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
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 41
The Dangerous ACLUPage 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
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  >