H'WOOD MORONS

[Fuzzness 2]

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

Who? Infidel? What's he worse about?

being pig headed

at least today he is much worse since we seem to have been in agreement twice today!

[incanada1234 0]

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.

You pretty consistently take a liberal stance. So is it REALLY a surprise that we would call you a liberal?

being pig headed

at least today he is much worse since we seem to have been in agreement twice today!

Well I told you to stop that!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

To suggest for instance, that the ACLU is encouraging terrorism by opposing wireless surveillance is an extremely narrow view - you assume:

1) That wireless surveillance is necessary to combat terrorism.

2) That people shouldn't be concerned by the erosion of previous protected freedoms.

3) That people who oppose that legislation have a direct affinity for terrorists and terrorist ideology.

What is the point? That in a democratic society all of these issues are open to interpretation and public debate. While to some that may appear to be a 'weakness' it is nonetheless in keeping with the democratic traditions of this country. Again there is Straussian philosophy at work here.

[Heracles 417]

To suggest for instance, that the ACLU is encouraging terrorism by opposing wireless surveillance is an extremely narrow view - you assume:

1) That wireless surveillance is necessary to combat terrorism.

2) That people shouldn't be concerned by the erosion of previous protected freedoms.

3) That people who oppose that legislation have a direct affinity for terrorists and terrorist ideology.

What is the point? That in a democratic society all of these issues are open to interpretation and public debate. While to some that may appear to be a 'weakness' it is nonetheless in keeping with the democratic traditions of this country. Again there is Straussian philosophy at work here.

yes. the US is the only nation to publicly tell the terrorists everything they are doing.. If the UK had the same laws as the US these scum bags would have never been caught, period!

it seems people still don't get the notion of a post 9/11 world.. Everyone else in the world does but the ACLU and left does not..

[Fuzzness 2]

being pig headed

at least today he is much worse since we seem to have been in agreement twice today!

Well I told you to stop that!

yeah you're right I shouldn't be saying such things

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You pretty consistently take a liberal stance. So is it REALLY a surprise that we would call you a liberal?

Not really - but from the way you consistently refuse to engage in actual reasoned debate I don't think you know what Liberal actually means (to be able to apply it to specific issues). You don't use that label as a means of objectively assessing contrary viewpoints, but as an insult for any person and position that doesn't agree with yours. Hence - "intellectually dishonest"

Edited August 17, 2006 by erekose

[desert_fox 32]

You pretty consistently take a liberal stance. So is it REALLY a surprise that we would call you a liberal?

Not really - but from the way you consistently refuse to engage in actual reasoned debate I don't think you know what Liberal actually means (to be able to apply it to specific issues). You don't use that label as a means of objectively assessing contrary viewpoints, but as an insult for any person and position that doesn't agree with yours. Hence - "intellectually dishonest"

Probably would help if we ever knew what your real position is on anything. Always the same wet noodle no position argument without ever stating where you stand on anything, that could even remotely be used as a basis of any debate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To suggest for instance, that the ACLU is encouraging terrorism by opposing wireless surveillance is an extremely narrow view - you assume:

1) That wireless surveillance is necessary to combat terrorism.

2) That people shouldn't be concerned by the erosion of previous protected freedoms.

3) That people who oppose that legislation have a direct affinity for terrorists and terrorist ideology.

What is the point? That in a democratic society all of these issues are open to interpretation and public debate. While to some that may appear to be a 'weakness' it is nonetheless in keeping with the democratic traditions of this country. Again there is Straussian philosophy at work here.

yes. the US is the only nation to publicly tell the terrorists everything they are doing.. If the UK had the same laws as the US these scum bags would have never been caught, period!

it seems people still don't get the notion of a post 9/11 world.. Everyone else in the world does but the ACLU and left does not..

The post 9/11 world - a slow, deliberate embracement of nationalism. Great.

What's your point? That one catastrophic event is reason enough to justify throwing away our freedoms (after all, that's what the terrorists want no?) and undermining our democratic traditions. We already have a shallow pretense of democracy, some appear to want it to be less of a pretense.

More to the point - historically speaking, has abandoning civil rights and democratic traditions ever ended well? Historically speaking, what is the track record for government's giving back those surrendered freedoms? In short, its not encouraging.

People are quick to accuse others of partisanship - but in doing so they ingnore the historically proven fact that its not always the guy in power you have to worry about (GWB will be out of office in a couple of years), it’s the guy who comes after him.

Once you fundamentally weaken your constitutional values you are on a very slippery slope.

You pretty consistently take a liberal stance. So is it REALLY a surprise that we would call you a liberal?

Not really - but from the way you consistently refuse to engage in actual reasoned debate I don't think you know what Liberal actually means (to be able to apply it to specific issues). You don't use that label as a means of objectively assessing contrary viewpoints, but as an insult for any person and position that doesn't agree with yours. Hence - "intellectually dishonest"

Probably would help if we ever knew what your real position is on anything. Always the same wet noodle no position argument without ever stating where you stand on anything, that could even remotely be used as a basis of any debate.

What are you unclear about from my posts in this thread?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

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

Nixon, maybe. After all, he is the idol of the neocons in power. Eisenhower, T. Roosevelt, or Lincoln, no way!

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

Back to insults, or what? It must feel good to think that people you disagree with are stupid.

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

Alright. Where's the money I'm paying for all the things I don't want?

Edited August 17, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

To suggest for instance, that the ACLU is encouraging terrorism by opposing wireless surveillance is an extremely narrow view - you assume:

1) That wireless surveillance is necessary to combat terrorism.

2) That people shouldn't be concerned by the erosion of previous protected freedoms.

3) That people who oppose that legislation have a direct affinity for terrorists and terrorist ideology.

What is the point? That in a democratic society all of these issues are open to interpretation and public debate. While to some that may appear to be a 'weakness' it is nonetheless in keeping with the democratic traditions of this country. Again there is Straussian philosophy at work here.

you assume it's not necessary. apparently 911 was forgotten by you.

concern? feel free to be concerned. i doubt they monitor you or i, and i have nothing to hide. do you?

never said that those who oppose said legislation have a direct affinity for terrorists. you're putting words in my mouth there. i do find those that oppose it to be living in a fairy tale land though.

the point is obviously lost on you so i won't waste more of my time.

Probably would help if we ever knew what your real position is on anything. Always the same wet noodle no position argument without ever stating where you stand on anything, that could even remotely be used as a basis of any debate.

nailing erekose down on any topic is just slightly easier than nailing jelly to the ceiling.

[desert_fox 32]

Please give us Jimmy Carter back,.....I was getting 18% a year on a simple money market acount.

Other than his habitat for humanity...he was pretty much a joke and the Demos have suffered ever since.

JFK???////hmmm///great??? Berlin Wall, wimped out on Cuba, committed troops to Viet Nam, had no idea about civil rights as he was never exposed to any such concept sailing his boat at Cape Code...great moral leader only to be outdone by Billy Boy.......the only good Demo in the last 60 years were FDR and Harry Truman.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

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..

Australia had an East German-style of government? Does that mean the country was part of the Eastern Bloc and accountable to the Soviet Union and could expect a Soviet invasion at any indication the government was crumbling? Did you have a secret service relying on the services of about 10% of the population to inform on subversive elements? Did you have fake elections in which only parties approved by the Soviet Union were running? Was your economy plan-based?

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

Back to insults, or what? It must feel good to think that people you disagree with are stupid.

where i live the response time is 30 minutes on average. do you think i should have to endure some robber for 30 minutes or more trying to rob or kill me? apparently you do. so if you think you sound stupid, you probably are.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To suggest for instance, that the ACLU is encouraging terrorism by opposing wireless surveillance is an extremely narrow view - you assume:

1) That wireless surveillance is necessary to combat terrorism.

2) That people shouldn't be concerned by the erosion of previous protected freedoms.

3) That people who oppose that legislation have a direct affinity for terrorists and terrorist ideology.

What is the point? That in a democratic society all of these issues are open to interpretation and public debate. While to some that may appear to be a 'weakness' it is nonetheless in keeping with the democratic traditions of this country. Again there is Straussian philosophy at work here.

you assume it's not necessary. apparently 911 was forgotten by you.

concern? feel free to be concerned. i doubt they monitor you or i, and i have nothing to hide. do you?

never said that those who oppose said legislation have a direct affinity for terrorists. you're putting words in my mouth there. i do find those that oppose it to be living in a fairy tale land though.

the point is obviously lost on you so i won't waste more of my time.

As you will.

i doubt they monitor you or i, and i have nothing to hide. do you?

Why should I have to have anything to hide? I see no reason why it should be assumed that because I value my privacy I must be "up to something".

never said that those who oppose said legislation have a direct affinity for terrorists. you're putting words in my mouth there. i do find those that oppose it to be living in a fairy tale land though.

Fair do's - but I consider "fairytale" the unwillingness to distrust the government when it comes to matters of economic policy (healthcare, taxation etc) but trust them implicitly when it comes to your privacy and constitutional rights.

Incidentally did you know that the Bush govt is trying to federalise control of the national guard and take it away from state govt? I'll have to find the article...

you assume it's not necessary. apparently 911 was forgotten by you.

And here you put words in my mouth. I don't assume anything - I just don't agree that legislation should be hurriedly forced through (by hook or by crook) with the merest pretense of discussion. The govt after all refused to implement many of the 9/11 commission reccommendations - did it not? Is it unreasonable to be sceptical?

nailing erekose down on any topic is just slightly easier than nailing jelly to the ceiling.

Again, feel free to point out which views of mine in this thread are ambiguous or unclear.

[pedroh 21]

i agree with erekose here.. defending my civil liberties doesn't mean i'm hiding something.. is just a basic right i have and will defend it, just because, yes.. just because..

on the other hand.. no.. USA has never been State-Church, Christians don't have more rights to be represented just because they are the majority.. my question here is.. why can't US adopt the religious latin-american model.. as you know.. almost 90% of latin-america is catholic.. but they also have a strict separation of church and state.. and noone complains about it.. so what's the big protestan fuzz about it..

also.. lay state doesn't mean the supporters of this separation of church or state are atheists... Benito Juarez, the biggest symbol of this separation, was a Mason.. not an atheist..