the mixing of religious insanity with partisan advantage - Page 3 - Political Forum

FRYandBENDER · #21 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 04:08 PM

Right, I'll try looking some of the good stuff they've done too, if you let me know where you got that info. I don't loathe them so much as I think that the cases that they get publicity for are retarded. I mean seriously, representing someone who doesn't like hearing the towns churchbells? Or NAMBLA? Point well taken though.

FRYandBENDER · #22 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 04:09 PM

Man, I got nailed on that one.

Troianii · #23 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyt28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Oz View Post
If the American people want it, then it is appropriate. If Americans don't like politicians doing this, then they wouldn't vote for them.
Troianii responds:That's the whole idea. Good point.
Yet further he makes the statement: "Folks, it is impossible for us to save this country from those who would destroy it and pervert it into something radically different from what the Founder envisioned, if we do not rein in the power of overreaching, activist judges, who no longer interpret the clear meaning of the law, but pervert it and twist it. Judges today twist the law to make it say what they want it to say; to accomplish the end they desire. "

Our founding fathers allowed choice - much like the God has in allowing us to believe in Him or not. The judges you dislike are there for the same reasons that any are there - they were either voted in or appointed by a politician who had been voted in. And there are special interest groups for every opinion and belief out there - and money backing both sides rather well. I refuse to believe that groups like the ACLU are so God-awful strong and influencial that the powers-who-oppose cannot find legal brilliance and financial backing of their own to refute any and all effort.

As far as I am concerned, criticism about the ACLU reminds me of the line "I think the man doth protest too much" or plain ol' sour grapes. After all, no one complains unless you are being effective.

Thanks for beleiving that I could write so fluently on the spot, I'm really quite flatted but that was an acticle. That's why I said "cut and paste" at the end, if I remember correctly.

"I refuse to believe that groups like the ACLU are so God-awful strong and influencial that the powers-who-oppose cannot find legal brilliance and financial backing of their own to refute any and all effort."

Well you see, that's just the thing. Most of the outspoken people in the ACLU and many activist judges don't care what the law says, they overrule Constitutional law and rights based on things that aren't in the Constitution, any of the founding documents, or anywhere in any legal document. Either way, these rulings are hypocritical, that the Ten Commandments can not be in a court house but a statue to a Goddess can? Give me a break!

Ygorl · #24 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRYandBENDER

Every time I see one of these cases the beloved ACLU stands up for it is always one singular miserable asshole who doesn't want to have his kid see a cross on his teacher's necklace or doesn't like the fact that a 10 commandments statue is in front of a courthouse because since his mother-in-law died he hasn't had anything to bitch about.

Hows that case going for the ACLU about the assholes who have a problem hearing the church bells in their town?

Used to be that I had to walk around with a tune box blaring GWAR singing about suckadickalickalogs to offend people.

Now is all I have to do is wear a cross and tell people about the "good news" LOL

I love it. Proof that my country is getting more and more retarded.

The ACLU defended GWARS right to sing and dress nuts. They're actions are bent on removing every sign of religion from my culture.

Guess what, all of a sudden I'm a man of God who'se going to go around every day offending as many fuckin' idiots as I can

Stupid Americans.

No WONDER yer-a-peeins think we're stupid.

WE ARE.

Ygorl · #25 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I've gradually lost interest in discussions with you over the last few months, and this pretty much seals it. Adios.

Ygorl · #26 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I believe it's a partial list. And, I'm not really a defender of the ACLU, per se - I've seen them take on some cases that I thought were pretty absurd. However, I don't understand the loathing that is so frequently directed at them.

Because, to put it simply they're a racket of dirtbags. Yes, lawyers can be dirtbags TOO.

Actually, a good percentage of them ARE.

They're manipulating society any way they want to. The blind won't see it.

Some of us choose not to BE blind to these scumbags AKA the ACLU.

drgoodtrips · #27 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRYandBENDER

Right, I'll try looking some of the good stuff they've done too, if you let me know where you got that info. I don't loathe them so much as I think that the cases that they get publicity for are retarded. I mean seriously, representing someone who doesn't like hearing the towns churchbells? Or NAMBLA? Point well taken though.

I think that the real problem with the ACLU (if we ignore the partisan controversy that surrounds them and often precludes reasonable discussion) is that individual members like to turn unlikely defenses into publicity stunts and crusades for various reasons.

As a libertarian, I very much like the idea (in theory) of the ACLU. Here is a watch-dog organization that exists, ostensibly, to defend the civil liberties of those who least deserve it or those who can't do it themselves. If there is an organization out there defending these types, then I should feel safe in my own personal liberties.

However, in practice, it seems that a lot of ACLU members like to make a name for themselves by stirring up controversy, often putting some semantical quibble ahead of the genuine defense of civil liberties. The ACLU also has an agenda that is not necessarily in line with pure defense of civil liberties, which irks me. They will take the cases of some groups with which they disagree (the laundry list above is proof of that), but I don't really think that a group dedicated to preservation of civil liberties should have an agenda beyond the preservation of civil liberties.

Otter · #28 (**permalink**) 01-09-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

Thanks for beleiving that I could write so fluently on the spot, I'm really quite flatted but that was an acticle. That's why I said "cut and paste" at the end, if I remember correctly.

Just as an aside- it is more correct to include a link to the article, or state explicity the author and source when quoting. This avoids the appearance of plagarism.

FredFlashInTexas · #29 (**permalink**) 06-20-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRYandBENDER

Dude, I love the ACLU. If it were not for them I might be persecuted for my man-boy love. He's 7 years old for crying out loud. He is old enough to make his own decisions. Thank you ACLU. Besides, what I talk online about doing with my NAMBLA buddies is my business, and doesn't mean I'm going to actually do anything.

What evidence supports your accusation that the ACLU endorses man-boy love?

FredFlashInTexas · #30 (**permalink**) 06-20-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

Most of the outspoken people in the ACLU and many activist judges don't care what the law says, they overrule Constitutional law and rights based on things that aren't in the Constitution, any of the founding documents, or anywhere in any legal document.

Can you give some examples of what you're complaining about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

Either way, these rulings are hypocritical

What rulings?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

that the Ten Commandments can not be in a court house but a statue to a Goddess can? Give me a break!

Please show us the statute or judicial opinion that says the Ten Commandments can not be in a court house but a statue to a Goddess can.