Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the beef with the ACLU?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 199 (383537)
02-08-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 2:13 PM


Re: The ACLU
quote:
The fact that they pick and choose which cases they want to represent coupled with the heinous nature of the crimes they take, can only mean one thing. You make the deduction.
My deduction? That an especially heinous crime makes it difficult to find legal representation? And that the ACLU is one of the few large organizations with adequate resources that are consistently willing to take on these kinds of cases?
Or that some of these cases involve significant but little explored issues of Constitutional law, and the ACLU has the relevant expertise for these types of cases?
Or that the members of the ACLU hate America and everything that it stands for and strive to destroy it?
I dunno, nem, which sounds like a more reasonable deduction to you]?

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 2:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 7:26 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 199 (383539)
02-08-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
02-07-2007 5:00 PM


Re: What is wrong with Communism?
Jesus would certainly was a communist.
Explain, please.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 02-07-2007 5:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 02-08-2007 3:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

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


Message 63 of 199 (383541)
02-08-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 2:13 PM


Re: The ACLU
The ACLU does not just pick up cases for heinous crimes. They specifically only accept cases that deal with issues surrounding Constitutional law.
It just so happens that cases that test our Constitutional fervor may often go against our morals.
It is easy to say that you disagree with what I say yet would fight to the death to defend my right to say it. It is much harder to DO just that in the face of someone who says something grotesque such as NAMBLA.
I like the fact that the ACLU does not compromise on the issue of Constitutionality. They will get their hands dirtier than dirt to fight for everyones basic rights even if you dont like who they defend.

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 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 2:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2007 2:55 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 7:51 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 199 (383548)
02-08-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Jazzns
02-08-2007 2:35 PM


Right on!
It's easy to be in favor of enforcing Constitutional protections of actions we agree with or, at least, don't find too objectionable.
The true test of one's commitment to the rights protected by the Constitution is whether one is willing to defend those rights when they are used to provide protection for actions one considers especially objectionable.

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 2:35 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 199 (383549)
02-08-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Jazzns
02-08-2007 1:42 PM


Re: The ACLU
You got this backwards, probably no fault of your own. The ACLU was defending the 7th Day Adventist school.
Is there a link to the case? I confess that now I'm completely confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 1:42 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2007 3:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 199 (383553)
02-08-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 2:31 PM


Re: What is wrong with Communism?
Jesus certainly believed in joint ownership of the resources. Admittedly he did subscribe to the manifesto as laid out in Animal Farm that while all critters are equal, some are more equal than others.
You tend to toss things around as though the terms carried any weight. A good example of that is your complaint that the ACLU defended Communists. Well GOOD.
That is the meaning of the American Way. It is not those causes YOU happen to approve of that need defending, it is those very causes you most abhor that we need to defend.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 9:57 PM jar has replied
 Message 175 by Jaderis, posted 02-12-2007 7:19 PM jar has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 199 (383554)
02-08-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 2:13 PM


Re: The ACLU
However, the ACLU specifically chooses to take on cases that are particularly heinous in nature.
You mean, their objection is that they pick and choose?
All legal aid organizations do this. For instance, the Electronic Freedom Foundation defends cases that involve copyright law, DMCA actions, and other instances that are electronic/Internet-centric, or are related to so-called "intellectual property."
The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund defends cases that involve comic books and free speech issues. I notice that you have no criticism for the Home School Legal Defense Association, which defends cases and authors amicus briefs on behalf of those it believes have had their right to instruct their own children infringed upon. And I'm sure you'll raise no objection to the Christian Law Association, who rises in defense of, and only of, people who have been discriminated against on the basis of their Christian religion. (Other religions need not apply, apparently.)
If your objection is that legal aid organizations exist that focus on specific kinds of cases, then I don't know what to tell you. Is it your assertion that the resources of the ACLU are infinite, and that they just pick and choose at whim? Isn't it obvious that they choose the cases that they feel best represent violations of civil rights?
What exactly is wrong with that? If the very idea of specialized legal aid associations is so disturbing to you, then perhaps you might work to improve the state of public-financed defenders, so that such legal aid is no longer necessary. Otherwise you're just applying another double-standard to baselessly attack the ACLU.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 2:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 199 (383557)
02-08-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 2:57 PM


Re: The ACLU
He provided a link in a previous post. The page is from the ACLU website.
This thread is already redlining, so it was easy to miss (I had to hunt for it myself).

