Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on February 18, 2004, 01:47:27 AM
-
Those wacky ALCU commies! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html)
"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.
-
I damn any group that defends peoples constitutional rights. DAMN PINKO COMMIE BASTARDS!
-
I don't believe they were asked to.
"But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.
Prosecutors have not filed charges against Limbaugh and their investigation will be delayed until the court decides whether to keep the records sealed past the new deadline. "
Gotta give it to the ACLU, its an excellent tactic to draw attention to ones group politically speaking.
Wonder if it makes a hoot of difference to Mrs. Curley?
10-year-old Jeffrey Curley was raped and murdered by two men, one of whom says that the North American Man Boy Love Association influenced his violence against the boy. So the Curley family has sued NAMBLA in federal court, and the ACLU is representing that terrible organization free of charge.
Perhaps you didn't know this, but children have a "right" to view pornographic materials on computers in school libraries according to the ACLU.
-
wow... the aclu making life easier on druggies.... whoda thunk?
Rush? guess they weren't getting enough attention lately.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wow... the aclu making life easier on druggies.... whoda thunk?
Rush? guess they weren't getting enough attention lately.
lazs
I don't know what to do now...Who will tell me what to think?
Is it ok to listen to Rush or not?
I mean... he's using drugs... he's in court with the ACLU...
Those dirty liberals! They tricked him!
Next thing, we know we'll find out Rush has been cohorting with prostitutes!
-
anyone that can be against the aclu is truely ignorant. All they do is challenge court decisions that may be unconstitutional. Who cares if noone asked them. They are not asking for your money.
-
hakhui... I see your dillema... like most liberals.. without a support group and people to tell you what to do... you are lost..
you could stop visiting the lefty sites and talking to women about how to run your life and... think.
just a suggestion tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
anyone that can be against the aclu is truely ignorant. All they do is challenge court decisions that may be unconstitutional. Who cares if noone asked them. They are not asking for your money.
The aclu WAS a viable advocate in their early years....now they are a political entity biased towards the left.
Of course, reviewing their case histories wouldn't yield what you would want to see.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hakhui... I see your dillema... like most liberals.. without a support group and people to tell you what to do... you are lost..
you could stop visiting the lefty sites and talking to women about how to run your life and... think.
just a suggestion tho.
lazs
:lol
What you're saying I shouldn't listen to what my mother told me?
But I don't want to be a liberal - That's why I listen to Rush!
I only read FauxNews and Pat Robertson's 700 club site because they are conservative!
The rest of the internet is run by SATAN and his evil menions.
-
"We have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon.
How dare they support that Communist, Anti-American piece of jibberish! Deeth to the Bill of Rights and all that it stands for!
-
Ripsnortified.
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
-
If they had the balls to stand up for the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn't need the NRA.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
If they had the balls to stand up for the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn't need the NRA.
Circular argument. The ACLU has limited resources and doesn't see the need to stand up for the 2nd Amendment as long as the NRA is there to do so. If the NRA went away tomorrow, you might see a different position from the ACLU. Both organizations share a common goal of definding the Constitution. They are not adversaries.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Circular argument. The ACLU has limited resources and doesn't see the need to stand up for the 2nd Amendment as long as the NRA is there to do so. If the NRA went away tomorrow, you might see a different position from the ACLU. Both organizations share a common goal of definding the Constitution. They are not adversaries.
Sure, they have limited resources. But it wouldn't kill them to put something on their webpage or literature saying "we support the 2nd amendment." Ink can't be that expensive.
From their website, an "Issues" list:
Criminal Justice
Death Penalty
Disability Rights
Drug Policy
Free Speech
HIV/AIDS
Immigrants Rights
Int'l Civil Liberties
Lesbian & Gay Rights
National Security
Police Practices
Prisons
Privacy & Technology
Racial Equality
Religious Liberty
Reproductive Rights
Rights of the Poor
Students Rights
Voting Rights
Women's Rights
Safe and Free
They seem to have forgotten the 2nd Amendment. Convenient.
-
Ok, found an ACLU statement on gun rights, although they freely admit that they're ignoring the issue by remaining neutral. It's listed under "police practices."
To quote them:
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
Pick and choose your amendments.
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25
-
They haven't discarded the 2nd ammendment: they interpret it in a different way to the NRA.
-
LOL "interpret in a different way".
ALCU = Left Wing Hypocrites
-
The 2nd is the most poorly written "right" there is. Why do you think our founding fathers left it so stinking ambiguous.
