Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,475 Year: 3,732/9,624 Month: 603/974 Week: 216/276 Day: 56/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the beef with the ACLU?
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3950 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

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3950 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 138 of 199 (384393)
02-11-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by subbie
02-10-2007 7:28 PM


Re: Our Founding Fathers
if you get any response from him on that it will be that it wasn't a legitimate government document, but a personal letter. this however is a real government document.
Treaty of Tripoli
Annals of Congress, 5th Congress
Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.
Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.
Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.
Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.
Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.
Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.
Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.
Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.
Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.
Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.
Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211” corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by
JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.
Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211”corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by
HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,
And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,
JOEL BARLOW.
emphasis mine.
now, in case i'm gonna catch shit about it being just a treaty. treaties are arrangements under international law that are negotiated by the president and ratified by congress. that whole ratification thing is the clincher.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by subbie, posted 02-10-2007 7:28 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by jar, posted 02-11-2007 12:02 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3950 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 143 of 199 (384404)
02-11-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 12:44 AM


Re: The ACLU
A couple of 12 year old kids who are physically capable of having sex are old enough to make decisions about their own bodies they hardly know a thing about?
if they know nothing about their bodies, it is the fault of their parents who should be instructing them on how their bodies work before they are presented with this situation. a girl should know about the functions of her uterus before she begins to menstruate.
You can't elect to have a hysterectomy without a doctor to legitimize the need
i call bullshit. also, a woman can be sterilized at will at any time.
not that you can have a safe abortion without a doctor legitimizing the need...
Abortions disgust me.
the idea of nasty little parasites growing in my body disgusts me.
the idea that parents refuse to educate their children about the consequesnces of behavior because they think it will somehow prevent them from participating in that behavior disgusts me.
the idea that so many people oppose sexual health education because it might encourage sex and then get all upset when reduced condom use leads to increased abortion numbers disgusts me.
the idea that som many men refuse to take responsibility for their semen because "birth control is a woman's problem" and then vote against abortion rights disgusts me.
the idea that women continue to have sex with men who are irresponsible disgusts me.
the idea that our government keeps sending children off to war disgusts me.
the idea that people in this, the richest nation in the world, are starving disgusts me.
the idea that the republican party is supported by working class people who haven't seemed to figure out that the "trickle down" economics trickles down into the pockets of ceos disgusts me.
the idea that my president has lied to me on innumerable occasions disgusts me.
the idea that i have a sinus infection disgusts me.
abortion? that's just tasty, tasty murder.
Likewise, it shouldn't be a surprise that churches have crosses in them.
i think displaying a cross treads dangerously on idolatry.
i don't think churches should have them.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 12:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3950 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 146 of 199 (384407)
02-11-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by arachnophilia
02-11-2007 12:56 AM


Re: The ACLU
precisely. don't forget. when they wrote the constitution, they were committing treason. they were assigned to amend the articles of confederation. they did not. they wrote a whole new government and we had a very small little coup. it's really interesting when you think about it in real terms. we were founded on revolution and coup, on dissent and sedition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by arachnophilia, posted 02-11-2007 12:56 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3950 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 147 of 199 (384408)
02-11-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jar
02-11-2007 12:16 PM


Re: On Treaties
precisely.
we have early, overarching federal law that states that this nation was in no way founded on christianity or christian principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jar, posted 02-11-2007 12:16 PM jar 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