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 2:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 3:12 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 199 (383560)
02-08-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Chiroptera
02-08-2007 3:09 PM


Re: The ACLU
Wait, I don't get it.
How does this show the ACLU discriminates against Christians, again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2007 3:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by docpotato, posted 02-08-2007 3:16 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 71 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2007 3:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 70 of 199 (383562)
02-08-2007 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 3:12 PM


Re: The ACLU
Don't be thick. Clearly they're going to throw the case so that the commies can come in and redistribute the pages of your Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 3:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 199 (383564)
02-08-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 3:12 PM


Conspiracy theory.
What don't you get? Another conservative has once again gotten his facts wrong? When have we not seen this before?
Anyway, once the spin begins to take into account of undeniable fact, it will still prove that the ACLU is anti-Christian because:
While its true that the ACLU takes on certain cases, its little more than social pittance, and they don't have warmhearted motives for doing it. They take on these cases to keep up the appearance of non-partisanship.
You know it works: evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence for how well disciplined the conspirators are and how deep the conspiracy runs.
Added by edit:
Of course, in all fairness, I'll have to admit that I am not immune to sometimes getting my facts wrong.
And I'm going to get you for this, berberry.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 3:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 199 (383567)
02-08-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
02-07-2007 5:16 PM


Re: The ACLU
quote:
Name some Republicans that want subvert the Judicial branch with Justices who take a counter-Constitutional view of liberty in America.
George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft... need I go on?
Evidence, please.
quote:
Or even better, name me the Justices that run counter to the Constitution.
Robert Bork, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas... need I go on?
Evidence, please.
Get real, NJ. What's your evidence here? That they disagree with you? Please.
I've thus far produced a mound of cases supporting my assertion that they are definitely slanted towards an ideological view. Seriously, why is any one denying that much? Its not a crime to be biased. They are certainly afforded the right to their slanted views so long as it matches up with the law, but please at least acknowledge the obvious.
quote:
The National Lawyers Guild is among some of the other groups that purposely take on cases that are, in essence, anti-American.
How can it be anti-American to argue a case in court? This is nonsense, NJ. Surely you know better.
Its anti-American to twist my words. Unless you think its perfectly acceptable for members of the National Lawyers Guild to aid and abet known terrorists toward the destruction of the United States and its allies, would it not be considered anti-American.
No NAMBLA material contains descriptions or advocacy of violence against children, except insofar as the sexual acts they want to legitimize represent violence. But there were no NAMBLA materials like you describe.
The publication is called: "The Survival Manual: A Man's Guide to Staying Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationship"
Page not found | National Review
Sexualhttp://www.s-t.com/daily/04-01/04-12-01/a03sr027.htm
Here is the ACLU attorney defending the alleged murderers, and even he says that NAMbLA has such a publication in their possession.
"Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms." -John Reinstein; legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts
We've had this discussion. You always lose. Get over it.
You stubbornly maintaining your convoluted views next insurmountable evidence to the contrary does not constitute winning for you. Just thought you should know that.
quote:
What's criminal is making pamphlets on how to kidnap and rape little boys, but that doesn't seem to stop them from defending it on purpose.
True.
Then you would have to stop arguing about this case since you now agree. You now agree that the ACLU defends known criminals, not alleged, but known.
It's just too bad for your argument that's not what NAMBLA did, nor what the ACLU defended.
I guess you were wrong now that I've substantiated the claim.
quote:
What is the purpose of Christmas, really?
Presents and Santa Claus? It kind of depends who you ask, doesn't it? And not everybody calls it "Christmas", by the way. Maybe you've heard of a religion called "Judaism", that celebrates a holiday right at about the same time?
LOL! Sorry, but the Judaic holiday you are referring to lasts eight days and seven nights, and usually a whole four days before Christmas even begins. It literally has not one thing to do with Christmas. In fact, that holiday literally has nothing to do with Christmas. They just so happen to overlap. Here, please educate yourself.
No? Not ringing any bells? Typical of a Christianist to forget that there are other religions, I guess.
Other religions have "other" holidays that so happen to overlap. Christmas is Christmas, Hannukah is Hannukah, and Ramadan is Ramadan. And Kwanza, well, that was invented by Detroit native, Ron Karenga, in 1966. It literally has no recognition with any mainstream religion. The point is, all can be celebrated for their religious reasons.
I am a Boy Scout, and I can tell you that's bullshit.
So you're the member of one chapter and all of a sudden you're the expert on the Boy Scouts of America?
The stuff the ACLU objects to is the same stuff I object to, and absolutely none of it is crucial to the scout experience. I never bashed gays when I was a scout, and it's bullshit to even suggest that's what makes the Scouts what they are.
That's because "bashing gays" has nothing to with the scouts. Stop manipulating the case. The case is about concerned parents having a gay man taking little boys out on a retreat. Think about it for a minute. It makes about as much sense as having a heterosexual man taking little girls out in the middle of the woods. Does either case mean that either of the men are going to molest the kids? Certainly not! However, concerned parents and a "private" non-profit organization should be able to have their own beliefs on the best way to protect their kids. Its no business of the ACLU, this was just more of their grandstanding.
It's insulting, quite frankly; and it just goes to show that there's absolutely no organization that a Christianist won't shit all over just to make a point.
Excuse me? This organization was around long before and established its rules long before it was invaded by interloping attorneys with an agenda. Who is shitting on who?
You're really disgusting sometimes, do you know that?
That's a complete shocker for me... I can't believe that you don't like me. And to think, after all the sweet talking you've said to me over this past year.
quote:
It was a private school, Crash.
Who was in charge of scheduling the championship, NJ?
Even worse! They know and have to respect the religious freedoms of the school. See, you and the ACLU want freedom for all, so long as "all" is inclusive to their beliefs. Its a case of, "you can believe in whatever you want, so long as you agree with me." That's the ACLU in a nutshell.
And why is it that you can't present the least evidence for any of your assertions? Is it because they're all falsehoods?
I've bombarded the forum with links. What more do you want me to do? You want me to fastrope in to ACLU headquarters and steal all their dossiers?
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2007 5:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 4:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

