• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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 the ACLU do more harm than good?

Does the ACLU do more harm than good?

  • Oui

    Votes: 36 49.3%
  • Nyet

    Votes: 37 50.7%

  • Total voters
    73

shakenbake19

New member
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Personally, i think that the ACLU does do more good than people think they do. They protect student rights in high school, they do the smaller cases you never hear about because they are constntly being overshadowed by their "ultra-liberal" cases like the "under god" debate.
 

shakenbake19

New member
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sorry there is no poll with this.......something got screwed up and it wouldn't go through......if one of the moderaters could help me out that would be great.

[Moderator mode]

One "poll" back atchya!:2wave:

[/Moderator mode]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Personally, i think that the ACLU does do more good than people think they do. They protect student rights in high school, they do the smaller cases you never hear about because they are constntly being overshadowed by their "ultra-liberal" cases like the "under god" debate.
I think nowadays they do more harm than good but back in the day they did some great things. I admire them in their krux. Now it looks like they hit a bad case of entropy.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm old enough to remember the bad old days of the Cold War, McCarthyism; the Communist Party under Gus Hall, Stalin and all of that. In my opinion, the ACLU is a far worst enemy of the Republic. It is a malignant cancer that has done virtually everything to undermine everything that is good about the United States. In point of fact, it ought to register as an agent of a foreign power. It plays into the hands of the terrorists who would destroy us. Compared to the damage that Joe McCarthy did to the body politic, the ACLU is 100 times worse. Bin Laden's name ought to appear on their letterhead if they were required to have full disclosure.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think nowadays they do more harm than good but back in the day they did some great things. I admire them in their krux. Now it looks like they hit a bad case of entropy.
I agree with you.I think they are nothing more than dinasaurs who have outlived their usefulness and they are trying to hang on.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm old enough to remember the bad old days of the Cold War, McCarthyism; the Communist Party under Gus Hall, Stalin and all of that. In my opinion, the ACLU is a far worst enemy of the Republic. It is a malignant cancer that has done virtually everything to undermine everything that is good about the United States. In point of fact, it ought to register as an agent of a foreign power. It plays into the hands of the terrorists who would destroy us. Compared to the damage that Joe McCarthy did to the body politic, the ACLU is 100 times worse. Bin Laden's name ought to appear on their letterhead if they were required to have full disclosure.
Well the thing is they would defend osama and any other terrorist for that matter. And guess who its mostly run by if not all? Thats right liberals. Who woulda thought.

I agree with you.I think they are nothing more than dinasaurs who have outlived their usefulness and they are trying to hang on.
And that my friend was a post that made sense. The ACLU would be better if it actually stood for 1 thing that america is about.
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The ACLU at times does some good,just not enough times.It is anti-christian and ideological. It puts theories ahead of people. Even if the facts show it to be wrong ,it will support the politicaly correct theory.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I dunno much about the ACLU but I took a look on their website and I'm all for protecting our freedom of speech. its very important.

However it is interesting to note that all you guys attacking the ACLU are in fact pro Bush! <gasp>
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by jamesrage:
I agree with you.I think they are nothing more than dinasaurs who have outlived their usefulness and they are trying to hang on.
I don't see how protecting your rights can out-live its usefulness.
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The ACLU has gotten a bad rap within the last few years. Now I'm not too fond of them either because they are ideological and seem hypocritical in a lot of ways, but I think they do do some good in this country.

Only problem is when they go after the Boy Scouts and get them banned from using a public park because their oath uses the word "God." That's not being genuine in my opinion, and I don't like how they get tax payers funding in a round about way by suing cities to recoup their lawyer fees.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Overall, I think the ACLU does more good than harm. I personally don't agree with some of the ACLU's views on abortion, because I tend to lean more towards pro-life than pro-choice. I don't know the ACLU's views on gun control, but I imagine that they are anti-gun, which, if that were the case, I would disagree with the ACLU.

However, I have seen the ACLU also stand up for people's rights concerning free speech and an array of other cases and I think it has played a positive role in this respect.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
I dunno much about the ACLU but I took a look on their website and I'm all for protecting our freedom of speech. its very important.

However it is interesting to note that all you guys attacking the ACLU are in fact pro Bush! <gasp>
Well, I suppose if one believes in protecting the rights of terrorists outweighs the rights of lawful Americans to live their lives in peace and safety is more important I can understand your position.
 

quietrage

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Melrose Park and Milwaukee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think that they bring to many cases that invole god, and that is the stuff that slows down the court system and in the end nothing changes.
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The ACLU even in its ideological behaviour is not balanced. They go after christian symbols but not Jewish ones.They fight any type of Anti semitism, no matter how spurious the accusation,but. Don't defend Christians,which would be awkward since they are an Anti-christian organization.Though they do,do tooken cases for show.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well, I suppose if one believes in protecting the rights of terrorists outweighs the rights of lawful Americans to live their lives in peace and safety is more important I can understand your position.
Mind elaborating instead of leaving me in suspense?
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Missouri Mule:
Well, I suppose if one believes in protecting the rights of terrorists outweighs the rights of lawful Americans to live their lives in peace and safety is more important I can understand your position.
Care to name the terrorists they are [in your words] protecting?
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Care to name the terrorists they are [in your words] protecting?
Gimme a break. When they fight sensible terrorist profiling, they are protecting terrorists. Bin Laden LOVES the ACLU. They are his unpaid allies against the "Great Satan" (the United States.)

