Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 28
The Dangerous ACLUPage 3 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Who should interpret the Constitution? Why do we have a Supreme Court that is chosen by a president who was elected by a majority? Now I'm no genius but Ill guess that it is so that the Supreme Court will interpret unresolved issues in a way that jives with the view of the people. Something about Democracy I guess.

So if I had personally invented the ACLU I would fight for the general publics interpretation of Civil Rights. If you don't do this then you are just another interest group that works over the heads of everyone. The ACLU is so focused on minority rights that they are willing to disenfranchise the majority. "Tyranny of the Majority" is their common quote. So one day they might stick up for you and then the next day you find that your vote got overridden. In the short term you got represented but then you realize that in the long term it was only by coincidence. Now and your offspring have little incentive to participate in government. How do you have order when your vote no longer means anything? This isn't a rhetorical question. Those who support the ACLU; answer the question. I want to hear your answer.

They forget that concept of Democracy is the ultimate embodiment ( although not perfect ) of civil rights on the largest possible scale. They forget that there is no perfect government that will represent every last person. And they will apparently accomplish this "100 %" representation at all costs ( including the destruction of democracy). They are at best a living oxymoron.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 30
view profile
History
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/7/2009 12:25:47 PM
Many organisations have had members who did bad things. But their actions were only considered representative of the organisation when they refused to condemn the actions of those members, or when the organisation was found to be actively encouraging those actions.

As long as the ACLU condemn the actions of this ex-official, I see no problem.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 31
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/7/2009 3:40:44 PM
Charles
Not over ruled by the constitution, the court. Read more slowly.

You still have not answered the question, you guys never do. Who should define rights in a Democracy? Stop beating around the bush.

Next question; How do you stand up for the little guy while keeping a vote meaningful?
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 32
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/7/2009 3:53:43 PM
and Charles

You assumed that my views are hateful and repressive without even asking what they are. What does that make you? Should I accuse you of something malicious too? To date everyone I blogged with who supports the ACLU has resorted to this. Without exception. If you cant defend your views without judging before understanding then how good are your views and values? I have had this same discussion with the far right.

I actually agree with a couple of the ACLUs views and so does the majority, but our society should grow because it learns and grows together, not because some organization decided that its going lead us into a better society.

Again answer the question. Whom should the definition of rights reflect in a democracy. Or does this question mean nothing to you?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 33
view profile
History
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 9:20:24 AM
RE msg 41 by Apologist~D.A:
Bad things? BAD THINGS?! This goes so far beyond "bad things" that I really dont know how to respond to such a statement. Bad things? * Shakes head* Stealing candy is bad. Burping at church is bad. Stepping on my shoe is bad. Farting at the dinner table is bad. Politicians that lie are bad.
These things are not even on the same planet as bad.
If you want to get angry because you are unhappy with the English Language, then please join the Oxford University Press, and have the ENGLISH dictionary re-writtens to suit your views.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote, because if you did, you would know that I wrote that if they condemned this, then there would be no problem, and ONLY if they condemned this.

You obviously don't understand how people can enjoy child pornography. Sex with children is a form of sex without consent. Just like rape, it is a form of control. But due to its social condemnation, and its lack of availability, it is not something that most men would choose, and so is only something that men enjoy when they don't enjoy sex with women. So this man feels a need to control children, because he feels out of control when it comes to dealing with women.

Sexual desires start in early youth, and are typically programmed very strongly from then on, with almost no changes at all. So this man would have to have been induced into sexually desiring children at a young age. So this sense of lack of control would have to stem with a strong feeling of fear of the women in his childhood, probably with his mother, than conditioned him to feel that all women would turn on him. However, a certain amount of fear of your mother is very common, with no ill-effects altogether. So this man almost certainly had an extremely abusive mother, who scared the living daylights out of him, day after day, until he felt that all women could turn on him, and become equally abusive.

But still, this would not hold if most women were not so abusive. So he would have had to encounter reinforcement of this initial conditioning, by women being abusive to him, again and again, with him feeling impotent to defend himself against this, because the law would protect those women against physical violence and emotional violence, but not protect him.

