ACLU bashing inside (was a thread about NSA spying)

[josh]

It's a damn shame that this has to come from a lawsuit by the ACLU, because the Republican-controlled House and Senate refuses to hold this Republican administration accountable for any of it's illegal activities.

Partisanship at it's absolute lowest form.

Terrible isnt it. To rely on an anti american group that supports child molesters to defend our rights.

[Boogyman]

Terrible isnt it. To rely on an anti american group that supports child molesters to defend our rights.

See, this is why I hate discussing anything with you, Josh. You always have to make outrageous statements like that.

It's ridiculous to suggest anybody "supports child molestors" and you know it. If you don't like the ACLU that's fine, but don't apply your twisted logic to make a biased statement like that and expect anybody to accept it.

Just like accusing them of being "anti-american". The ACLU has done a lot more to preserve individual rights and freedom in this country than say, YOU have.

You wonder why you don't get many responses to your posts? It's your seeming hatred of everything, and your attitude that everybody is stupid but you. Give it a break, huh?

[josh]

You must have been busy when the ACLU was supporting NAMBLA. You probably also were otherwise occupied whne the ACLU was chaired by an admitted communist.
It is ok not to know.But you shouldnt refute my statement without checking the factual basis of it.

You are correct in your statement about my hatred. I hate partisan politics. I hate violations of my liberty and I hate dishonesty.
To say the ACLU isnt supporting child molesters when supporting nambla is either stupid or dishaonest. You decide which.

[Boogyman]

To say the ACLU isnt supporting child molesters when supporting nambla is either stupid or dishaonest. You decide which.

It's stupid to say the ACLU "supports" NAMBLA.

They only support NAMBLA's right to express themselves, not their actual concept.

You should know the difference, the ACLU supports your right to hate anyone you want, it doesn't mean they support your hatred.

And you say you understand the constitution. Only if it protects what you think is acceptable or not, you mean.

Hypocritical to the extreme, in my opinion.

I hate hypocrisy.

[Boogyman]

And please refrain from accusing me of agreeing with NAMBLA. I find their whole existence despicable and perverted.

Any actual manifestation of their perversion would be absolutely evil and illegal to the harshest punishment the law allows.

However, under our Constitution, they have a right to express their sick desires all they want.

The ACLU supports that right, whether we like it ot not.

I assumed you would know this, with all your huffing and puffing about how "sacred" the constitution is to you.

Apparently not.

[josh]

It's stupid to say the ACLU "supports" NAMBLA.

They only support NAMBLA's right to express themselves, not their actual concept.



I suppose if by express themselves you mean to rape and murder boys.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

here is a little excerpt.

Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.

I
You should know the difference, the ACLU supports your right to hate anyone you want, it doesn't mean they support your hatred.


Really. I hate all gun laws. Do you think I can get the ACLU to represent me?
If I were to hate one ethnic group or another would the ACLU support that?


Look we are way off topic which is mostly my fault. What I was trying to express was I am honestly apalled that we had to rely on the ACLU to fight this. Where are our great conservative leaders?

[Boogyman]

I suppose if by express themselves you mean to rape and murder boys.
How dare you? :angry: :angry: :angry:

I made myself perfectly clear. Only a complete A$$ would refuse to acknowledge my statement for the purpose of making such an insulting, ignorant remark. :angry: :angry: :angry:
Look we are way off topic which is mostly my fault. What I was trying to express was I am honestly apalled that we had to rely on the ACLU to fight this. Where are our great conservative leaders?
Then why didn't you say that in the first place?

I've had it with your crap.

You just earned the distinction of being the first one ever on my "ignore" list.

:angry: :angry:

[freesw]

Josh, would you please provide the evidence that the ACLU supported rape and murder as a form of "expression"?

You're going to need to backpedal on this one.

[Arizona Mikey]

I recall Jeff Cooper once saying (I don’t recall the exact quote, so I’m paraphrasing him here) “the ACLU might perform a valuable public service, if it could just get itself out of left field.”

I’m in partial agreement with Col. Cooper. When they take on a “genuine” civil liberties cause (and I think this week’s court case qualifies) I’ll willingly give them a thumbs-up for the effort.

But, it’s also been my observation that the ACLU often seems driven by a kind of “publicity whore” mentality: eagerly defending child molester groups and American Nazis, but telling the poor guy who got his house ransacked in an illegal search by the BATFE to take a hike.

THAT’S the kind of thing that ticks me off about the ACLU. Still, as I mentioned above, I’ll give them kudos when they deserve it. And they do this week, I’d say.

Funny story about how the ACLU operated a booth at the Libertarian Party’s convention earlier this year. There were very few inquires from the assembled LP delegates, which dumbfounded the ACLU people at the booth.

“Don’t you know we fought the Patriot Act?” asked the ACLU guy.

“What about gun rights?” the Libertarians answered back.

“Oh, that’s a collective right, not an individual one.” :(

I guess they didn’t convince too many LP members to join up that day.

[IVM]

I recall Jeff Cooper once saying (I don’t recall the exact quote, so I’m paraphrasing him here) “the ACLU might perform a valuable public service, if it could just get itself out of left field.”

I’m in partial agreement with Col. Cooper. When they take on a “genuine” civil liberties cause (and I think this week’s court case qualifies) I’ll willingly give them a thumbs-up for the effort.

But, it’s also been my observation that the ACLU often seems driven by a kind of “publicity whore” mentality: eagerly defending child molester groups and American Nazis, but telling the poor guy who got his house ransacked in an illegal search by the BATFE to take a hike.

THAT’S the kind of thing that ticks me off about the ACLU. Still, as I mentioned above, I’ll give them kudos when they deserve it. And they do this week, I’d say.

Funny story about how the ACLU operated a booth at the Libertarian Party’s convention earlier this year. There were very few inquires from the assembled LP delegates, which dumbfounded the ACLU people at the booth.

“Don’t you know we fought the Patriot Act?” asked the ACLU guy.

“What about gun rights?” the Libertarians answered back.

“Oh, that’s a collective right, not an individual one.” :(

I guess they didn’t convince too many LP members to join up that day.

I don't agree with some of what the NRA does and says, but I am willing to support them as well..

I think between the NRA and the ACLU, you're covered. :)