Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   George Bush leads us into the world of Kafka.
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 76 of 150 (350388)
09-19-2006 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 3:45 PM


Re: A general reply
They also protect pedophiles too.
And televangelists - was it Robertson or Falwell they defended a few years back?
And:
NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.
PROVIDENCE, RI -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island announced today that it has filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of a Christian prisoner who was barred from preaching during religious services at the state prison.
AbE: April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.
[/derail]
Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 3:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 150 (350395)
09-19-2006 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by subbie
09-19-2006 3:56 PM


Re: A general reply
To the extent that the ACLU protects anyone's constitutional rights, I absolutely applaud them. The simple fact that you seem to be able to understand is that even people you don't like have rights under the Constitution. Even people who commit heinous acts have rights that need to be protected. And if the worst thing you can say about the ACLU is that they try to protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, you haven't said much.
Yes, I believe that everyone is entitled to a 'defense.' I also believe that simply because I don't like someone they still have unalienable rights. Who thinks differently on that matter? What you don't understand is that the ACLU is special interest groups like them specificaly go after these cases. It isn't like they are state attorneys 'assigned' to a case. They go out and purposely seek to defend the reprobate just for the sake of doing it. That isn't a problem for you? If it isn't, can I ask you whether or not you find children sexually attractive?
The funny thing is, you probably consider yourself patriotic, but you couldn't care less about the most important document in the history of our country.
If you must know, I believe there is a fine line between patriotism and a blind allegiance. More importantly, I think the government does have too much control and that the Constitution is being misinterpreted in certain instances. I just think that this whole controversy over the Patriot Act is much-ado-about-nothing because the people that have the biggest problem with it haven't even read it and don't really know what it entails. They just heard from some pundit that its out to get them and they jumped on the bandwagon.
Its the irony that kills me. Its like the people in VW buses who sport a nifty "Kill your T.V." and "I give a hoot and don't pollute" bumper stickers, but their faces are glued to the televison all the time and their vehicle spews more crap into the ozone than any other vehicle on the planet. Its the irony that kills me.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 3:56 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-19-2006 4:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 80 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 4:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 150 (350398)
09-19-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 4:15 PM


Re: A general reply
What you don't understand is that the ACLU...
Why are you still dodging the information contained in the link, now that you know it's not from the ACLU?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 4:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 4:42 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 79 of 150 (350402)
09-19-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 3:45 PM


THAT LINK WAS NOT FROM THE ACLU!!!
Maybe if enough people say it that NJ will eventually read it.
Time to see if NJ has the ability to admit that he is wrong and stop dodging.
Even if the link was from the ACLU, it is a pure dodge to discredit the information because of the source.
Articles from AIG or IRC are not disregarded here because they are creationists organization. They are disregarded because of the actual content for which the specifics of why they are wrong can be pointed out OF THAT content.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 3:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 5:00 PM Jazzns has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 80 of 150 (350406)
09-19-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 4:15 PM


Re: A general reply
They go out and purposely seek to defend the reprobate just for the sake of doing it.
They do it for the sake of defending everyone's Constitutional rights. I have no problem with anyone defending everyone's Constitutional rights. Why do you?
Yes, I believe that everyone is entitled to a 'defense.' I also believe that simply because I don't like someone they still have unalienable rights.
Riiiiiight. But you apparently think anyone who actually provides that defense is equivalent to a child molester.
I just think that this whole controversy over the Patriot Act is much-ado-about-nothing because the people that have the biggest problem with it haven't even read it and don't really know what it entails.
Pray tell, are you including in your sweeping statement the federal judges who have ruled various portions unconstitutional? Several times in this thread you asked for specific examples of objections to the act. I gave you several. You have no response to that? Apparently all you have to say about it is that there are some people who rail against it without fully understanding it. It sounds to me like you are defending it without fully understanding it, or the objections to it, Mr. Pot.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 4:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 150 (350410)
09-19-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by subbie
09-19-2006 3:50 PM


Re: A general reply
The ACLU?
Yes, the ACLU filed a motion in their own defense.
For starters, the following opinions have held that one or more provisions of the "Patriot Act" are unconstitutional... BTW, this is not to say necessarily that what is happening is "criminal," but unconstutional.
I haven't all four documents you provided, though I will eventually. They are too voluminous for me to read in one sitting. For the time being, why don't you referrence the specific grievance and tell me what page its on instead of me going through four separate cases. I'll address what ever points you make. Other than that, you can't expect me to read all these cases in one sitting.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 3:50 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-19-2006 4:40 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 150 (350412)
09-19-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 4:35 PM


Re: A general reply
I just think that this whole controversy over the Patriot Act is much-ado-about-nothing because the people that have the biggest problem with it haven't even read it and don't really know what it entails.
you can't expect me to read all these cases in one sitting.
Interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 4:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 150 (350414)
09-19-2006 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dan Carroll
09-19-2006 4:19 PM


Re: A general reply
Why are you still dodging the information contained in the link, now that you know it's not from the ACLU?
What am I dodging? The award went to the Plantiff, the ACLU, whereas, the defendant was judged for operating outside the jurisdiction of the 4th Am....? What do you want me address? This coming from someone that never answered my question of whether or not they think seeking to defend pedophiles is acceptible or not.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-19-2006 4:19 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-19-2006 4:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 85 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 4:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 87 by Jazzns, posted 09-19-2006 5:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 150 (350418)
09-19-2006 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 4:42 PM