When I look at your post, I see such rage, that would reinforce such conditioning. Sadly, you are part of the problem, and NOT part of the solution.

I fully expect you to attack my post, with far more rage than you have already expressed. This is just an indication that you would reinforce such conditioning, and even if the man tried to explain his feelings, so as to ask for help, that you would condemn him more, and the more he tried to explain, the more you would condemn him, until he would conclude that even if he had wanted to give up the child porn in favour of a real relationship, that he would just be condemned more. That would make him feel that he is completely out of control when dealing with women anywhere near his age, which would make his subconscious feel that it would not be possible to have an honest relationship with any women his age, and that would make his subconscious feel that he could only have an honest and open relationship with children, not real women, because you would have shown him that all women are far too aggressive to have a real and genuine relationship with. That would just be you making the problem worse.

So go ahead, attack me. You only convince the subconscious of all men like him, that kiddie porn is the only way to go.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 36
view profile
History
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 3:12:49 PM
RE msg 47 by Apologist~D.A:
The petition was never meant to be used as evidence for anything. I just thought it reading material worthy enough to share with my peeps.
In that, it was most edifying.

Confucius say "Attempting to predict any woman's motive is most certainly a foolish endeavor."
That would make women unpredictable and unreliable. No businessman can employ a completely unpredictable person. They could wreck his business. No-one can live with a completely unpredictable person for long. They wreck your life. The only way to deal with unpredictable people, is to ensure that they have absolutely no power to do anything. That way, they cannot wreck your livelihood or your life. Give them power, and in a few months, or at most a few years, and you'll walk out, and never look back.

So I really think that claims like this, are just driving men away into 2 directions: either denying women rights, or leaving women alone altogether.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 37
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 6:38:26 PM
Charles
By the time of Brown vs the Board of education the majority of America (including the majority of conservatives) felt that school segregation was wrong. The Supreme Court reversed Plessy vs Ferguson after new knowledge ( the doll experiments). The court interpreted civil rights one way that reflected the times, times changed and it reinterpreted civil rights. At both times it represented the general publics view. Yet you imply that society cannot grow and learn collectively.

So you assumed that I feel the purpose of the system for one group to mistreat another? You are jumping to conclusions. Abortion doctors. Once again, name calling and accusations. Just like the far right.

Here's another question
Do you think it is possible to have 100% freedom of expression, 100% separation of church and state, and 100% freedom of expression at the same time in our schools? If you don't understand the context of my question then feel free to make more assumptions. Or you can just ask me to clarify. I'm not perfect at asking questions, you know.
 where4
Joined: 10/1/2008
Msg: 38
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 10:39:36 PM

The bottom line here is that this is a dangerous group of people who want to destroy the values important to our society.


Ho-hum...

OP, is this something you're parroting from your favorite conservative radio talk show host?

Joe McCarthy would be proud!

I'm sorry to be picky here, but could you just copy and paste these profound thoughts until you get a better grip on spelling and the usage of the words there, their, they're...

As for the ACLU having "no room for christians in there[sic] world," well, lots of us don't have room in our world for individuals describing themselves as "Christians" who turn out to be, uh, wolves in sheep's clothing; just like other individuals in leadership positions who disappoint and deceive the innocent and those of honorable intent.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 39
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/9/2009 6:54:23 PM
and Charles
You assume the Constitution is perfect. If it was then there would be absolutely no ambiguity in terms of how define human rights. The Framers were smarter than that. It was intended to evolve, to change with the time and new knowledge. Why do you think the Framers included a Supreme Court and also allow slavery to continue at the same time? Dont forget Plessy vs Ferguson and later Brown vs the Board of Education.

Another question. Do you think that slaveholders consciously chose to disregard the fact that black people have feelings? A redundant question. So what is one doing when she aborts a baby seven months into gestation? Babies have feelings long before they are born, just like those black slaves had feelings. And unborn children are the most helpless of anyone. So where does your definition of the "little guy" or that of the ACLUs fit here?

