NationStates Jolt Archive

I always thought this for a long time. ACLU is out to destroy America. Read this article and tell me it's not truewww.thehttp://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorists_fly.htm (http://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorists_fly.htm)

I always thought this for a long time. ACLU is out to destroy America. Read this article and tell me it's not true.www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorist_fly.htm (http://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorist_fly.htm)
Not Found
The requested URL /staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorist_fly.htm was not found on this server.

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

Open the www.therant.us home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.



HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Explorer


It's not true.


Edit: No new rank? :(

ok, its fixed. For whatever reason it was down for a bit. Highly suspicous if you ask me.

ok, its fixed.
No, at least not from over here it isn't.
:(

EDIT:
Nevermind, now it is.

Originally posted by TinFoilHat
always thought this for a long time. ACLU is out to destroy America. Read this article and tell me it's not truewww.thehttp://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorists_fly.htm

What do you have against the ACLU, they never did anything top you (presumably). Their sole existance is to protect peoples rights and liberties. Of course they do idiotic things, but just because your biased mind thinks their bad means little.

ACLU goes way to far at times. They have turned into a corrupt far left orginization. Anytime a "non-profit" swings this far. They need to be reclassified as a political orginization.

I always thought this for a long time. ACLU is out to destroy America. Read this article and tell me it's not truewww.thehttp://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorists_fly.htm (http://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorists_fly.htm)
I'm sure there was something worthwhile there, but I couldn't find it amongst all of the political hackery.

:rolleyes: Sensationalist bullshit, frankly.

I'm sure there was something worthwhile there, but I couldn't find it amongst all of the political hackery.

:rolleyes: Sensationalist bullshit, frankly.
Right on.
I think we should start a petition to get our five minutes back now.

:p

I think Jerry Falwell put it best when he said that the ACLU was the "American Jewish Civil Destruction Murder Machine."

ACLU goes way to far at times. They have turned into a corrupt far left orginization. Anytime a "non-profit" swings this far. They need to be reclassified as a political orginization.
Why? What justification do you have for this?

I call troll.

The ACLU does want to protect civil liberties but only those liberties they agree with. This is natural and to be expected. It is run by humans, humans have biases and those will always come out.
I cannot agree with their position in this case. If we cannot keep track of and prevent people who could very well be terrorist from flying then we leave ourselves wide open to attacks again. It makes trouble for some people and it makes for lines at the airport, I'm crying a river. Life is tough. I fly often and it can be a pain in the ass but I put up with it in order to gain some measure of security.

Right on.
I think we should start a petition to get our five minutes back now.

:p
Yeah, those minutes are being held in the same place as the two hours I'll never get back from watching Son of the Mask. :rolleyes:

The ACLU does want to protect civil liberties but only those liberties they agree with. This is natural and to be expected. It is run by humans, humans have biases and those will always come out.
I cannot agree with their position in this case. If we cannot keep track of and prevent people who could very well be terrorist from flying then we leave ourselves wide open to attacks again. It makes trouble for some people and it makes for lines at the airport, I'm crying a river. Life is tough. I fly often and it can be a pain in the ass but I put up with it in order to gain some measure of security.

You have anything to back that up with, or are you just making up bullshit?

The article is laughable at best. The ACLU is looking out for americans, hardly conspiring with terrorists. With that logic, you can link almost anyone to terrorism, its just idiotic. You might as well call porcelain makers terrorist conspirators, because terrorists might make porcelain knifes and use them to hi-jack aircraft.

Originally posted by 31
The ACLU does want to protect civil liberties but only those liberties they agree with. This is natural and to be expected. It is run by humans, humans have biases and those will always come out.
I cannot agree with their position in this case. If we cannot keep track of and prevent people who could very well be terrorist from flying then we leave ourselves wide open to attacks again. It makes trouble for some people and it makes for lines at the airport, I'm crying a river. Life is tough. I fly often and it can be a pain in the ass but I put up with it in order to gain some measure of security.

ACHOO
I'm sorry 31, I'm allergic to bullshit.

You have anything to back that up with, or are you just making up bullshit?

The article is laughable at best. The ACLU is looking out for americans, hardly conspiring with terrorists. With that logic, you can link almost anyone to terrorism, its just idiotic. You might as well call porcelain makers terrorist conspirators, because terrorists might make porcelain knifes and use them to hi-jack aircraft.
No, you're a terrorist for attacking the porcelain makers who support fine, red blooded americans unlike your LIBERAL PINKO COMMIE SELF.

No, you're a terrorist for attacking the porcelain makers who support fine, red blooded americans unlike your LIBERAL PINKO COMMIE SELF.
Because I'm a member of the ACLU, does that make me a LIBERAL PINKO COMMIE?

I had no idea I was close! :eek:

Because I'm a member of the ACLU, does that make me a LIBERAL PINKO COMMIE?

I had no idea I was close! :eek:
That makes you a liberal redo commie.

Originally posted by CSW
No, you're a terrorist for attacking the porcelain makers who support fine, red blooded americans unlike your LIBERAL PINKO COMMIE SELF.

*Walking around with a geiger counter*, I'm detecting an unusually large amount of bullshit in this statement.

.

*Walking around with a geiger counter*, I'm detecting an unusually large amount of bullshit in this statement.
Geiger counters detect sarcasm now?

You have anything to back that up with, or are you just making up bullshit?

The article is laughable at best. The ACLU is looking out for americans, hardly conspiring with terrorists. With that logic, you can link almost anyone to terrorism, its just idiotic. You might as well call porcelain makers terrorist conspirators, because terrorists might make porcelain knifes and use them to hi-jack aircraft.

I guess I could back it up but to be quite honest it isn't an important enough debate to take the time to do so. Hell people, we are spinning our wheels on these forums. Do you really believe what we say or write here makes a diffence. We do it for entertainment and to take it more seriously is just gonna give ya stress and heartburn.
I agree with you completely that the article is not a good source, it comes from an obviously biased news group and so should be taken as an opinion, not as fact.
However, the ACLU is biased and always has been. They have a political agenda and they act upon it. There is nothing wrong with this, it is the natural way of things. They support marraige rights for homosexuals and they want religion banned from any public forum. I make no judgement upon these positions but based upon their choice of cases to prosecute this is easily seen.

That makes you a liberal redo commie.
Sweet! I've never been called a liberal, or a commie in my life! :p :p :p

Well, there's always a first time for everything.

Originally posted by CSW
Geiger counters detect sarcasm now?

It's mearly a stupid remark, but yes, geiger counters are extremely handy! :p

Why? What justification do you have for this?

They try to argue constitutional rights to non-citizens for one. Especially those that are detained in combat. They don't have constitutional rights. Sorry, but don't think so.

I'm not sure of the ACLU stance on the problem I have - I think that profiling should be used for screening passengers.

I've seen too many old white-haired women from Iowa virtually strip-searched while young Arabic men go right on through. It's official policy to do this - they say that people should be picked randomly and not "profiled".

Hello? Are they stupid? No, they're afraid of lawsuits.

They try to argue constitutional rights to non-citizens for one. Especially those that are detained in combat. They don't have constitutional rights. Sorry, but don't think so.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Doesn't say this only applies to citizens, it spefically says "no person". Non-citizens are people too.

I guess I could back it up but to be quite honest it isn't an important enough debate to take the time to do so. Hell people, we are spinning our wheels on these forums. Do you really believe what we say or write here makes a diffence. We do it for entertainment and to take it more seriously is just gonna give ya stress and heartburn.
I agree with you completely that the article is not a good source, it comes from an obviously biased news group and so should be taken as an opinion, not as fact.
However, the ACLU is biased and always has been. They have a political agenda and they act upon it. There is nothing wrong with this, it is the natural way of things. They support marraige rights for homosexuals and they want religion banned from any public forum. I make no judgement upon these positions but based upon their choice of cases to prosecute this is easily seen.

Again, unless you have an actual example of something, you shouldnt state it. The ACLU defends christians rights to distribute material, etc. They only pursue secularization in courts, etc.

And CSW, though it seems you were kidding, im not a liberal. Im probably closer to fascist.

How appropriate that the one who posted this thread is called "Tin foil hat".

Non-citizens are people too.

LIES!

Doesn't say this only applies to citizens, it spefically says "no person". Non-citizens are people too.


