Author Topic: WTG to the ACLU (Read 3386 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #30 on:** July 24, 2006, 07:17:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
You do realize who foots the bill when these communists decide to "protect" someone's civil rights?

Quote

The ACLU receives funding from a large number of sources. The distribution and amount of funding for each chapter varies from state to state. To take one particular example, the ACLU of New Jersey reported $1.2 million in income to both the ACLU-NJ and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation in the 2005 fiscal year. Of that income, 46% came from contributions, 19% came from membership dues, 18% came from court awarded attorney fees, 12% came from grants, 4% came from investment income and the remainder from other sources.

I'm thinking this isn't what you had in mind.

lukster · « **Reply #31 on:** July 24, 2006, 08:38:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm thinking this isn't what you had in mind.

You cited only one chapter. Even 18% of their income is way too much when it comes outta my pocket.

lazs2 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 24, 2006, 08:38:45 AM »

If we became what the aclu want for this country they would be one of the first organizations banned.

Their founder was a commie and they have a stated socialist agenda.

Their stance on the second amendment is excellent proof that they do not wish to protect rights nor are they interested in a literal interpretation of the constitution.

their stance is hypocritical and dishonest on the second. They alone claim to believe that the second is not an individual right.

As for the funeral thing... they are most likely wrong... it is to me the same as yelling "fire" or "bomb" in a crowd when there is no fire of bomb. the funeral protests are attempting to start a riot in my opinion and therefore not covered by free speech anymore than "fighting words" are.

People have hit it on the head... the aclu in poll after poll is considered to be an anti American leftist organization in the last 4 or 5 decades... They need the publicity and they need to not seem so agendized.

But... their agenda stands out... they are not defending abortion clinic protesters here remember.... it is war protesters. They are not defending the religious aspect but the right to cause damage to the war effort and to anger those who support it.

As was said... they are a pretty transparent little commie group who hate individualists and hate America as the founders intended it to be.

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #33 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:41:25 AM »

AFAIK, abortion clinics are businesses. They are not public property so rights of protest do not apply.

In addition, quite often the abortion protestors attempted to blockade the clinic and keep patients from going in. No constitutional rights there either.

Next straw man?

Sandman · « **Reply #34 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:57:46 AM »

Speaking of polls.

While the National Rifle Association (NRA) is the most recognized of our groups, less than half of those familiar with them (48%) trust the NRA while 52 percent do not trust them.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) inspires the clearest overall divide among the 80 percent who are familiar with them; 49 percent trust the ACLU compared to 51 percent who do not trust them, yet they have the highest percentage of responses for ‘do not trust at all’ – 30 percent.

lukster · « **Reply #35 on:** July 24, 2006, 10:22:54 AM »

I trust the ACLU. I trust them to do exactly the opposite of what I believe to be in the best interst of my country. On the other hand I don't trust the NRA to protect my Second Amendment rights. I'd be foolish to grant anyone complete trust for that I think.

Polls lie and liars poll.

Maverick · « **Reply #36 on:** July 24, 2006, 01:38:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
AFAIK, abortion clinics are businesses. They are not public property so rights of protest do not apply.

In addition, quite often the abortion protestors attempted to blockade the clinic and keep patients from going in. No constitutional rights there either.

Next straw man?

Actually businesses are private property. They also reserve the right to refuse service and to remove unwanted folks from their property if they so desire and trespass alws do apply there. This is not the same as governement property which is indeed public property as the people, through the government, own said property.

The right of protest does not abrogate private property owners rights. Protest is legal on public property, within certain limits such as denial of use by other citizens / obstructing traffic etc., but is subject to removal on private property at the request fo the property owner or responsible party.

lazs2 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 24, 2006, 02:18:01 PM »

sandie... I realize that abortion mills are private factories and that protestors have no right to block access.. I would not want the aclu to try to give them that right... I was talking about protesters on public property not blocking access... certainly the same would apply to the "reverend" tho... he should not be able to block access to public or private land.

Hardly a "straw man" if I have any idea of what one is. Perhaps an example that could be one is that the aclu never defended the rights of resteraunt and bar owners to allow smoking in their private business.

I do not believe that the aclu thinks that there should be any private business or private property.

Oh.... I believe your polls are accurate... I believe that with any organization... you will find that about half the people trust it with total naive faith and half have doubts... The fact that 30% of the people have absolutely no trust at all in the aclu is very telling tho... That is a huge number of people who litteraly hate the group.

lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #38 on:** July 24, 2006, 02:23:36 PM »

So let me see...

lazs wnts the 2nd amendment to be literally enforced without any limitations, but doesn't feel the same about the 1st amendment.

ACLU wants the 1st amendment enforced without limitation but doesn't feel the same about the 2nd.

Which one is a hyopocrite again?

lukster · « **Reply #39 on:** July 24, 2006, 02:28:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
So let me see...

lazs wnts the 2nd amendment to be literally enforced without any limitations, but doesn't feel the same about the 1st amendment.

ACLU wants the 1st amendment enforced without limitation but doesn't feel the same about the 2nd.

Which one is a hyopocrite again?

Whoa. the ACLU absolutely does not want the first amendment enforced. They only want to enforce what supports their anti-freedom agenda.

rpm · « **Reply #40 on:** July 24, 2006, 02:30:38 PM »

Strange that those who wave the flag hardest are the ones most oppossed to freedom and liberty. Remember, Constitution Avenue is a 2 way street.

lukster · « **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2006, 02:32:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Strange that those who wave the flag hardest are the ones most oppossed to freedom and liberty. Remember, Constitution Avenue is a 2 way street.

huh?

lukster · « **Reply #42 on:** July 24, 2006, 02:38:36 PM »

Let's be honest. Who thinks the ACLU would come to the support of these very same people if they were preaching love and tolerance outside of a school rather than anti-war bigotry outside a soldier's funeral?

lazs2 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 24, 2006, 02:40:39 PM »

Where did I say that I didn't want the 1st to be enforced?

Do you believe that it is ok to incite a panic and endanger people by falsely yelling "fire" or "bomb"?

Is it ok to use "fighting words" say.... the n word to people with the intent to cause a fight?

Is it Ok to use obcenity in public when underage children are present?

I would be fine with all this if the government had not taken my right to defend against such people. If the protesters are allowed to cause such damage and disrespect to the families of the fallen then that would be fine with me so long as the families or any bystanders that were offended were able to lawfully attack the protesters.

How can you defend one persons right to incite a riot and not the "fire" in the theater guys?

Do you think the banning of the "n" word was to spare peoples feelings? Nope... to keep peace. Our government has taken it upon itself to decide what we can say and what we can do about the people that say it.

If I have to play by those rules then so be it but... it has to be a level playing field... The good reverend shouldn't get a pass anymore than the abortion clinic guys or howard stern.

You want to change the rules back to where the people decide what is worthy of listening to and I will go for that one and let a jury decide if there was reason enough.

lazs

rpm · « **Reply #44 on:** July 24, 2006, 02:49:06 PM »

Hmm, I don't recall any banning of the "N" word. What's the statute for that?