What's the beef with the ACLU?

what would you say about the ACLU if they were the only ones who would defend you?

first thing--you're last statement, about heterosexual men leading girl scouts. my mom is the assistant scoutmaster in the troop I was in (and I was one for about 5 months--until moving to colorado for college). so that means you would have a problem with women leaders in the BSA. no one in my troop (parents) had a problem with my mom being a leader at these outings. there are very few troops left in the area (SW VA) that have a male-only leadership policy (which is the decision of these troops, not of the councils or districts).oh, and why didn't you mention the lesbian girl scout leaders? gotta be fair in your prejudice, ya know.secondly, and far more importantly, the BSA has very specific rules on the issue of leaders and outings. whenever you do any activity, I mean any at all, you have to have at least two leaders. this policy is designed to limit the oppurtunity for abuse. not only that, but its a safety issue--better to have two heads in case one is lost.To me, it doesn't matter what gender/sexuality you are. If you're a good leader, you're welcome to help. god knows that we need good leaders, and they are far to scarce to limit to just males or just heterosexual males.

---

Question. Always Question." . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant 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.

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. 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?

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?

well, you know what they say:
guilty until proven innocent.that's all I could make out from the statment that they pander to criminals.

in a very technical sense, the colonies were fighting against george III, as he was the head of the british government. however, when one looks at the list of complaints issued against the british government, most of them deal with parliamentary actions--not george III. so in reality, we were fighting against parliamentary actions (no taxation w/o representation is famous--only parliament can levy taxes at this point in UK history.)yeah, I've no clue why I brought this up. let's just say it has to do with the 2cd amendment in some really abstract way. yeah . . .

we apparently have several of our members listed there. i'v found randman, herepton, faith, and buszaw, and charlie (aka The Golfer).can't remember the names of other fundies here for the moment.