What a bleeding liberal. :rolleyes: Gettin pretty pink in here!

How appropriate that the one who posted this thread is called "Tin foil hat".

Would you say the same for me that posted something toward a Morrocan point of view. Marrakech is Morrocan.

Would Neo Anarchist be an inflamitory name?

I hate cows? Surely the animal rights groups wouldn't like this one.

Name is a name. Beyond that you have to judge the content of said post. Should never judge a book by it's cover.

Again, unless you have an actual example of something, you shouldnt state it. The ACLU defends christians rights to distribute material, etc. They only pursue secularization in courts, etc.

And CSW, though it seems you were kidding, im not a liberal. Im probably closer to fascist.

They do some good, but they definitely don't defend all the rights (they won't touch the 2nd amendment). They got the name first, so they get to keep it--it's just a tad misleading, that's all.

the ACLU has their own agenda... why else would they support NAMBLA, not letting people know when a sexual offender/preditor is in your neighborhood, keeping Gays in the Boys Scouts and kicking Boys Scouts out of campsites and public venues because they have the words Reverence, and "In God we Trust" in their oaths and slogans... they want free speech and places undue pressures on people who want to protect their children from sickos... I lost faith in the ACLU a long time ago. I even Quit that organization a few years back.

the ACLU has their own agenda... why else would they support NAMBLA, not letting people know when a sexual offender/preditor is in your neighborhood, keeping Gays in the Boys Scouts and kicking Boys Scouts out of campsites and public venues because they have the words Reverence, and "In God we Trust" in their oaths and slogans... they want free speech and places undue pressures on people who want to protect their children from sickos... I lost faith in the ACLU a long time ago. I even Quit that organization a few years back.

Good points. Private organizations can have their own agendas and rules--and can kick anyone they want out for any reason. It's only the government that can't discriminate.

Good points. Private organizations can have their own agendas and rules--and can kick anyone they want out for any reason. It's only the government that can't discriminate.so you are saying that you would allow your son/daughter to go on long camping trips with somone who may be a child rapist?

Good points. Private organizations can have their own agendas and rules--and can kick anyone they want out for any reason. It's only the government that can't discriminate.

Replace can't with must not/should not, and I'm in agreement.

Also, therant is - true to its name - well known to be so filled with polemic as to be almost comical. I especially like the way he wants to "keep the constitution alive" by curtailing civil liberties in the name of security.

I believe some pinko chap called Ben Franklin had something to say about this.

Those who would give up an essential liberty for a bit of temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

And don't fool yourself thinking this security isn't temporary either. The terrorists aren't idiots; they'll figure out how to get around it soon enough. The ones who suffer are the people who get on there without being terrorists.

I always thought this for a long time. ACLU is out to destroy America. Read this article and tell me it's not truewww.thehttp://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorists_fly.htm (http://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorists_fly.htm)
as an American, i'm a bit more worried about the people who want secret "terrorist" lists, secret trials, secret warrants, secret evidence, and secret convictions that get you sent to other countries to be tortured.

people who want secret "terrorist" lists, secret trials, secret warrants, secret evidence, and secret convictions that get you sent to other countries to be tortured.

Bring back them good ol' days with McCarthy, when the commies trembled before the might of the Empire!

:headbang:

However, the ACLU is biased and always has been. They have a political agenda and they act upon it. There is nothing wrong with this, it is the natural way of things. They support marraige rights for homosexuals and they want religion banned from any public forum.
flat out lie. the ACLU have repeatedly and consistently defended freedom of religious expression in countless forums. they defend the rights of religious groups to assemble in public squares, the right of students to opennly wear religious emblems in school, the right of students to pray privately in public areas of the school, the right of private religious groups to deny membership to those who do not comply to the group's religious requirements, and a whole lot more. and the ACLU does all this despite the vilification they receive in return from spiteful religious people who aren't satisfied with having equal rights; as soon as the ACLU tries to assert that one religion cannot be placed above the secular rights of the whole, the religious community decides the ACLU is anti-religion and forgets all the work the ACLU has done for them.

if you can provide ONE SINGLE CASE EXAMPLE of the ACLU unjustly trying to force religious silence, i will admit my wrongheadedness. but i've posed that challenge dozens of times, and nobody has yet been able to find even a single case in which the ACLU tried to block the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of a religious person or group.

Gawtdamn, that ACLU makes me so spittin mad. It's like we gots these good American boys out there, the deputies and them FBIs, roundin up all them terrists, but then what happens? The consarned ACLU done shows up and busts all them a-rabs out the county jail and sneaks 'em away acrost the county line!

Far as I'm concerned, we better be safer 'n sorrier and strip search any passenger what with a towel on his haid.

They try to argue constitutional rights to non-citizens for one. Especially those that are detained in combat. They don't have constitutional rights. Sorry, but don't think so.

The basis of this country is that rights are not derived from the constitution. Rights are so-called because they are quite simply the right thing to do.

We require law enforcement to have some evidence of wrong doing not as a privilege maintained by our elite citizenry, but because long experience taught the more enlightened among us that in the long term no good will come of letting them lock anyone up and say "you'll just have to trust us on this, they're bad." Especially when so many of those that they caught didn't do anything wrong.

They try to argue constitutional rights to non-citizens for one. Especially those that are detained in combat. They don't have constitutional rights. Sorry, but don't think so.

I can easily. I'm not allowed to murder non-citizens. I'm not allowed to rape non-citizens. I'm not allowed to rob non-citizens. If the law doesn't apply to non-citizens I should be able to kill a couple of German tourists just for the fun of watching them die without any repercussions. Unfortunatly, I can't.

Laws specificy what one must do and what one must not do. The constitution is a law that binds the government. It specifies what the government must do and what the government must not do.


No fly lists are stupid. The 9/11 attacks were so crazy that they worked. The problem crazy off-the-wall plans is that they can only work once. It worked because three of the four hijacked planes were packed with cowards who refused to fight for their own lives or the lives of others. Few aircraft passangers are going to make the same mistake again. No terrorist attempting to hijack a plane would possibly live long enough to fly it into a building. No-fly lists simply create a false sense of security.

One could much more easily justify no-drive lists. After all, the most tried and true weapon for terrorists is the car bomb. It has proven itself to work time and time again. It is much more difficult to track a car. When an airplane is hijacked everyone knows fairly soon. When a car has a bomb in the trunk you really can't know unless it is searched or it explodes. The latter is far mor elikely to happen than the former. Yet, no one suggests no-drive lists. No one suggests restricting access to automobiles. If someone did there would be much uproar over it.

There is also the matter of anti-Arab and anti-Islamic discrimination. Everyone seems to forget that the vast majority of terrororists in the US are American-born white Protestant Christians. How many white Protestants are on the no fly list? Logically, there should be far more of them than Arabs. I very much doubt that thet is the case, however.


How about this, insead of letting the government curtail civil liberities to protect people we create a super-secret governmetn agency that is not bound by the Constitution and has absolutely no oversite from anyone. Said agency can spend billions of dollars annually to employ the world's greatest freelance assasins to hunt and kill terrorists and other threats to the US. In the event of exposure, everyone who knows about said agency shall commit suicide and anyone who refuses to do so will be killed by the aforementioned assasins. The sitting President can also order the agency to shut down and allmembers of commit suicide but that is the only order that he can give.

Since no one would know about it no one would complain. Since it acts outside of government control it can't be used for tyrany. If it gets out of hand exposure or a shutdown order won't be far away.

the ACLU has their own agenda... why else would they support NAMBLA, not letting people know when a sexual offender/preditor is in your neighborhood, keeping Gays in the Boys Scouts and kicking Boys Scouts out of campsites and public venues because they have the words Reverence, and "In God we Trust" in their oaths and slogans... they want free speech and places undue pressures on people who want to protect their children from sickos... I lost faith in the ACLU a long time ago. I even Quit that organization a few years back.

They're clearly a far right organization. Why else would they help Rush Limbaugh keep his medical records sealed to keep him out of jail. They know that the forces of ignorance and oppresion rely on his bucolic idiocy staying on the airwaves and will do anything to see it sustained.

Far as I'm concerned, we better be safer 'n sorrier and strip search any passenger what with a towel on his haid.
Better go further and shoot them. Round them up in concentration camps and then cremate them. That's how it's done, pupil.

/sarcasm

so you are saying that you would allow your son/daughter to go on long camping trips with somone who may be a child rapist?

Has the person paid for their crime?

Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer that any rapist deserves to be shot in the head repeatedly, however, most US laws don't allow for that.

If the person has done the time by our laws, they've paid the price. If you're actually going to give them a life sentence (which is what publishing names of former criminals is), give them an actual life sentence.

Ein Deutscher']Better go further and shoot them. Round them up in concentration camps and then cremate them. That's how it's done, pupil.

/sarcasm

Sarcasm can become reality at times. Look at the roundup of Japanese during WWII. Although they didn't go to the extreme of killing them. But this still could happen if the people get to extreme.

You have anything to back that up with, or are you just making up bullshit?
I think he's pointing out that the ACLU doesn't defend the 2nd Amendment with the same vehemence with which they defend other parts of the Bill of Rights, which is true. If you check, the ACLU is neutral on gun control.

I think he's pointing out that the ACLU doesn't defend the 2nd Amendment with the same vehemence with which they defend other parts of the Bill of Rights, which is true. If you check, the ACLU is neutral on gun control.


They are to far left. This is the reason. Either classify them as a political org or they need a major overhaul in how they view certain things.

Okay, one second.

GAH!

zsd.fk

That was my head hitting the keyboard...I'm trying to rid my mind of all the sensationalism swirling through it. The smile just didn't seem sufficient.

The basis of this country is that rights are not derived from the constitution. Rights are so-called because they are quite simply the right thing to do.

We require law enforcement to have some evidence of wrong doing not as a privilege maintained by our elite citizenry, but because long experience taught the more enlightened among us that in the long term no good will come of letting them lock anyone up and say "you'll just have to trust us on this, they're bad." Especially when so many of those that they caught didn't do anything wrong.

The more enlightened amongst us? LOl, would that be the same as "you'll have to trust us on this". Sounds the same to me. If you are caught on a battlefield you never have had constitutional rights under the US constitution. Why does it need to be changed now? With that you do have the right to humane treatment. I don't think we need to be locking them up forever. A military trial should be used to charge each and everyone of these combatants. If you noticed we have sent some back home. Which means that the process is working. I for one don't advocate all these people being sent home. Some of them want to kill our children. I couldn't live with myself If I knew I let the killer of children loose to commit more crimes.

I think he's pointing out that the ACLU doesn't defend the 2nd Amendment with the same vehemence with which they defend other parts of the Bill of Rights, which is true. If you check, the ACLU is neutral on gun control.

Yes, the ACLU is neutral on the stance, not pro or con. They let the NRA do the job of protecting gun rights.

I think that the ACLU has served its purpose, and while once a noble movement, has, in purpose, degenerated into a politically motivated organization. There's nothing wrong with a left-wing organization, just as there's nothing wrong with a right-wing organization or an up-wing organization, or whatever...but everything they do is still under the guise of championing civil rights. I don't know about you, but it seems as if you can't say 'black man' without being accused of racism.

On the other hand, this is a little far. I may not be in love with the ACLU, and that article may have a certain degree of truth to it, but the accusation that the ACLU is in a conspiracy with terrorists is utter crap, paranoid, sheer stupidity, etc, etc, etc, etc.


etc.

the ACLU has their own agenda... why else would they support NAMBLA, not letting people know when a sexual offender/preditor is in your neighborhood, keeping Gays in the Boys Scouts and kicking Boys Scouts out of campsites and public venues because they have the words Reverence, and "In God we Trust" in their oaths and slogans... they want free speech and places undue pressures on people who want to protect their children from sickos... I lost faith in the ACLU a long time ago. I even Quit that organization a few years back.

The ACLU does have an agenda, protecting american rights is their agenda.

NAMBLA is supported under free speech.

Protecting sexual offenders names is protecting the right of privacy. They have done their crime, posting their names on a list is virtually libel.

Gays are people too. Just because you are deathly afraid of homosexuals, doesnt mean they join the boy scouts just to rape little boys.

They dont kick boy scouts out of public places, they just petition for them not to get special rights from taxes because they classify themselves as a religious group.

Yes, they want free speech. Are you against free speech?

If you want to protect your kids from pedophiles so badly, homeschool them, dont let them in the boyscouts, and keep many guns. Dont restrict others freedoms because you are horribly afraid of losing your own, or your family's. Thats why we have police, and laws against such things.

I personally am glad you left the ACLU. They dont need people who want to get rid of free speech and personal freedoms.

I always thought this for a long time. ACLU is out to destroy America. Read this article and tell me it's not truewww.thehttp://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorists_fly.htm (http://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/fifth_column/the_aclu_would_rather_let_the_terrorists_fly.htm)


It's an editorial. Just because Frank Salvato says it that doesn't make it true.
Don't cite editorials as pieces of quality journalism.

Although I do agree that fictional writers make for better entertainment than lawsuits.
I'm pretty sure no one disagrees with that.

Yes, the ACLU is neutral on the stance, not pro or con. They let the NRA do the job of protecting gun rights.
** shrugs ** It is still a civil liberty. They have made a deliberate choice not to defend it as they defend the others.

Note for interested parties: I am also neutral on gun control. Heh.

Everyone knows that the ACLU, The Terrorists, The Gay Mafia and The Killer Bees have been in league for years. When are people going to treat this crisis with the seriousness that it deserves?

The ACLU defends NAMBLA's right to petition the government to change a law. That doesn't mean they support NAMBLA's agenda. The ACLU has represented the Klan, Rush Limbaugh and Oliver North. The reason conservatives frequently cite the ACLU as being liberal is that civil liberties are percieved as being a liberal cause. Any sensible conservative would also support them. The problem the ACLU has with the Boy Scouts not allowing gay or atheist members is that the Boy Scouts recieve government money and support.

The problem the ACLU has with the NO-Fly List is that you are not allowed to know why you're on the list and therefore can't effectively argue that you shouldn't be on it. Perhaps some people have trouble empathizing and putting themselves in someone else's shoes. How would you like it if a government told you that you couldn't fly on a plane and refused to tell you why? Do think it could never happen to you? Even if it couldn't, why should that stop you from worrying about the rights of others? IF one persons rights can be trampled, don't think yours are sacred.

Perhaps some people have trouble empathizing and putting themselves in someone else's shoes. How would you like it if a government told you that you couldn't fly on a plane and refused to tell you why? Do think it could never happen to you? Even if it couldn't, why should that stop you from worrying about the rights of others? IF one persons rights can be trampled, don't think yours are sacred.
This is the point that these freedom-hating, authoritarian, un-American whackjobs can't seem to get through their skulls...

Freedom of speech comes at a price-- People are going to say things that offend or upset other groups or individuals. The ACLU defends their right to do so freely, providing they do not harm anyone else.

How can you not agree with the ACLU's agenda to defend civil liberties and freedom of expression, even if you don't like every cause they champion?

This is the point that these freedom-hating, authoritarian, un-American whackjobs can't seem to get through their skulls...

Freedom of speech comes at a price-- People are going to say things that offend or upset other groups or individuals. The ACLU defends their right to do so freely, providing they do not harm anyone else.

How can you not agree with the ACLU's agenda to defend civil liberties and freedom of expression, even if you don't like every cause they champion?

I agree with some of what they do. However, they don't do everything they say they do--that's the only problem I have with 'em.

They don't defend all liberties. They defend only some.

I'm a member of the ACLU and when I pass the bar i'm going to do pro bono work with them.

I agree with some of what they do. However, they don't do everything they say they do--that's the only problem I have with 'em.

They don't defend all liberties. They defend only some.
They're almost exclusively an orgainization that defends the 1st Ammendment.
That's it. They hope (like the NRA) that by specializing and focusing their political and legal efforts will be more effective and efficient.

I'm proud to say I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU. I wanted to be able to say that since I was a kid. The Reagan years especially.

I'm proud to say I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU. I wanted to be able to say that since I was a kid. The Reagan years especially.


I don't doubt this for a minute.

I don't doubt this for a minute.
Coming from a paranoid schizo like yourself, there was no excuse to be so rude to her.

They're almost exclusively an orgainization that defends the 1st Ammendment.
That's it. They hope (like the NRA) that by specializing and focusing their political and legal efforts will be more effective and efficient.

Does this mean I can continue to bitch about their name? :D