H'WOOD MORONS

[Fischkoepfin 1]

They do exist but for the most part they believe in a narrow definition of the second amendment, namely the right of the people to bear arms and form militias to defend their country against foreign invasion. Nowhere in the second amendment does it state that you can use your weapons to defend your house but it applies to "the security of the state."

yup, no hunting, no self protection. i just love it. this ain't a perfect world girl.

So you agree with a narrow definition of the second amendment?

This doesn't show how the ACLU is ruining America. As the article you cited states:

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

Thus, the ACLU does not defend NAMBLA or endorse child-molesters but has an issue with the wording of the lawsuit. I'm sure if NAMBLA was sued for stating that sexual abuse of children is ok, they wouldn't interfere.

as cited, they are defending child molesters. that's all that matters to me. and i'd not bet against them defending nambla in any other cases either.

It's a complicated case, and like most legal cases it's extremely nitpicky. It's also an issue on which most people, including myself, are in favor of the parents winning. However, I do think that the ACLU is right in pointing out that if NAMBLA is convicted under this lawsuit you could apply the ruling to all sorts of other organizations, including conservative groups.

[mawilson 2,133]

Maybe the majority of citizens of thes country are Christian, but that should not impact the equality of each individual in front of the law. Thus, if Christians want their religion to become a part of public life, every other religious group has the same right.

Not really, other religions don't have enough representation.

Every other religious group has the right to install their religious symbols in their own schools.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

PS I have never said I hate liberals but when you look at champion like JFK and compare him to modern day liberals, damn.. I see more similarities in Fidel Castro with Bush than JFK to modern democrats

I bet Richard Nixon couldn't get elected in today's Republican party -- too much of a commie pinko liberal

[desert_fox 32]

my apologies to incanada for thinking nobody could be worse than her. we have a new champion!!!!

I thought I was worse.....INCan.....dont try to outdo me.

[Heracles 417]

There is no indication in the U.S constitution that the U.S. is a Christian country and there's a reason for that, namely the founders' belief in a strict separation of church and state which grew out of enlightenment thought and out of the confrontations and wars in Europe in the wake of the Reformation. Maybe the majority of citizens of thes country are Christian, but that should not impact the equality of each individual in front of the law. Thus, if Christians want their religion to become a part of public life, every other religious group has the same right.

Your right. It comes back to being equal which means BOTH views / beliefs should carry equal merit. Neither an atheist nor someone religious should have the right to block the other persons view. Yet, what is happening in the US is if someone is atheists they are pushing their agenda of having nothing religious taught or displayed in public areas. That does not seem "equal" or fair to me..

Hence:

Atheist = no religion (is a view)

Believer = follows religion (is a view)

If all signs of the believer are removed then only the views of the Atheist are being represent. AKA not equal..

Edited August 17, 2006 by Infidel

[Fischkoepfin 1]

What do you understand by the characteristics of Liberalism? And please don't quote here - I want to hear it in your words, not Wikipedias.

You tell me what liberals stand for..... It's an oxymoron question. It's like asking someone to tell you what you stand for..

I have come here from another country with an unpartisan view. Over time the views and actions of the right appeal to me more.. I find it hard to find many nations around the world with similar views and actions of the left, apart from socialist / communist countries but there lies the catch 22. In socialist and communists countries freedom of speech is heavily restricted..

Unpartisan perhaps, but hardly unbiased. In any case, since when did "Liberal" become "Leftist"? Separate positions my friend.

"Liberal" is about as far from "Socialist" and "Communist"; as "Conservative" is from "Fascist".

Exactly. Also, the question was not "what do liberals stand for" but "how have liberals ruined the country?"

And, Infidel, you seem to suggest that you were unpartisan when you arrived here not too long ago. That makes me wonder if you had no political beliefs in Australia and what exactly brought on your current political view?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

well erekose, any comments about that link i posted or are you gonna ignore that?

No I read it, and I agree with you on that particular case, but you can't use one article (and one case) as the fundamental basis for saying that the entire organisation of the ACLU is inherently undermining America's founding values and democratic traditions.

While like any other large organisation, it is not perfect, does not always make the right decisions, but you have to look at its performance on balance over time.

Who else will protect your civil rights, if say, the next president decides that warrantless spying (for instance) is not enough and wants to install cameras in every home.

ok, here is a few more for the non-believers

link1

link2

note this text in the above: When the ACLU wins their attorneys are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by tax-payers.

link3

link4

link 5

link 6 thanks aclu for helping terrorism

Critics also argue that the ACLU has not been consistent in defending all civil liberties, pointing out that it is not active in protecting gun rights. Critics claim gun rights enjoy similar constitutional protection to other civil rights and should be treated equally by the ACLU if it is not motivated by a partisan agenda. The organization declares itself officially "neutral" on the issue of gun control

The group has also come under fire, again mostly from conservative critics, for fighting against Megan’s Law, a law whose supporters say protects children from sex offenders. Though the ACLU has fought Megan’s Law(s) in many states, it has been unable to attain significant victories in these cases.