Since the littlest guy with the loudest voice is the most correct in your book then lets lobby the Court to adopt the American National Socialist's definition of human rights.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 40
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/9/2009 7:02:55 PM
Where4
Good call on Conservative talk radio. On another note I think it was Michael Medved I heard say in a discussion with two authors that the United States engineered the overthrow of the Shah.
WTF?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 41
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/9/2009 7:43:15 PM
I know we're not supposed to address other posters by name. I'm taking a chance here.

Sd Matt, you have very strong feelings about abortion. Frankly, I don't agree with you, but I understand your position. Hell, lots of good liberals (Martin Sheen comes to mind) feel the same way. I'm not going to attack your position, but the way your feelings have been manipulated by one party. First, late term abortions are rarely performed and only for very dire circumstances. It's not a method of post facto birth control.

Second, the Republicans have dominated the Presidency since 68 - I think only 2 current Supremes were appointed by Democratic presidents. Cynically, the GOP just uses this issue to motivate you to vote for them. They're never going to change the law since it's the best vote getter in their arsenal.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 44
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/12/2009 7:55:44 PM
Charles

I think you believe there is some higher morality than ourselves and the ACLU, or anyone outside of the mainstream, is it. For the Christians it is the bible. My view is that we learn and grow. What we all agree on is what we should put into law. Oops but we cant do that 100%. Whats the next best thing?

Straw man schmraw man. So the little guy is always right?

Again, based on the Constitution... it isnt perfect. It has subjectivity. So who is the perfect entity to interpret it? Where is that group of perfect human beings. Oh I forgot. The little guy...he is always right. There's a non thinking answer. Just as brilliant as an imaginary deity. Better to put power into fewer hands as long as they carry the banner of "looking out for the little guy". Give the illusion of the perfect answer and forget reality. History has seen this one before. Either you are either looking for a perfect answer that doesn't exist or you are an elitist that thinks the rest of us are not up to the task. Yet the ACLU has the perfect answer. And their qualification is a card with four letters. Brilliant.

You didnt answer the question in abortion. Is an unborn ( late term) who has feelings ( just like slaves and all other oppressed) the small guy? They are the most helpless of all. Remember...old white Southerner chose to relegate the feelings of slaves to second place to economics. In this equation you have to choose to limit the freedoms of the mother or kill someone with feelings like you and me. Which one is the greater oppression? Wheres your perfect answer?
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 45
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/12/2009 7:58:49 PM
Half time dad.
I think for myself. My values come from searching within my own heart. I have a low regard for both of the major political parties. If you look for patterns and disregard whats on the surface then you would feel the same.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 46
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/12/2009 8:06:15 PM
Themanfiddler

You are correct in the history. Thats why I couldnt believe my ears. Neither could one of the two guests/autors.
And this from a right-wing guy. Dont get me wrong. All the pundits are very selective about the facts cherry-pick and then present. But this was just nuts. Something right out of, gosh, I dont where the hell it came from. A right-wing guy would present the Shah as the lesser of two evils. To me they are just different flavors of oppression.
 Hoodoo Man
Joined: 6/25/2007
Msg: 47
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/18/2009 6:42:54 PM

Since the littlest guy with the loudest voice is the most correct in your book then lets lobby the Court to adopt the American National Socialist's definition of human rights.



Ding ding ding ding ding!!! Oh, I'm sorry, you lose! Please enjoy this fine Samsonite luggage and 40-year supply of Turtle Wax, though.

I don't where to begin with the myriad insane, ignorant, and/or repellent things this guy has said, so I'll keep it short.

Nobody said the "little guy" is always right. However, in a democracy (or, here, a democratic republic) it is the rights of the less popular people that are in most need of protection. Speech, for example, that most people find agreeable has little need for constitutional protection. The speech that the majority finds offensive is the speech that needs protection. That is why you will find the (usually) valiant ACLU predominantly representing "the little guy." If the will of the democratic majority automatically defined the scope of constitutional rights, the very idea of constitutional rights would be meaningless.