Frankly, I hope that the ACLU is forcibly disbanded as an agent of a foreign power. It is craziness to defend this organization of terrorist defenders. They are even worse than those who looked after the interest of Nazi sympathizers during WWII.
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SKILMATIC said:
I think nowadays they do more harm than good but back in the day they did some great things. I admire them in their krux. Now it looks like they hit a bad case of entropy.
Agreed. They may have accomplished something at one time, but nothing comes to mind. They remained silent during the internment of Japanese in WWII, but they have come forth occasionally to defend a Nazi prison guard or two from deportation. Nowadays they can't seem to find anything useful to do, so they defend the 'right' of homeless (who are on the streets partially through their efforts) to pollute the rivers, and the 'right' of the predatory perverts at NAMBLA to publish handbooks for not getting caught, they fight against sensible steps to combat terrorism, they selectively protest any symbols of moral authority, and they demand that taxpayers pay for the damage caused by their demands.

The ACLU is a prime example of the damage that can be caused by a bunch of lawyers who don't have anything useful to do with their time.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Missouri Mule:
Gimme a break. When they fight sensible terrorist profiling, they are protecting terrorists. Bin Laden LOVES the ACLU. They are his unpaid allies against the "Great Satan" (the United States.)

Frankly, I hope that the ACLU is forcibly disbanded as an agent of a foreign power. It is craziness to defend this organization of terrorist defenders. They are even worse than those who looked after the interest of Nazi sympathizers during WWII.
They fight for the rights you and I are guaranteed by the Constitution. If Congress tries to make a law that is un-Constitutional, somebody should say something about it.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
They fight for the rights you and I are guaranteed by the Constitution. If Congress tries to make a law that is un-Constitutional, somebody should say something about it.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

In 1949, Justice Jackson (he was not the chief justice) finished a fiery dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) with these words: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

In the case, a fellow named Terminiello, who claimed to be a Catholic priest, gave a hate-filled public speech blasting "Communistic Zionist Jews, FDR, Queen Eleanor" Roosevelt ("one of the world's communists") and others. Protesters demonstrated against him, violence broke out, and Terminiello was charged with disorderly conduct. At the trial, the judge told the jury Terminiello could be found guilty if the jury concluded his speech brought about a condition of unrest.

Terminiello was convicted and appealed. The Supreme Court eventually ruled for Terminiello in a 5-4 decision, saying the judge's instruction had infringed upon the defendant's right of free speech. In his dissent, Jackson insisted that Terminiello's agitprop had gone beyond the bounds of protected speech and the state had the right to lock him up. Jackson's point was Ashcroft's point: Extremism in the name of civil liberties could lead to the destruction of the nation.

Then, 14 years later in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), Justice Goldberg wrote, "[W]hile the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact."




(Snip)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2060342/
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Missouri Mule:
In 1949, Justice Jackson (he was not the chief justice) finished a fiery dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) with these words: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

In the case, a fellow named Terminiello, who claimed to be a Catholic priest, gave a hate-filled public speech blasting "Communistic Zionist Jews, FDR, Queen Eleanor" Roosevelt ("one of the world's communists") and others. Protesters demonstrated against him, violence broke out, and Terminiello was charged with disorderly conduct. At the trial, the judge told the jury Terminiello could be found guilty if the jury concluded his speech brought about a condition of unrest.

Terminiello was convicted and appealed. The Supreme Court eventually ruled for Terminiello in a 5-4 decision, saying the judge's instruction had infringed upon the defendant's right of free speech. In his dissent, Jackson insisted that Terminiello's agitprop had gone beyond the bounds of protected speech and the state had the right to lock him up. Jackson's point was Ashcroft's point: Extremism in the name of civil liberties could lead to the destruction of the nation.

Then, 14 years later in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), Justice Goldberg wrote, "[W]hile the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact."
I see your point. But don't you think there is extremism the other way as well? Such as locking someone up indefinetly without charges or access to a lawyer. Don't you think this could destroy a nation just as easily?
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo_Really said:
I see your point. But don't you think there is extremism the other way as well? Such as locking someone up indefinetly without charges or access to a lawyer. Don't you think this could destroy a nation just as easily?
Not if you are referring to illegal combatants in time of war.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Diogenes:
Not if you are referring to illegal combatants in time of war.
I don't care what you call them. Everyone deserves due process of law.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Pacridge said:
Who made this poll? Oui? Nyet? Was there some need to remind neo-cons they hate the ACLU?
No we just needed to remind the mental disorders that we common sensed people still hate the ACLU. Unless you still think that this Stalinist org actually has a purpose?
 
Top Bottom