• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Anyone Think the ACLU is nuts?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Duh! Newsflash! Opinions can be wrong. If you have the opinion that you can jump butt naked from the top of the Washington Monument and fly to the moon, you're wrong, and so's that opinion. You need to at least wear a helmet.

I pay attention to what is relevant. How does your sex relate to this debate? As for arguing for the sake of arguing, have you ever noticed the name of this board? "Debate Politics". Hmmm....I don't see anything that says I have to either pick a side, or stay there.
Click to expand...
No, but at least READ and comprehend instead of nitpicking. Opinion that I could jump is not wrong, proving it would be. Note I said 'ill-advised'(but your lack of attention to such disclaimers and asides is legend).
And for the second time, gender does NOT relate to this topic. It was pointed out to show YOUR lack of attention to what is said and shown. Your inattention to the previous post is duly noted as well.:roll:
 
BodiSatva said:
tryreading

You have totally missed the point.
Totally.
Completely.
Insanely

She said, "Meet me in St. Louis" and you took off in the "Spirit of St. Louis" and your heading down the Mississippi towards Mardi Gras when you should be heading towards Chicago for a deep crust pizza. :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm insaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnee! They're coming to take me away, ha ha.

She said all or nothing. I showed her the difference. All or nothing would make the issue much simpler, but there's a line, and the difficult but necessary thing is to keep the line fixed Constitutionally. I wouldn't mind if there were no religion expressed in government, but it would be wrong to effect this. I'm not religious, but I can understand why somebody else might want to say the word God.

She also said there should be no mention of God anywhere in government, even in speeches. The key people who wrote the Constitution wanted separation, but they mentioned God, or providence, or the Creator in their speeches and letters.

I responded directly to her posts.

Anyway, why don't you help her argue her point if only you and she are smart enough to understand it? Is that something you can handle, rather than post just for the sake of posting?
 
Last edited:
ngdawg said:
No, but at least READ and comprehend instead of nitpicking. Opinion that I could jump is not wrong, proving it would be. Note I said 'ill-advised'(but your lack of attention to such disclaimers and asides is legend).
And for the second time, gender does NOT relate to this topic. It was pointed out to show YOUR lack of attention to what is said and shown. Your inattention to the previous post is duly noted as well.:roll:
Click to expand...


If you hold the opinion you can jump from the Washington Monument and fly to the moon, you are wrong. The opinion is wrong.

If you have the opinion that zebras live in Antarctica because penguins are also black and white, you're wrong, and your opinion is wrong, because the facts are against you.

Your opinion that opinions can't be wrong has been proven wrong by the above two examples.

Yeah, I know gender doesn't relate to the topic, that's why I don't care about it. Why do you keep bringing it up? I don't care what you got, could be cooties for all I care. How about if you quit getting excited about your body since you're the only one doing so and focus on your failure to hold your end of the argument up?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If you hold the opinion you can jump from the Washington Monument and fly to the moon, you are wrong. The opinion is wrong.

If you have the opinion that zebras live in Antarctica because penguins are also black and white, you're wrong, and your opinion is wrong, because the facts are against you.

Your opinion that opinions can't be wrong has been proven wrong by the above two examples.

Yeah, I know gender doesn't relate to the topic, that's why I don't care about it. Why do you keep bringing it up? I don't care what you got, could be cooties for all I care. How about if you quit getting excited about your body since you're the only one doing so and focus on your failure to hold your end of the argument up?
Click to expand...
Yea, except for one glaring problem, Buckwheat...those wouldn't BE opinions.
Opinions come from a thought process, not the stating of misconstrued erroneous information. If I THINK blue is ugly, that is an opinion. If I say blue is a food, THAT would be wrong.
Huh??? You're so off the wall about stuff.....who said a thing about getting excited about gender, bodies or anything else? You just keep proving a FACT; you argue for the sake of arguing and you DON'T pay attention or comprehend simple text. Find someone else to go after...you're not a debater, you're a fight-picker. Toodles.
 
ngdawg said:
Yea, except for one glaring problem, Buckwheat...those wouldn't BE opinions.
Opinions come from a thought process, not the stating of misconstrued erroneous information. If I THINK blue is ugly, that is an opinion. If I say blue is a food, THAT would be wrong.
Huh??? You're so off the wall about stuff.....who said a thing about getting excited about gender, bodies or anything else? You just keep proving a FACT; you argue for the sake of arguing and you DON'T pay attention or comprehend simple text. Find someone else to go after...you're not a debater, you're a fight-picker. Toodles.
Click to expand...