Re: A general reply
What am I dodging?
As of post #83, the entire content of the link. In fact, you just said you couldn't be bothered to read it.
Instead, you keep trying to change the subject to the ACLU.
This coming from someone that never answered my question of whether or not they think seeking to defend pedophiles is acceptible or not.
Sure I did. As I said, it depends on the case. Stop trying to dodge.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 4:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 85 of 150 (350420)
09-19-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 4:42 PM


Re: A general reply
What am I dodging?
In message 65, you said,
Your link is from the ACLU. That's all that needs to be said in order to discredit the veracity of said claims.
Many people have pointed out that the link is not from the ACLU.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 4:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 150 (350421)
09-19-2006 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Jazzns
09-19-2006 4:25 PM


Re: THAT LINK WAS NOT FROM THE ACLU!!!
Time to see if NJ has the ability to admit that he is wrong and stop dodging.
Even if the link was from the ACLU, it is a pure dodge to discredit the information because of the source.
The ones who set the case in motion was the ACLU, that's why they filed as "John Doe," not as an entity but as an institution. What did I say that is counter to that?!?!?
I had asked people for specific greivances on why and how the Patriot Act has hurt them or sought to bring them harm. Subbie, (I think was Subbie), graciously offered this courtcase as well as 3 others. I know that no one in here has actually read the cases otherwise they would give me 'specifics' which I asked for. But this is a typical derailment of an argument.
No matter how inconvenient its going to be, I'm going to pour over these 4 documents in plenary and will respond when I'm done reading them. I trust you understand that its going to take me some time in reading them over, so I will be rejoin the debate upon completion.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Jazzns, posted 09-19-2006 4:25 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Jazzns, posted 09-19-2006 5:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 89 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 5:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 87 of 150 (350423)
09-19-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 4:42 PM


NJ cannot be bothered to deal with refutations
What am I dodging? The award went to the Plantiff, the ACLU, whereas, the defendant was judged for operating outside the jurisdiction of the 4th Am....?
The plaintif was NOT just the ACLU. The ACLU joined as plaintifs after they were brought on as council for Doe.
The judgement was that NSLs issued under law ammended by the Patriot ACT are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Transcribed:
For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion. The court concludes that 2709 violates the Fourth Ammendment because, at least as currently applied, it effectivly bars or substantially deters any judicial challange to the propriety of an NSL request.
What do you want me address?
The refutation of your claim!

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 4:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 88 of 150 (350424)
09-19-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 5:00 PM


I know that no one in here has actually read the cases otherwise they would give me 'specifics' which I asked for.
Well NJ I did read it and it didn't take all that long. Specifics are in the previous post. It is hard to copy and paste from a scanned PDF. It is much easier for someone who requests information to actually read it at its source when it is provided. The opinions are not that difficult to read.
The ones who set the case in motion was the ACLU, that's why they filed as "John Doe," not as an entity but as an institution. What did I say that is counter to that?!?!?
Well first of all you are completely wrong. The ACLU could not have filed because they were NOT a recipient of an NSL.
Next you are wrong that the ACLU filed as John Doe. The GOVERNMENT ASKED that the identity of the plaintiff be hidden and the court granted.
The plaintiff is an internet service provider who was served an NSL by the FBI.
But this is a typical derailment of an argument.
Just because someone didn't distill the information for you into small words does not mean the burden of your request was not met.
I'll note that you also have yet to admit that you were wrong for dismissing the sources because they were "from the ACLU".

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 5:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 8:34 PM Jazzns has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 89 of 150 (350427)
09-19-2006 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 5:00 PM


Re: THAT LINK WAS NOT FROM THE ACLU!!!
Wow, there is no end to your misunderstandings.
that's why they filed as "John Doe,"
Footnote 3 of the opinion:
By Order date May 12, 2004, the Court granted the Government's motion to seal the record of this proceeding so as to preclude the disclosure of Doe's identity and other facts relating to Doe's role in this controversy that might identify Doe or otherwise interfere with the underlying FBI activities giving rise to this case.
My emphasis.
John Doe is an internet access firm that received a "national security letter," a type of "administrative subpoena cloaked in secrecy and pertaining to national security issues," as the court describes it.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 5:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 90 of 150 (350446)
09-19-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Hyroglyphx
09-19-2006 3:57 PM


Re: A general reply
The point is in the irony that those who demonize the Patriot Act tend to be of a more liberal persuasion, seemingly blind to the fact that its been Communist (Leftist) nations who have commited the most heinous offenses against the civil liberties of people.
this is what I've been arguing about. Those so-called communist nations AREN'T LEFTIST. leftist ideology entails eqalitarian concepts--everybody is equal, period. If you have a system that favors one over the other, that system, by it's very own nation, can't be leftist. Those "communist" nations favor party members over the rest of the populace--the best example (though fictional) is 1984 and Animal Farm.
So no, it's not ironic that leftists are decrying the loss of liberties (especially if you include the classical liberals, which are to the left), because the "communist" nations aren't, and weren't, leftist. sheez . . .

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2006 9:03 PM kuresu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024