-
Originally posted by Rude
The aclu WAS a viable advocate in their early years....now they
It may seem that way, since many of their recent high-profile cases are against right-wing government officials who insist on trying to make Christianity the official USA religion.
-
the 2nd seems quite clear to me.... "shall not be infringed" seems clear as a bell. "people" seems pretty clear too. Only someone who didn't understand that a blowjob was sex would have trouble understaning it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rude
The aclu WAS a viable advocate in their early years....now they are a political entity biased towards the left.
Of course, reviewing their case histories wouldn't yield what you would want to see.
Ah friend Rude, the ACLU hasn't changed, you have changed. Most of us do as we age.
The ACLU is doing what it has always done: Insisting on extending the rights & responsibilities of the US Constitution to all citizens.
curly
-
""A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"... yea lazs... clear as a chocolate loving teenager's face.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Ah friend Rude, the ACLU hasn't changed, you have changed. Most of us do as we age.
The ACLU is doing what it has always done: Insisting on extending the rights & responsibilities of the US Constitution to all citizens.
curly
Sorry Curly, your wrong here. Same with the Democratic party. I would have been a Democrat in the 1950's (Had I been alive). The party changed. So did the ACLU.
To be fair, the Republican party is changing before my eyes too. The spending (non-Security, non-Tax relief spending) is outta control.
-
Unfortunately saying someone changed doesn't prove they did, nor does it come close to proving that somone else did... silly logic Rip, try again.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Unfortunately saying someone changed doesn't prove they did, nor does it come close to proving that somone else did... silly logic Rip, try again.
Midnight, I have met sooooo many republicans, older folks, that say they USED to be a democrat. If you don't think the party has changed since the 50's, then maybe you have sand in your ears?
-
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"... yea lazs... clear as a chocolate loving teenager's face.
seems clear enough to me... Are you saying that a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free stare or that.... you don't understand the words... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
or... are you saying that .... one part dictates the other? That if we never need a well regulated milita ever in our future then it's ok to infringe on the RIGHT of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?
guess it depends on your defenition of what the word "is"... is
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sorry Curly, your wrong here. Same with the Democratic party. I would have been a Democrat in the 1950's (Had I been alive). The party changed. So did the ACLU.
To be fair, the Republican party is changing before my eyes too. The spending (non-Security, non-Tax relief spending) is outta control.
Sorry, I'm not. Give me one example of a case supported by the ACLU which isn't supportive of the constitution.
curly
-
When the ACLU became political, I began to depise them, as I did with the NRA. Both should be neutral in politics.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Midnight, I have met sooooo many republicans, older folks, that say they USED to be a democrat. If you don't think the party has changed since the 50's, then maybe you have sand in your ears?
Rip, you're a victim of your own senility. :) I've noticed the following in my work group peers. As we aged, most would complain about young men and women changing when in fact, it was my co-workers who were changing: They were growing old, less flexible in their thinking and more anxious to protect what they had.
Young folks haven't changed one bit. Now, their opportunities for mischief, yeah, that has changed!
I remember drinking too much one time as a teenager and driving a bit recklessly. The police stopped me, took away my keys and made me walk home. Does that happen today? Lol, not often.
What's changed? The kids? Nope; society has grown older and less flexible in how they deal with young people.
So nope, Rip, I doubt you would note the changing face of the republican party.
Rip, you do know the definition of a conservative, right? A conservative is a liberal who was mugged last night.
curly
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
When the ACLU became political, I began to depise them, as I did with the NRA. Both should be neutral in politics.
Give me one example, Rip.
curly
-
Don't make me bring out that old liberal when yer young and conservative when yer old quote Curly. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Give me one example, Rip.
curly
You're the one argueing that point Curly. I'm saying that they pick and choose their cases for political exposure...pure and simple.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Don't make me bring out that old liberal when yer young and conservative when yer old quote Curly. ;)
Ah hell, Iron, I'm just trying to catch up with Rip on number of posts. I'm falling farther behind though. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're the one argueing that point Curly. I'm saying that they pick and choose their cases for political exposure...pure and simple.
Rip, you are the guy who is making the unsubstantiated remarks. I'm simply saying give me one example where the ACLU pursued a political agenda.
Rip, proving they are pursuing a political agenda requires one piece of evidence. Proving they aren't pursuing a political agenda requires we examine every single case under the ACLU's guidance.
It's not nice to make provocative, unsustantiated remarks, Rip. :) To be sure, it's the hallmark of all modern day political parties.
curly