With regard to this NAMBLA idiocy, people should remember (or not lie about) the fact that any defense by the ACLU is directed solely to that horrible group's free speech and press rights. Nobody in the ACLU defends raping children as some kind of constitutional right or anything other than a heinous crime. It's a real shame that this fact is inconvenient for those who want to demonize the ACLU.

Finally, for now at least, people should be aware that the "ACLU" is not some monolithic organization. The national ACLU actually handles relatively little litigation, with the vast bulk being handled by state and local affiliates. I can attest from personal experience that what cases and positions are taken are the subject of frequent and intense disagreement.

But it's just a facet, to an extent, of the hatred so many people have for lawyers, all crooks and liars and traitors ... except their lawyer, of course.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 48
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/21/2009 8:29:00 PM
"If the will of the democratic majority automatically defined the scope of constitutional rights, the very idea of constitutional rights would be meaningless" What do you think democracy attempts to do in the most fundamental way?????? Please elaborate on this question..do you think it is possible to represent 100 percent of the population without destroying democracy. I can think of only way...

Is the Constitution written so perfectly that there is absolutely no ambiguity? ( the 10th time Ive asked)

Lets say we discover some new nook or cranny in the Constitution.....Whom do you consult before you write your Amicus Curiae? Which position do you advocate? Do you ask the Supreme Court how it would most likely interpret or do you just interpret it yourself and start writing?

Racial segregation was a no brainer. The gray area is separation of church and state. The boy scouts is another.


 Hoodoo Man
Joined: 6/25/2007
Msg: 49
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/22/2009 11:11:52 PM

"If the will of the democratic majority automatically defined the scope of constitutional rights, the very idea of constitutional rights would be meaningless" What do you think democracy attempts to do in the most fundamental way?????? Please elaborate on this question..do you think it is possible to represent 100 percent of the population without destroying democracy. I can think of only way...


The fundamental notion of democracy is the utilitarian concept that if there's a question it ought to be settled by majority rule.

Extra question marks are not helpful or insightful.

It is never possible to represent 100 percent of a population. 51% will have to do absent special circumstances.

The US is not a pure democracy, it is a democratic constitutional republic. The passions of the majority are constrained by the provisions of the constitution. It's not complicated


Is the Constitution written so perfectly that there is absolutely no ambiguity? ( the 10th time Ive asked)



Well, it's the first time you've asked me, Cooke, but the answer is generally of course not. But some questions are more easily answered than others.

Did you have an actual question?


Lets say we discover some new nook or cranny in the Constitution.....Whom do you consult before you write your Amicus Curiae? Which position do you advocate? Do you ask the Supreme Court how it would most likely interpret or do you just interpret it yourself and start writing?


If I am writing an amicus brief it is mainly my own thoughts, influenced by other writings and whether or not I am doing this for an organization with a particular perspective.


Racial segregation was a no brainer.


You'd think so but it wasn't for decades and in fact the framers of the 14th amendment were fine with separate-but-"equal" -- so much for the sanctity of original intent.

Good to see you realize there are areas upon which reasonable people can disagree, though.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 50
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/23/2009 10:55:06 PM
Then your game show antics from a previous post are not insightful either. Pot calling the kettle black. But Ill give you an A for effort at trying to be witty.

The ambiguity question is a major one. Who answers those questions, the Supreme Court or the ACLU? If the ACLU is going to enforce the Constitution then it should enforce the Supreme Courts decisions. Sometimes it does this sometimes it doesnt. What happens when a decision has not been rendered? The last time I checked the Constitution does not address rights for non US citizens. Yet the ACLU is fighting for their rights without having ever asked the SC what its position would be. I dont consider that democratic.

The amicus curiae question does not refer to you personally. If you were the ACLU whom would ask first, that is, if preservation of the Constitution and democracy was part of your mission?

I will rephrase the segregation statement; It was a no brainer by a certain time. Its pretty safe to say that the framers understood that there would be change, but not on that day.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 51
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/24/2009 7:56:53 AM

The ambiguity question is a major one. Who answers those questions, the Supreme Court or the ACLU?


