the federal level. The point is that the left doesn't even stop to think about how they are encroaching on the civil rights of those adults that want to buy such products in their zeal to punish the wicked behavior. It's pretty easy to see when we flip the script and watch the People vs. Larry Flint how the right was doing it, just totally washes away in your mind when the cause is good.
* Your last one is the well-worn complaint about Obamacare.
And? That's a dismissive argument that has no merit. Essentially, you just arguing that if we can ignore criticism long enough then no one can question anything anymore. By that logic, you should concede to every conservative argument when they defend things on customary grounds.
Don't forget that the government also forces companies large and small to act in certain ways.
Sure does, the government was granted a lot of power to force us to act in certain ways. Not sure why you think that's relevant here though, other than you're going to pretend that all exercises of force are identical.
State and federal laws require you to purchase other things, too. For instance, you *have* to buy car insurance if you want to drive.
No actually I don't, I have to by car insurance if I want to buy a car and operate it on public roads. I don't have to buy insurance if I rent a car, or drive loaner vehicles, or just drive on private property.
In any event, that's not really addressing your point. Did I say the government can't set conditions on priviledges? Can you explain to me what privilege is being conditioned by Obamacare? Is it my priviledge to live? to breath? which is it?
You have to pay taxes if you own certain types of property.
I have to pay taxes whether or not I own property, the government was granted the power to tax.
You have to inoculate your children in most states if you send them to school.
Sort of true, of course I don't have to have kids or send them to school. And in many cases I can opt out of the shots.
Not everyone can buy guns; those who do have to register them; you can't buy every kind of gun or as many as you would like.
Is someone forced to buy a gun? Not aware of that. Virtually any citizen can buy a gun. Not an expert on it, but I don't think you're right about the registration issue. Certainly not about the number of guns you can buy.
It would be easier to list what you aren't required to buy or do.
It certainly would not be, lol. Nice dramatic false point though.
Are any of those restrictions or requirements acceptable to you?
I sometimes wonder, why people think that putting together a long list of "not like" situations and then trying to pretend they made a point about a situation is more impressive than just making a cogent argument about the point in the first place. Wouldn't it have been easier to explain where you see a constitutional power for the federal government to force you to buy a third party product, and what the actual limits of it are. I'm really curious about the latter especially, so I can see exactly what I can force you to buy when my party is in power next time.
Your final point that these things are all proof that neither party is a champion of civil rights is total misdirection.
Misdirection from what? Self satisfied back patting, that no matter how damaging to civil rights your actual policies are, you mean well and are a "champion of civil rights."?