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


Message 73 of 199 (383587)
02-08-2007 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 12:24 PM


Re: The ACLU
quote:
They regularly take on cases that not only defend anti-American terrorism, but they also aide and abet them.
Evidence, please.
Sure thing.
Gitlow v. New York, Whitney v California, Brandenburg v. Ohio, were all cases where the ACLU defended clients over sedition. All cases went to the Supreme Court and trial was a victory for the ACLU.
You cited Gitlow, Whitney, and Brandenburg as cases that the ACLU took that "not only defend anti-American terrorism, but they also aide [sic] and abet them." (my emphasis) This characterization of two these cases is so completely unrelated to their facts that it's hard to imagine how anyone who actually read the cases could describe them thus.
quote:
Benjamin Gitlow was convicted in New York for having published and circulated, unlawfully, pamphlets and leaflets detrimental to the government. One of the pamphlets, called the Left Wing Manifesto, advocated overthrowing organized government by violent and other unlawful means.
quote:
[Brandenburg], a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for "advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and for "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
This is speech, pure and simple. It is not terrorism. It is not even aiding and abetting terrorism. It is advocating an idea. Speech is not terrorism.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-10-2007 12:15 PM subbie has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 199 (383593)
02-08-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 3:26 PM


Re: The ACLU
Evidence, please.
That these men have been instrumental in programs that undermine American freedom? It's "common knowledge" (as I believe you put it.) Open a newspaper sometime - or don't you think that warantless electronic surveillance of Americans guilty of no crimes constitutes an erosion of our civil liberties?
I've thus far produced a mound of cases supporting my assertion that they are definitely slanted towards an ideological view.
No, you've presented evidence that they defend a certain type of case.
That's not bias; that's specialization. They are the "American Civil Liberties Union", after all. Not the "American Argue Every Single Case Union."
Unless you think its perfectly acceptable for members of the National Lawyers Guild to aid and abet known terrorists toward the destruction of the United States and its allies, would it not be considered anti-American.
I don't see what the NLG, or more specifically, one of it's members, has to do with the ACLU.
The publication is called: "The Survival Manual: A Man's Guide to Staying Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationship"
Right. Where in it does it say how to murder a child?
You stubbornly maintaining your convoluted views next insurmountable evidence to the contrary does not constitute winning for you.
LOL! Your declarations of victory don't change the fact that you and your side always lose.
I guess you were wrong now that I've substantiated the claim.
With what? Innuendo? I don't see where you've posted a link to how to kidnap and murder children.
It literally has not one thing to do with Christmas.
Who said that it did, NJ? Learn to read closer, maybe? The point is, if public funds and support are provided to Christian creches, but not to other religious symbology involved in the other myriad holidays that occur at the same time, that's a special privilege for Christianity.
Which is contrary to the First Amendment.
That's because "bashing gays" has nothing to with the scouts.
Indeed it doesn't. Which makes it too bad when they do it anyway. And it means that, regrettably, an organization I support is justifiably opposed by the ACLU, another organization I support. (It's like when your two best friends break up with each other.)
However, concerned parents and a "private" non-profit organization should be able to have their own beliefs on the best way to protect their kids.
To the extent that the Scouts benefit from public funds and facilities, they aren't a private organization; they have to follow the rules same as everybody else. And not being discriminatory is a part of that. Look, that's the rule. Change Federal laws if you don't like it.
Even worse! They know and have to respect the religious freedoms of the school. See, you and the ACLU want freedom for all, so long as "all" is inclusive to their beliefs. Its a case of, "you can believe in whatever you want, so long as you agree with me." That's the ACLU in a nutshell.
I think, at this point, it's pretty clear that you've completely misrepresented this situation and what side the ACLU was defending. I already asked this, but I'll pose it to you directly - how does it prove an anti-Christian agenda for the ACLU to be defending the right of the school to have the championship rescheduled?
I've bombarded the forum with links.
Links to cases that prove you wrong! Links to situations you completely misrepresented, like the case of the Adventist basketball players. What on Earth does any of that prove, except that you're completely ignorant as to the actual history of the ACLU?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 3:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-10-2007 2:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 199 (383628)
02-08-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jaderis
02-07-2007 5:24 PM