What's the question? The Supreme Court decides that.


If the ACLU is going to enforce the Constitution then it should enforce the Supreme Courts decisions.


First, the ACLU doesn't "enforce" anything. They do however defend civil liberties - that is the "CL" in ACLU.


The last time I checked the Constitution does not address rights for non US citizens. Yet the ACLU is fighting for their rights without having ever asked the SC what its position would be.


Again - American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union. They defend the civil liberties of individuals.
 Hoodoo Man
Joined: 6/25/2007
Msg: 52
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/25/2009 8:30:05 AM

The ambiguity question is a major one. Who answers those questions, the Supreme Court or the ACLU?


Is this a serious question? Of course the courts decide the questions, the ACLU just puts in their two cents.



If the ACLU is going to enforce the Constitution then it should enforce the Supreme Courts decisions. Sometimes it does this sometimes it doesnt. What happens when a decision has not been rendered? The last time I checked the Constitution does not address rights for non US citizens. Yet the ACLU is fighting for their rights without having ever asked the SC what its position would be. I dont consider that democratic.


Read a book.


The amicus curiae question does not refer to you personally. If you were the ACLU whom would ask first, that is, if preservation of the Constitution and democracy was part of your mission?


I would ask myself first, like I did when I declined to represent Doug Hahn.


I will rephrase the segregation statement; It was a no brainer by a certain time.


? The point was that it wasn't a "no brainer" at the time.


Its pretty safe to say that the framers understood that there would be change, but not on that day.


Thanks for the admission. I still don't know what you're talking about.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 57
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 4/8/2009 5:20:03 PM
The fact that they continually attempt to get child porn legalized leads one to only this conclusion...there are some mighty sick individuals who need to be watched carefully in the ACLU.

The fact they tried to stop the execution of ted Bundy and other serial killers whose guilt was not only proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but past ALL doubt, shows the farcical nature of the ACLU in toto.

The fact that they REFUSED to assist the two Border officers who were wrongly convicted of shooting a scumbag drug dealer who recently again was arrested trying to cross the border with massive amounts of drugs shows their real purpose...But guess what, they're representing the DRUG DEALER AGAIN!!

the ACLU has gone from a beneficial agency to one that promotes the WORST sides of human nature..and as such should be disbanded as a criminal danger to society.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 60
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 4/10/2009 1:40:48 PM
You can't really win this argument. McCarthy and Hoover et al won it before we were born. When I was a kid there was a show called "FBI" starring Efram Zimbalist. Apparently they were taken from "real" case files. It showed Efram courageously taking on Communist cells every week. I believed that there were commies everywhere.

McCarthy outed Communists in the entertainment business, but he never subpeoned Lucille Ball. Lucy was a genuine card carrying member of the Communist party as a young woman (she loved her grandfather and he was a member), but she was too popular.

There was a time when the political dialogue in the US was much broader and inclusive. But a concerted effort to demonize the left has brought us to the point where you can accuse a conservative like Obama of being a Socialist and many believe it. The dialogue in the US has become so narrow, and so right wing that you couldn't actually even discuss a leftist issue. The groundwork of understanding necessary to have a conversation wouldn't be understood by one in a thousand.
 where4
Joined: 10/1/2008
Msg: 62
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 4/11/2009 9:58:12 PM

so⋅cial⋅ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Msg. 80:
My point was that the ACLU was and remains a Socialist group.
I do not think Socialism is the answer to our problems.


I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Could you explain what you mean a little better? How was Socialism involved in the Terri Shiavo case? And how is Socialism involved in abortion cases?
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 66
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 4/15/2009 2:35:00 PM
Yeah, we know. And from the beginning the ACLU's mandate in their own internal documents has shown that their WORK is to disable and confound the US Government until it is a Socialist order, or it is destroyed.

Heck, even the History Channel showed that in their show on the ACLU.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 68
The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 4/20/2009 2:56:21 AM
Watch the History Channel episode...then make your own conclusion :)

The WHOLE episode...
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >