They learning from Jesse Jackson.. gimme a break!

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by midnight Target
ACLU
American - I'm for that
Civil Liberties - I'm for that too.
Union - OK, got me there. I guess I'm sort of anti union.

Can't for the life of me figure out why any American would be against an organization who's only purpose is to uphold the Bill of Rights. Explain that one to me please?

Actually, I'd like to take a stab at this one. I'm very pro civil liberties, but the ACLU tends to unerve me. Much like how I am Pro FW190, but I cant stand Mandoble. We have some of the same beliefs, but different goals and certainly different means to those goals.

The ACLU, because of it's position in society, must begin each case with an assumption of guilt. That is their job. It is not their job to ask "Is this really a civil liberties violation?" And I think that really nuts people up. The ACLU is not about finding the truth of the matter, they are about fighting for certain parameters (pertaining  to the extension of civil liberties) to be pulled in one direction (in many cases the political left) while fighting forces which are pulling in the opposite direction. To me the end result is the beauty of Democracy: We wind up in the middle.

That's what I think though. You can love civil liberties all day long and not care for the ACLU. IMHO

-Sikboy

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sikboy


Actually, I'd like to take a stab at this one. I'm very pro civil liberties, but the ACLU tends to unerve me. Much like how I am Pro FW190, but I cant stand Mandoble. We have some of the same beliefs, but different goals and certainly different means to those goals.

The ACLU, because of it's position in society, must begin each case with an assumption of guilt. That is their job. It is not their job to ask "Is this really a civil liberties violation?" And I think that really nuts people up. The ACLU is not about finding the truth of the matter, they are about fighting for certain parameters (pertaining  to the extension of civil liberties) to be pulled in one direction (in many cases the political left) while fighting forces which are pulling in the opposite direction. To me the end result is the beauty of Democracy: We wind up in the middle.

That's what I think though. You can love civil liberties all day long and not care for the ACLU. IMHO

-Sikboy

You posted that so elonquently !  Wish I had the brains to say that the way you did! Great post!

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Sikboy


Actually, I'd like to take a stab at this one. I'm very pro civil liberties, but the ACLU tends to unerve me. Much like how I am Pro FW190, but I cant stand Mandoble. We have some of the same beliefs, but different goals and certainly different means to those goals.

The ACLU, because of it's position in society, must begin each case with an assumption of guilt. That is their job. It is not their job to ask "Is this really a civil liberties violation?" And I think that really nuts people up. The ACLU is not about finding the truth of the matter, they are about fighting for certain parameters (pertaining  to the extension of civil liberties) to be pulled in one direction (in many cases the political left) while fighting forces which are pulling in the opposite direction. To me the end result is the beauty of Democracy: We wind up in the middle.

That's what I think though. You can love civil liberties all day long and not care for the ACLU. IMHO

-Sikboy

Ahh ya nutjob!

Well saying the ACLU assumes guilt is like saying a defense attorney assumes the police were wrong. DUH! Thats their job. The political left is not always the direction that they pull either. They defend all rights, and especially those that are threatened. This means that they are always working for those issues and people that are on the fringes of our society, because those are the ones most in danger of losing their rights. They have defended the rights of NAZI's, the KKK and Left Wing radical groups. Left or right makes no difference. And as to who's wearing the blinders Rip, don't stand sideways when you shave.

[Nashwan]

The ACLU is an advocacy group. They defend freedoms wether they are in the public interest or not. You can be pretty sure there will be people out there (mainly government agencies) trying to restrict those freedoms.

The ACLU argues for things that are unpalatable to most, like the right of neo-nazis to hold parades, the right of the KKK to march with hoods on, the right of the KKK to keep their membership lists secret, etc. Without the ACLU those rights would be eroded for everyone.

I'm a right-wing conservative, and I don't agree with many of the causes the ACLU stands for, but I think the ACLU is a very good counterbalance to the tendency of governments to limit and control freedoms.