Re: The ACLU
Details of the case aside (I do not want this thread to devolve just yet), you attributed the "aiding and abetting of terrorists" to the ACLU. Lynne Stewart, as you mention here, was a member of the National Lawyers Guild. Did you mistake the ACLU for the NLG or do you have actual evidence that the ACLU "aids and abets" terrorists?
Radical Islam and the Radical Left are all in bed with one another, as evidenced by who defends who, and who attacks what. The whose-who of the legal Left includes the ACLU, the NLG, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
You missed the part where he said that the ACLU has never defended an ACTUAL child pornographers.
You must have missed the part where the ACLU are defending Jaynes and Sicari.
The ACLU does not advocate NAMBLA's stance. They do however believe that they have a right to have such a stance. They were not defending Jaynes' and Sicari's actions, but NAMBLA's right to voice their opinions.
Why then is a handbook on how to have sex with children and get away with considered protected literature under the First Amendment, but the Anarchists Cookbook is not? Why is this handbook that teaches men how to abduct children legally protected, but a pamphlet about the social caveats that homosexuality can bring considered "hate speech?" Explain that unique position of the ACLU.
Just like the KKK has a right to voice their opinion. Just like William Pierce had the right to voice his opinion and the Turner Diaries remains on the shelves to this day.
Every one has a right to voice their opinion. Even NAMbLA. What is doesn't have the right to do is produce instructional materials on how to capture little boys. Its the same thing as why the Anarchists Cookbook, which presumably has the same right to free speech as anyone else, was taken off of the shelves. NAMbLA has a right to say that they are sexually attracted to children. However, they cannot print publications detailing how to abduct children and get away with it. They are just as much indictable as the offenders are for publishing such tripe.
Besides, I thought conservatives were all for "personal responsibility." Doesn't blaming behavior on a book (or a song or a movie or a TV show) run counter to that belief?
Yes, those men are going to be accountable for they've done to that boy. But NAMbLA's author of the pamphlet is just as indictable. Seeriously, how can one view be called "hate speech" by one group, and something criminal and incredulously hateful be considered protected speech? How does that work?
I suppose you would rather they call it "baby killing?"
Might as well call it what it is.
I always find it funny when conservatives scoff at word play when they can use terms like "compassionate" and "surge" and "enemy combatants" and "collateral damage" with a straight face.
You have a problem with those words? What about those words is egregious?
If a private organization wishes to exclude certain people protected under anti-discrimination laws then they should become completely private entities and accept no subsidy or grant from the government.
LOL! The ACLU, which is supposed to be a not-for-profit organization receives money from the Federal government under this statute! I wonder if they'd hire a conservative lawyer with an immaculate judicial record. Secondly, it was the Clinton Administration that officially deemed the Boy Scouts of America to be a "religious institution" which means their religious beliefs are to be protected under the First Amendment. But that presents a real conundrum here. Because defending one automatically means the abrogation of rights for the other. Guess which one they chose to abrogate?
I agree that the military preserves our rights (or is supposed to...I dunno what the hell they're doing in Iraq that helps preserve my freedom), but they are only one entity of many who do so.
The reason they went to Iraq was to topple the Saddam the dictator and to rebuild the country as a formidable democratic nation. The reason they are still there is because Iraq can't/refuses to stand up under its own power. If the US were to disengage before the fledgling government can concern itself with its own affairs without US aid, we'd might as well hand the keys to the city over to Muslim extremists. Right or wrong, that's why we're still there.
What "Establishments" are being attacked by the ACLU?
The Establishment-- the historical United States of America. They want their own version of the United States of America where leftist ideal can reign unchecked and unquestioned.
Could you please give some examples and evidence?
I've given you numerous cases with links showing that they are unequivocally slanted to the left. Either you are ignorant of what you are looking at or intentionally being obtuse.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jaderis, posted 02-07-2007 5:24 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2007 5:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 78 by kuresu, posted 02-08-2007 5:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 86 by FliesOnly, posted 02-09-2007 8:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 176 by Jaderis, posted 02-12-2007 8:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024