Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

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


Message 76 of 199 (383637)
02-08-2007 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 5:31 PM


Re: The ACLU
quote:
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.
(1) Times change. This is now the 21st century, and the United States is no longer a sparsely populated, rural, agriculturally base nation, seperated from the rest of the world by huge oceans, and where the quickest way to transmit messages and goods was by a really fast horse.
Also, the Founding Fathers had no real idea of what a functioning democratic republic should look like. You should read their own words. They were quite aware that the principles they were laying down were based on guess work and compromises between very different visions. They themselves did not really trust the finished product -- in fact, they fully expected the next generations to correct their mistakes.
Finally, we are under no obligation to become slaves to the vision of past generations. We, as a society, are free to collectively decide on how we will structure the society in which we live.
-
(2) Conservatives themselves show very little knowledge and less interest in actual history. The utopia they promote are ahistorical, and, like all utopias, probably unworkable in real life.
-
(3)
...leftist ideal can reign unchecked and unquestioned.
Is there evidence that the ACLU promotes the "unchecked and unquestioned" acceptance of "leftist ideal", or is this another conspiracy that required the conservatives' magic crystal ball to uncover?

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 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 5:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-10-2007 5:53 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 199 (383641)
02-08-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 5:31 PM


Re: The ACLU
Radical Islam and the Radical Left are all in bed with one another
And your proof of this is, what, exactly? Drawing lines between their names? Boy, color me convinced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 5:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 5:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 78 of 199 (383643)
02-08-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 5:31 PM


Re: The ACLU
quote:
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.
these are the ones from NAMBLA, right? the ones who kidnapped and murdered the young boy, right?
somehow, that doesn't strike me as child pornography. rather, it sounds like what i wrote above.
The Establishment-- the historical United States of America
oh, so you mean the country that has progressively moved to eliminate discrimination (slavery, blacks, women, minorities, etc), the country that set up a constitution meant to protect the rights of all (including from the gov't itself), the country that had a bried imperialistic vision (unless you want to include the quest of bringing all N. America under US domain as being imperialistic. which it pretty much is. the difference is that we treated it as domestic policy, not foreign policy until it came time for us to conquer colonies and countries). a country that has trad. advocated rule of law, civil liberty and freedom, protection of rights regardless of who the person/group is.
or do you mean a different history?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 5:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 79 of 199 (383644)
02-08-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 5:49 PM


Re: The ACLU
Pretty much:
Radical Islam is something I hate.
Radical Liberalism is somethign I hate.
Radical Liberals don't hate Radical Islam the same way I do.
Radical Islam = Radical Liberals.
QED

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 77 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 5:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by kuresu, posted 02-08-2007 5:58 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 83 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2007 7:16 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 80 of 199 (383645)
02-08-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 12:24 PM


Re: The ACLU
Additional egregious mischaracterizations:
quote:
They take on cases that support extreme patronage where an offender has been clearly indicted for a crime.
Evidence, please
.
ACLU v DoD
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
First of all, I'm completely at a loss to understand exactly what you mean by "extreme patronage." You sometimes seem to have your own personal vocabulary that makes clear communication rather difficult.
In any event, ACLU v. DoD is a complaint from an FOIA case where a newspaper and a couple of student anti-war organizations were trying to get information from the DoD. There is nothing in the complaint that indicates that anyone involved was ever indicted for anything. Moreover, the word "patronage" is not found anywhere in the complaint.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond involved a narcotics checkpoint. According to the opinion,
quote:
Respondents James Edmond and Joell Palmer were each stopped at a narcotics checkpoint in late September 1998. Respondents then filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and the class of all motorists who had been stopped or were subject to being stopped in the future at the Indianapolis drug checkpoints. Respondents claimed that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the search and seizure provision of the Indiana Constitution. Respondents requested declaratory and injunctive relief for the class, as well as damages and attorney’s fees for themselves.
Thus, unless you have information beyond that in the opinion, the plaintiffs in that case had not been indicted for anything. It appears that they were seeking to stop the checkpoints simply because the checkpoints were wrong. I can assure you that if they had been convicted of anything and were challenging their convictions by arguing that the checkpoints were unconstitutional, the opinion would clearly have said so. Furthermore, nowhere in the opinion is the word "patronage" used.
Once again, anyone who reads the facts of these cases and then reads your description of them is left with the firm impression that you either did not read them or you deliberately mischaracterized what they said.

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 not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 81 of 199 (383646)
02-08-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Jazzns
02-08-2007 5:53 PM


Re: The ACLU
radical conservatism is something I hate.
radical dictatorships are something I hate.
since radical conservatives don't hate radical dictatorships as much as I do (hey, Falwell supported Libya);
radical conservatism = radical dictatorship.
now wasn't that fun, boys and girls?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 5:53 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 6:15 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 82 of 199 (383658)
02-08-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kuresu
02-08-2007 5:58 PM


Re: The ACLU
doesn't make it any more valid. You could plug in libertarians and cucumbers into that equation and it would be just as silly.

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 81 by kuresu, posted 02-08-2007 5:58 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 199 (383679)
02-08-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Jazzns
02-08-2007 5:53 PM


Re: The ACLU
And to think I thought this thread was going to be boring.
It is interesting how a rational discussion about the ACLU could proceed versus how it seems to proceed in real life:
a fictitious sane conservative would say:
My vision of a just and democratic society differs greatly from that of the ACLU, and I wish to try to effect the changes I want according to democratic norms by explaining the differences as I see them.
a mythological rational conservative would say:
Although it is admirable for someone to stand by there principles, I think that the ACLU takes their principles to extremes and they should moderate their stance.
a nonexistent sensible conservative would say:
I don't respect the ACLU because I see too many cases where the actions of that organization seem to contradict their stated goals.
the typical conservative lunatic (oh, but I repeat myself) actually says:
The ACLU is a Taliban front who want to piss on our Bibles, destroy America, and rape our young sons.
You know, I used to be conservative; it was when I realized that the typical conservative argument goes just like this that I realized you have to be deranged to be a conservative.

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 79 by Jazzns, posted 02-08-2007 5:53 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 199 (383685)
02-08-2007 7:55 PM


Make a donation.
By the way, I have a policy to donate a certain percentage of my monthly salary to a charitable cause. This thread has inspired me to make this month's donation to the ACLU foundation.
Although, to be honest, since they are working to protect my liberty (and so I may be benefiting from their activities), I'm not really sure whether my donation really should count as "charity".

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

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 199 (383790)
02-09-2007 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 1:13 PM


Re: The ACLU
I'm sorry; which part of those materials are you characterizing as "virulent hostility"? In fact they appear to me to be very reasonable rebuttals to your assertion that these figures have "impeccable judicial records."
Jaderis asked me to show evidence that the ACLU personally and professionally sought to undermine the nomination of Justices Roberts and Alito. I've now done that. Furthermore, Alito and Roberts were only bashed over their perceived beliefs. Its apparently okay for the ACLU and all the other Justices that sway in their favor, but its not okay for a Justice or potential Justice to have a differing opinion than theirs. Interesting.
Are they hostile to you simply because you believe that Alito and Roberts were qualified to sit on the Supreme Court?
First of all, the hostility comes from the left in general. Did you not see the congressional hearing where Alito was scrutinized for three days straight? Apparently they were frightened that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia would singlehandedly overturn crucial cases like Roe v Wade or Casey v Planned Parenthood. So they harangued him on he would vote, hypothetically, without giving him any specifics. It was an absurdly pointless inquiry.
From what expertise did you make that determination? Or did you simply support the nominations of those two men because George Bush picked them?
I liked the nominations for the same reason you probably liked Sandra Day O'Conner. You feel, presumably, that she embodies the qualities that make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. Likewise, I was pleased with both Roberts and Alito as nominations because I feel that they will embody what the Supreme Court means in essence.
So then they didn't actually commit "sedition", now did they?
Not according to the Justices presiding over the case. They had a fair trial, and I accept the decision made, however, that doesn't mean that they are innocent in the same way that just because the prosecution dropped the ball in the O.J. Simpson trial doesn't mean that O.J. is innocent. It means they were ruled, "not guilty." The point was that the Jaderis asked me to substantiate my claim that the ACLU has a history of picking cases that entail sedition. That's a fact. And being that they defend those accused only serves to prove that they have vested interests in what any reasonable person would consider anti-Americanism.
Perhaps you're not aware that the current historical consensus is that those two men were in fact innocent of what they were executed for? I mean had you read your own link you would have seen that another man confessed to the crimes they were convicted of.
I know the controversy surrounding the case, Crash. You realize that Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral on any given subject, though often times it is not. I'm not 100% but I think they are making a movie about the case. I'm not certain because I was standing in ckeck out line at a grocery store. That ought to be a sure fire hit. A smell a Grammy cooking up.
I'm not exactly sure how you think it impeaches the ACLU that they regularly defend people being railroaded for crimes they didn't commit, or how exactly it's "anti-American" to obstruct the government from malicious, fraudulent prosecution. Can you explain your thoughts further in this matter?
I've explained it numerous times now. Look at the cases they take on. If it means they get to tear down a cross at a war memorial, they're all over it. If someone is charged with sedition, they don't need to know the specifics of the case beforehand in order to take on the case. The mere fact that its sedition against the United States is reason enough to defend them.
is it your position that the government has a right to convict people of crimes they didn't commit?
Why would any one, least of all, me, want someone convicted of a crime they didn't commit when the true guilty party would still be out there committing more crimes?
If you think forcing a 14-year-old girl to confront her rapist to secure permission to terminate the result of that crime is something the state has a legitimate interest in promoting, perhaps you could advance that argument in another thread. But my guess right now is that you simply haven't thought through this at all.
Why would a 14 year old need to confront her own rapist? If her its her own parent(s) raping the child, then that would be real easy to prove. But hey, we should strip the rights of all parents in the extreme unliklihood that that such a situation would come up, right? If parental consent for a medical procedure is needed in every other facet of life, why should this be different? What if the girl becomes irreparably harmed by the procedure? What kind of legal recourse can the parents take?
What's common knowledge is that conservative pundits regularly attack the ACLU on fraudulent premises (even after they've been personally defended by that organization.)
Which avowed conservative was personally defended by the ACLU. This is all news to me.
The private school is infringing on all the other schools who would have to reschedule the championship simply because the players from that school demanded special consideration for their religions faith.
What? The private school has to deny all of its own rights and values in the event that some unforeseeable event in the distant future might interfere with the championship schedule? Get real. Now you are specifically talking about infringing on the right of the school to observe the Sabbath. Say it ain't so... Where's the ACLU? Oh, right, they're against the school. Another miscarriage of justice in the name of justice.
They don't have the right to demand others make concessions to their beliefs.
That's right, they don't. No one asked them to make a special consideration for their religious beliefs. If the school demanded that the game be delayed in observance to "their" faith, I'd tell them to take a hike. That's not how it works.
There's no "spin" involved. Just your topsy-turvey worldview that asserts the primacy of Christianity to demand special concessions to its dogma, contrary to the clear phrasing of the First Amendment.
Read up about the "Wren Cross" and tell me what you think of the First Amendment in that situation.

"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 54 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 1:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Omnivorous, posted 02-09-2007 8:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 89 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-09-2007 9:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 10:01 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 92 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 10:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 93 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 10:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2007 10:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 100 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-09-2007 6:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 177 by Jaderis, posted 02-12-2007 8:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 86 of 199 (383793)
02-09-2007 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2007 5:31 PM


Re: The ACLU
HI NJ:
I realize that this is a bit off topic, but this cannot be allowed to simply float on by without some sort of response.
nemesis-juggernaut writes:
The reason they went to Iraq was to topple the Saddam the dictator and to rebuild the country as a formidable democratic nation.
Funny, I seem to recall that the reason given by our President for starting this catastrophuck (as The Daily Show so aptly calls it) was because Saddam presented an imminent and serious threat to the safety of the United States of America. You know, the whole weapons of mass destruction bull shit and that Saddam had his finger on the button. Only many "reasons" later did the Administration come up with the "Democracy" nonsense.
Sorry for the veer...you may now return to your regularly scheduled topic.
Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to fix a spelling error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2007 5:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 02-09-2007 9:10 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 87 of 199 (383800)
02-09-2007 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2007 8:06 AM


Re: The ACLU
nj writes:
Read up about the "Wren Cross" and tell me what you think of the First Amendment in that situation.
Okay, I read it.
What is the 1st Amendment issue there? A public school decides the space it provides for religious activities should display a cross when used by Christians and not when used by folks of other faiths.
So?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 8:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Chiroptera, posted 02-09-2007 9:37 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 199 (383802)
02-09-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by FliesOnly
02-09-2007 8:45 AM


short memories
Actually, this is kind of on topic. The fact that the typical conservative can't even get current events correct should call into question whether they have any deep knowledge of actual history, especially when they start to babble on about the "intents" of the framers of the Constitution.

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 86 by FliesOnly, posted 02-09-2007 8:45 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 89 of 199 (383803)
02-09-2007 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2007 8:06 AM


Re: The ACLU
First of all, the hostility comes from the left in general. Did you not see the congressional hearing where Alito was scrutinized for three days straight? Apparently they were frightened that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia would singlehandedly overturn crucial cases like Roe v Wade or Casey v Planned Parenthood. So they harangued him on he would vote, hypothetically, without giving him any specifics. It was an absurdly pointless inquiry.
actually, it's not a pointless inquiry. the stability of our judicial system depends on the standard of precedence. if every time we hire someone to the court from the opposite side of the cake walk, they flip all the decisions around, then we're going to have a huge mess. further, some of us happen to believe that these cases provide invaluable freedom of privacy to women and their medical concerns. it's a very important question as to whether these men think that women's health has to be controlled by the government.
And being that they defend those accused only serves to prove that they have vested interests in what any reasonable person would consider anti-Americanism.
or that they have a vested interest in preserving a citizen's right to speak his opinions despite whatever crazy pep-rally bullshit label you want to stick on it. this is a nation built of dissent and compormise. it's not a pep rally. you don't win a spirit stick if you cheer loud enough; you win a government that ignores its citizens. and dissent may be un-american, but it is very democratic (and that's democratic with a little d in case you feel like giving me shit.).
If someone is charged with sedition, they don't need to know the specifics of the case beforehand in order to take on the case. The mere fact that its sedition against the United States is reason enough to defend them.
demonstrate this claim. prove to me that they take up every single case of sedition. further, prove to me that every single case of sedition is without any measure of doubt. then of course, prove to me that sedition (while a crime) is incompatible with our constitution.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 8:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 199 (383805)
02-09-2007 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Omnivorous
02-09-2007 8:59 AM


--insert cheap shot here--
Also a Catholic, school President Gene R. Nichol often goes to the 120-seat chapel alone at night to think in the quiet....
Nichol ordered the cross removed in October to make the chapel more welcoming to students of all faiths.
So the decision to remove the cross was made by a Christian official of the college on his own initiative in an attempt to make the members of a diverse student body feel welcome.
-
Previously, the cross could be removed by request; now it can be returned by request.
So crosses aren't outlawed, probably not even discouraged.
-
The student assembly defeated a resolution to return the cross, and Nichols' decision was endorsed by faculty and by Campus Ministers United, Jewish and Christian clergy who advise campus religious organizations.
Student Clare Ngomba said she was initially shocked by Nichol's action because she is a Christian, but said she came to agree with him.
And the action is supported by students, faculty, and various campus religious leaders.
-
And, after using a search function, I find that there is not mention of the ACLU at all in the article.
-
Added by edit:
I agree with Omnivorous -- what exactly is the First Amendment issue here?
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 87 by Omnivorous, posted 02-09-2007 8:59 AM Omnivorous 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