I think if the ACLU was truely about money, they wouldn't touch right wing causes, pornography etc. The natural supporters (and donors) of the ACLU are the left, and seeing the ACLU defending the KKK must cost them donations.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Elfenwolf
What's amazing is that guys like Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie can read an article (presumably) where five people who had darker skin than the airline officials they were dealing with were denied access to airplanes based solely upon the color of their skin-Hell, two or three of these gentlemen of color weren't even Arabic for Christ's sakes- and THEN Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie start lambasting the ACLU for having the NERVE to protect the civil rights of these five gentlemen of color. (BTW, several of these guys are seeking an apology rather than compensatory damages, but of course you know that because you read the article, right?)

Somebody help me out here. I'm trying really hard to understand how these three oft-proclaimed Conservatives can claim to be such great American patriots yet somehow condone the actions of business establishments (such as airlines) who refuse service based upon skin color. Seriously, explain to me how you feel discrimination for discrimination's sake is justified.

Typical liberal discusion. Someone criticises your position, call him a racist. He'll feel bad and go away...

"Not me. I'm  a Toydarian and your silly PC mind tricks don't work on me".

Read again my post Elf. All I said is that ACLU is not what they claim to be.

Btw, I agree with Target that the free speach is just that, free. Like in uncensored in any way.

Sure there are issues with some material not being suitable for the children, but it is parents responsibility to guard their kid and control their access to the media.

I'm surpraised that you did not call be Hitler for using NSDAP to poke at ACLU.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Ahh ya nutjob!

Well saying the ACLU assumes guilt is like saying a defense attorney assumes the police were wrong. DUH! Thats their job.

It's wierd Tahgut, I think you just reverse engineered my post and used it as a reply

Originally Brilliantly Deduced by Sikboy
[The ACLU] must begin each case with an assumption of guilt. That is their job. It is not their job to ask "Is this really a civil liberties violation?"

Originally Plagerized by midnight Target (in clear violation of Sikboy's civil liberties)
The political left is not always the direction that they pull either.

Originally Analysed with godlike prowess by Sikboy
[The ACLU is] about fighting for certain parameters (pertaining to the extension of civil liberties) to be pulled in one direction (in many cases the political left)

Many. Not all.

I'm not saying that what the ACLU does is bad. I think that it plays a necessary role in our lawmaking process. Defense attorneys suffer from the same bad PR. They aren't "Looking for the truth" Either. They are just trying to get their clients out of trouble. And when you pit them against prosecutors, (who are also uninterested in the truth so far as I can tell) you wind up with the closest thing we can find to justice.

-Sikboy

[Elfenwolf]

Originally posted by mietla


Typical liberal discusion. Someone criticises your position, call him a racist. He'll feel bad and go away...

"Not me. I'm  a Toydarian and your silly PC mind tricks don't work on me".

Read again my post Elf. All I said is that ACLU is not what they claim to be.

Btw, I agree with Target that the free speach is just that, free. Like in uncensored in any way.

Sure there are issues with some material not being suitable for the children, but it is parents responsibility to guard their kid and control their access to the media.

I'm surpraised that you did not call be Hitler for using NSDAP to poke at ACLU.






 

Nah, Mielta, I don't do name calling. Anyway we aren't that far apart from each others' positions on the ACLU. I was refering to the actual case that caused this post, but it DOES raise an interesting question- Are we better or worse off as a society because of the existance of groups like the ACLU?

Sorry if my post was accusatory in nature, BTW. No offense was intended.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Sikboy

It's wierd Tahgut, I think you just reverse engineered my post and used it as a reply  

-Sikboy

Reverse Engineering is a tried and true process we lefty libs often use:

Soviet Tu-4 (Look familiar?)

[mietla]

Originally posted by Elfenwolf



Nah, Mielta, I don't do name calling. Anyway we aren't that far apart from each others' positions on the ACLU. I was refering to the actual case that caused this post, but it DOES raise an interesting question- Are we better or worse off as a society because of the existance of groups like the ACLU?

Sorry if my post was accusatory in nature, BTW. No offense was intended.

and none taken...

As I said:


"Not me. I'm a Toydarian and your silly PC mind tricks don't work on me".  

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Elfenwolf



Nah, Mielta, I don't do name calling. Anyway we aren't that far apart from each others' positions on the ACLU. I was refering to the actual case that caused this post, but it DOES raise an interesting question- Are we better or worse off as a society because of the existance of groups like the ACLU?

I think we're better off.

[Leslie]

Originally posted by Elfenwolf
What's amazing is that guys like Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie can read an article (presumably) where five people who had darker skin than the airline officials they were dealing with were denied access to airplanes based solely upon the color of their skin-Hell, two or three of these gentlemen of color weren't even Arabic for Christ's sakes- and THEN Ripsnort, mielta and Leslie start lambasting the ACLU for having the NERVE to protect the civil rights of these five gentlemen of color. (BTW, several of these guys are seeking an apology rather than compensatory damages, but of course you know that because you read the article, right?)

Somebody help me out here. I'm trying really hard to understand how these three oft-proclaimed Conservatives can claim to be such great American patriots yet somehow condone the actions of business establishments (such as airlines) who refuse service based upon skin color. Seriously, explain to me how you feel discrimination for discrimination's sake is justified.

Well, at first I wasn't going to respond to this post Elfenwolf, but I kinda feel like my honor is at stake here, seeing how I'm the only one you mentioned who hadn't responded yet.

I admit it took a few beers to get up the guts, hehe.  Also, you had me ROFL the first part.  Was even going to post a snappy reply, but wasn't sure how you or anyone else in here reading this would take it.

So, rather than trying to justify discrimination, I'll just say I did read the article from the ACLU's website.  Here's the question I have for you.  If you were the pilot of a commercial jet liner, and a passenger indicated she was uncomfortable with certain passengers aboard, what would you do?  I know what I would do.  I'd refuse to take off until things were settled on the ground.  Better to take off without uncomfortable passengers from the get-go, don't you think?  Heck, I'm not even a pilot, but if I was, that's the way it would be, even if there weren't bad guys aboard.  I look upon this as a safety issue.  Has nothing to do with discrimination.

Always enjoy reading your posts Elfenwolf.  Keep up the good work.  

Les

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Leslie


If you were the pilot of a commercial jet liner, and a passenger indicated she was uncomfortable with certain passengers aboard, what would you do?  
 

My thought when I read that example, was that I would take the uncomfortable person off the plane. That made the most sense to me. Irational people shouldn't fly anyhow, it leads to air rage, which in turn leads to cranky flight attendents who yell at me, and then unionize and demand raises, whcih forces pilots into a sympathy strike, and then my ticket prices go up. Screw that. The lady should have waited until the next flight, or bought a ticket on "Aryan Airlines" or something, where she wouldn't have to deal with those dark skinned people.

-Sikboy

[Elfenwolf]

Originally posted by Leslie


 If you were the pilot of a commercial jet liner, and a passenger indicated she was uncomfortable with certain passengers aboard, what would you do?  I know what I would do.  I'd refuse to take off until things were settled on the ground.

Les

LOL No fair using logic, Les. But yeah, a pilot's first duty is the safety of his passengers, so I agree. And yes, these gentlemen could have been more gracious and realised the extenuating circumstances of 9-11 cause all of us to undergo stricter airline security, but they didn't.  Understanding and politeness are rapidly disappearing from American society I guess.

Thanks for reading my posts in the same spirit I write them. I like throwing out the ol' liberal vs conservative bait once in a while, but it's tough because the people on these BBs are well thought out and very bright and articulate for the most part. Rather I agree or not I respect the 'cervs who post here, and I've always said I'd rather have a conservative for a neighbor than a liberal because conservatives take better care of their yards...and those plastic pink flamingos are cool.

Les.