Oh? Funny that. I explicitly defined the zebra/penguin thing as a demonstration of a thought process employing analogies. I guess you missed that part?

You're getting excited about gender, you keep brining in up.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh? Funny that. I explicitly defined the zebra/penguin thing as a demonstration of a thought process employing analogies. I guess you missed that part?

You're getting excited about gender, you keep brining in up.
Click to expand...
JFCOAS...I brought it up once....:roll:

Nope, I didn't miss a thing. You're making pointless remarks, not analogies.
Your so-called analogies followed nothing resembling a thought process in formation of opinion, only the misconstruing of some information erroneously processed and relayed as information mistakenly.
Now, to correct you: the opinion, using your misinformation, would be in the vein of: I think zebras might be able to live in Antartica because they have the same colors as penguins...it's a really STUPID analogy and a lousy opinion but only facts presented could PROVE it wrong. Thinking something doesn't make it wrong. But you didn't think that.....
 
ngdawg said:
JFCOAS...I brought it up once....:roll:

Nope, I didn't miss a thing. You're making pointless remarks, not analogies.
Your so-called analogies followed nothing resembling a thought process in formation of opinion, only the misconstruing of some information erroneously processed and relayed as information mistakenly.
Now, to correct you: the opinion, using your misinformation, would be in the vein of: I think zebras might be able to live in Antartica because they have the same colors as penguins...it's a really STUPID analogy and a lousy opinion but only facts presented could PROVE it wrong. Thinking something doesn't make it wrong. But you didn't think that.....
Click to expand...

Soo...you're admitting you don't know what an opinion is, but you do insist you have an opinion on what opinions are. Okay.

Anyone out there wishing to discuss the ACLU, or is this a dead thread?
 
ngdawg said:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/03/14/aclu-protects-funeral-protesters/
...
I understand that basic constitutional rights should not be violated, however.... and the states are careful NOT to violate those rights in letter of the law, they are placing restrictions to preserve the dignity of those fallen.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a "however" when it comes to violating the constitution rights of someone who has done nothing illegal (or at least hasn't been found of doing something illegal).

There is no doubt these families are going through hell already and no, the protestors don't help. Personally I think the protesters are short sighted and jerk-offs.

If they're doing something illegal IMHO they should stop the funeral , call the cops and get them arrested. BUT if they're not doing anything illegal there is only so much that you can legally do.

If they're doing this on private property I don't understand why they don't just throw them out. There is no freedom of speech or right to protest on private property.
 
massive_attack said:
I don't think there is a "however" when it comes to violating the constitution rights of someone who has done nothing illegal (or at least hasn't been found of doing something illegal).

There is no doubt these families are going through hell already and no, the protestors don't help. Personally I think the protesters are short sighted and jerk-offs.

If they're doing something illegal IMHO they should stop the funeral , call the cops and get them arrested. BUT if they're not doing anything illegal there is only so much that you can legally do.

If they're doing this on private property I don't understand why they don't just throw them out. There is no freedom of speech or right to protest on private property.
Click to expand...
They stand in roads or along side near the churches or funeral homes. The group consists primarily of Phelps' family members; one of his daughters is a lawyer (it has also been rumored that he has molested his own kids. while not surprising in scope, it is probably a smear tactic).
It would appear that this suit is actually having a positive effect in congress!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/25/military.funerals.ap/index.html
Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House.

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.
The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said prior to the Senate vote.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said.

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.
The ACLU needs to toss this file in the trash and say 'buh-bye'.