Some anti-pornography activists, including Nikki Craft and Catharine MacKinnon, who oppose pornography on feminist grounds, are also strong critics of the ACLU;

In addition many leftists, including the Spartacist League (modern) and Liberation News (Internationalist), criticize what they see as a stronger willingness on the part of the ACLU to defend the civil liberties of groups such as the KKK and the American Nazi Party.

Law professor David Bernstein's book "You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws" takes the ACLU to task for frequently seeking to undermine expressive rights when they conflict with antidiscrimination laws, as in the 2000 Supreme Court case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

[incanada1234 0]

my apologies to incanada for thinking nobody could be worse than her. we have a new champion!!!!

I thought I was worse.....INCan.....dont try to outdo me.

Son, you were outdone long ago. Is this going to result in fisticuffs?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Why does religion need to be represented at all in the public sphere?

And from where I'm sitting, more people take time off for Yom Kippu than Good Friday, so I'm not sure the "christian majority" applies.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

They do exist but for the most part they believe in a narrow definition of the second amendment, namely the right of the people to bear arms and form militias to defend their country against foreign invasion. Nowhere in the second amendment does it state that you can use your weapons to defend your house but it applies to "the security of the state."

yup, no hunting, no self protection. i just love it. this ain't a perfect world girl.

So you agree with a narrow definition of the second amendment?

that was sarcasm

It's a complicated case, and like most legal cases it's extremely nitpicky. It's also an issue on which most people, including myself, are in favor of the parents winning. However, I do think that the ACLU is right in pointing out that if NAMBLA is convicted under this lawsuit you could apply the ruling to all sorts of other organizations, including conservative groups.

i don't see other groups being a threat to kids like nambla is. nice try.

[incanada1234 0]

They do exist but for the most part they believe in a narrow definition of the second amendment, namely the right of the people to bear arms and form militias to defend their country against foreign invasion. Nowhere in the second amendment does it state that you can use your weapons to defend your house but it applies to "the security of the state."

yup, no hunting, no self protection. i just love it. this ain't a perfect world girl.

So you agree with a narrow definition of the second amendment?

that was sarcasm

Don't expect her to get it.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

There is no indication in the U.S constitution that the U.S. is a Christian country and there's a reason for that, namely the founders' belief in a strict separation of church and state which grew out of enlightenment thought and out of the confrontations and wars in Europe in the wake of the Reformation. Maybe the majority of citizens of thes country are Christian, but that should not impact the equality of each individual in front of the law. Thus, if Christians want their religion to become a part of public life, every other religious group has the same right.

Your right. It comes back to being equal which means BOTH views / beliefs should carry equal merit. Neither an atheist nor someone religious should have the right to block the other persons view. Yet, what is happening in the US is if someone is atheists they are pushing their agenda of having nothing religious taught or displayed in public areas. That does not seem "equal" or fair to me..

Hence:

Atheist = no religion (is a view)

Believer = follows religion (is a view)

If all signs of the believer are removed then only the views of the Atheist are being represent. AKA not equal..

As I said earlier, the reason behind preventing the display of Christian symbols is pragmatic rather than an indication of one side having more say than the other. Assuming that the absence of religious symbols from public buildings indicates that the Atheists won overlooks that the idea is to maintain a secular state in which religion is private. It is not as if all mention of a higher being is replaced by banners stating "There is no God." The truly atheist state would discourage any form of religion being practiced.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

They do exist but for the most part they believe in a narrow definition of the second amendment, namely the right of the people to bear arms and form militias to defend their country against foreign invasion. Nowhere in the second amendment does it state that you can use your weapons to defend your house but it applies to "the security of the state."

yup, no hunting, no self protection. i just love it. this ain't a perfect world girl.

So you agree with a narrow definition of the second amendment?

that was sarcasm

Don't expect her to get it.

i don't expect her to. she probably thinks the police will be there as soon as she calls 911

As I said earlier, the reason behind preventing the display of Christian symbols is pragmatic rather than an indication of one side having more say than the other. Assuming that the absence of religious symbols from public buildings indicates that the Atheists won overlooks that the idea is to maintain a secular state in which religion is private. It is not as if all mention of a higher being is replaced by banners stating "There is no God." The truly atheist state would discourage any form of religion being practiced.

that's nice. now recall all of our money as that offends people

[Heracles 417]

And, Infidel, you seem to suggest that you were unpartisan when you arrived here not too long ago. That makes me wonder if you had no political beliefs in Australia and what exactly brought on your current political view?

yes. Australia had a left wing socialists (east germany) style of government for 13 years. Wages grew a mere 0.1 percent over that time.

For the past 10 years the government has been right wing. Wages have grown over 16%. Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. 1 in 110 Australians is a multi-millionaire. So I would say yes I would be inclined to seek a government who has similar opportunistic, realist and conservative views..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah, why can't liberals answer simple questions?

The problem in your statement is the inherent, unquestioned assumption that I am a liberal. While I may have leanings that way on some issues - its hardly a representative label that encompasses my views. It does however, say something about the skewed nature of the debate that people who hold anything less than absolute views are consistently mischaracterised and essentially forced to defend positions that they don't necessarily agree with.