Scarecrow said:
Soo...you're admitting you don't know what an opinion is, but you do insist you have an opinion on what opinions are. Okay.
Click to expand...
Your imagination is only surpassed by your lack of reading skills.:roll: How's THAT for an opinion?
 
I know, it hard for all of us Right Wing Radicals with our corporate money to support an organization that is dedicated to individual freedom, and supporting the Bill of Rights. Gosh, We right wing radicals hate the idea of one vote for one person, or the freedoms of the first admendment of the constitution.

Our Right Wing Radical Motto is up with profits for the rich and down with American traditions for the poor and fast dying middle class.

Gosh, Gosh, :2wave:

Our new Right Wing Radical Song.

I'm lonely Right wing Radical in an American patch
an American patch, an American patch
I'm lonely Right wing Radical in an American patch
an American patch, an American patch
Please let me take your free-doms away

away, away,
I laugh so hard when Americans complain.

I'm a lonely Right wing Radical in an American patch
an American patch, an American patch
I wish you all would get out of our way.

Yea for us right wing radicals and down with the Constitution
 
The problem with the ACLU is that they're only a reflection of what "Civil Liberties" already exist and have a set code that doesn't pay attention to specific scenarios - which is why it leads to this kind of craziness. They really have to take people up on everything.

I guarantee though, for everyone "Oh ACLU, I see you!" a conservative posts, there are twice as many victims for personal freedoms elsewhere.
 
The ACLU defending jerks like Phelps is the price that must be paid for being consistent. Currently Phelp's gang is not doing anything illegal, and i value the rule of law more than shutting them up.

That said, I despise what Phelps is doing. The bill congress is writing is a good solution. It preserves the dignity of the fallen and free speech simultaneously.
 
rathi said:
The ACLU defending jerks like Phelps is the price that must be paid for being consistent. Currently Phelp's gang is not doing anything illegal, and i value the rule of law more than shutting them up.

That said, I despise what Phelps is doing. The bill congress is writing is a good solution. It preserves the dignity of the fallen and free speech simultaneously.
Click to expand...

I can understand and see why they'd do that, but I do disagree. Read my topic on Free Speech. We CAN distinguish between incitement to hatred and expressing a viewpoint.
 
No you can't. You are pretty much advocating the "thought crime." That i will never accept. Currently our legal system clearly only bans physical acts of crime. For example, being sexually atracted to children is not a crime. Acting upon said impulse and having sex with a child is a crime. Hatred is not something that is easy to control. Is someone slaughters my family in a cruel and tortorous manner, I am probably going to hate the bastard. However, I will not murder him, which would be illeagal. You set a far to dangerous precedent. Whats next? Violent movies make violent thoughts and shouldn't be allowed on tv? Thinking even the most depraved and inhuman thoughts should never be crime. Only acting on those thoughts.

Pratically, what you call for is unreasonable. What about those who "incite hatred" towards those who bomb abortion clinics? Writing an accurate report about a serial killer is probably going to make people hate him. Why is that wrong?
 
Oh yes, the ACLU is nuts for standing up for all people's rights. What is everyone smoking? (legalize it and I'd like some too).

-Mach
 
ngdawg said:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/03/14/aclu-protects-funeral-protesters/

There's no winning with these people. They have fought to have Christmas removed from public buildings, then turn around and say these bozos are within their rights.

The group I belong to, Patriot Guard Riders, was formed to guard grieving families from these sicko protestors. We do so only at the invitation of the families and only stand guard; if necessary blocking the protestors from the view of the mourners and drowning them out, if possible.
The growth of the PGR has been so positive that even without protestors threatening to show up, the PGR gets invited to stand in honor.
There is no excuse for disrespect to our servicemen, to their grieving families and to the grieving public, for their sickening disruptions, rights or no rights. That soldier deserves EVERY respect and not to have HIS rights and service to his country trampled on. I understand that basic constitutional rights should not be violated, however.... and the states are careful NOT to violate those rights in letter of the law, they are placing restrictions to preserve the dignity of those fallen.


Just once, the ACLU should just STFU.
Click to expand...


Asking if the ACLU is nuts is like asking if you used the Internet to post here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom