|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 254 of 404:
| 
Jan 18 11:51 UTC 2006 |
rotfl.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 255 of 404:
|
Jan 18 13:35 UTC 2006 |
Well, it's kind of hard to fight it all by yourself. The conservatives
never showed up.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 256 of 404:
|
Jan 18 14:14 UTC 2006 |
I think its funny that Hillary Clinton said the republicans ran the
house of representatives like a "plantation". Its funny because she
didn't seem disgusted, but rather jealous! Jealous because that is
exactly how her party seems to want to run this country...force everyone
to rely on the government welfare, and make it impossible for people to
be independant.
Oh, but its the republicans who disempower people. Riiiiiight. Don't
give me this bull about conservatives now showing up. I know of plenty
who do lot of charitable work for organizations like the Red Cross and
the Salvation Army.
|
jep
|
|
response 257 of 404:
|
Jan 18 17:44 UTC 2006 |
re resp:247: The ACLU's actions are invariably "driven by the tides of
politics (and) spin". I happen to agree with their stance against the
Bush Administration in this case but I don't believe the ACLU would be
doing anything if the administration were Democratic.
The very existence of an ACLU statement makes me question whether I am
in the right when I am on the same side as they are. I have no doubt
they would cheerfully side with terrorists, as they have with Nazis and
criminals, in order to oppose the interests and freedom of honest
Americans.
I wish there was a normal, positive group which was taking credit for
this lawsuit.
|
klg
|
|
response 258 of 404:
|
Jan 18 17:55 UTC 2006 |
Did the ACLU sue President Clinton over his "unauthorized" searches??
|
edina
|
|
response 259 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:09 UTC 2006 |
Re 257 Most of my friends who are in the ACLU (to be honest, I would say
all), don't "cheerfully side with terrorists, Nazis or criminals". They side
with the Constitution. One of the things people never seem to understand is
that believing in free speech for all is to really believe in free speech for
ALL. The right thing and the easy thing are rarely the same.
|
jep
|
|
response 260 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:15 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU doesn't support the 2nd Amendment, which is part of the
Constitution.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 261 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:18 UTC 2006 |
I am opposed to the ideas and actions of "terrorists..... Nazis and
criminals" too, but I also do not think they should be deprived of the
Constutional rights that we all share.
It is amazing that so many people do not comprehend this concept. They
jeopardize their own rights by trying to deny them to others.
This issue reminds me of how the Bush administration people have denied
citizens access to public meetings with Bush if they show signs of being
protesters, and how protesters have been segregated off in remote areas
away from Bush motorcades. If they can use their overt powers to deny
citizens their rights in these ways, think of what they can do when they
engage in secret spying and actions against citizens.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 262 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:34 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU DOES support the 2nd Amendment. Just not the 2nd Amendment with
the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State" removed.
Don't reword the 2nd amendment in order to find a way to oppose the ACLU.
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a
collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to
maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the
central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic
and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or
hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does
not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other
weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such
as licensing and registration."
(from http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html)
|
edina
|
|
response 263 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:42 UTC 2006 |
And heck, I support that and never really understand why others don't....
|
jep
|
|
response 264 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:43 UTC 2006 |
I don't think the Constitution says that Nazis should be able to
intimidate Jewish neighborhoods by hosting parades through them. I
don't think that's what freedom is like.
I strongly agree, and have written many times, that suspected
terrorists deserve trials just as anyone else does. The Constitution
works, it should be strictly followed, and if it is adhered to in all
cases, we will not suffer from it. There is no need and no
justification for the president to ever ignore it or to evade it with
secret arrests, foreign military trials, foreign concentration camps,
or infringing on any of the rights of Americans or others. I can't
imagine you and I disagree by the slightest amount about any of that.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 265 of 404:
|
Jan 18 18:49 UTC 2006 |
resp:256 There you go, completely missing the point. My statement is
just as ridiculous as the one to which I responded.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 266 of 404:
|
Jan 18 19:42 UTC 2006 |
Parades don't intimidate, although the expression of hatred toward others
can be perceived as a threat. There are laws to deal with threats.
|
naftee
|
|
response 267 of 404:
|
Jan 18 19:53 UTC 2006 |
charades can be intimidating, though
|
jep
|
|
response 268 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:17 UTC 2006 |
There can't possibly be a reasonable interpretation of a group like the
Nazis picking a Jewish neighborhood for a parade, other than
intimidation. The obviousness of that conclusion is overwhelming.
The ACLU picked the side of violence and intimidation in that case.
I'll never forget what they chose to support.
|
klg
|
|
response 269 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:20 UTC 2006 |
That's because they are fundamentalist radicals. Maybe it's a good
thing that they're dominated by athiests.
|
twenex
|
|
response 270 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:22 UTC 2006 |
(Wow. That's rich.)
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 271 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:25 UTC 2006 |
*snickers*
|
nharmon
|
|
response 272 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:28 UTC 2006 |
The ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment is a cop-out. The ACLU web
page that Rane is referring to used to say something completely
different. It used to cite Janet Reno's opinion that the 2nd amendment
was a collective one. It granted this opinion A LOT of weight, saying
it was the latest and most relevant legal opinion on the subject. This
tune changed when John Ashcroft issued an opinion that the 2nd amendment
inferred an INDIVIDUAL civil right. Apparently the opinion of the
attorney general carries less weight with the ACLU when a republican is
in office.
The ACLU's position is simply an attempt to strike a balance. A balance
between maintaining their reputation as an organization that defends all
civil rights, while pandering to their leftist membership. Personally,
I would much rather they quietly ignore gun cases that were outside
their political ideology than to go on the offensive against these civil
rights.
The ACLU is quite the political animal when it comes to this issue.
Political because usually when they are confronted with an issue with
little or contradicting judicial precedence, they will fall back on the
position that grants the individual the most rights. However in this
case, they do not do this.
The 2nd Amendment is a right granted to "THE PEOPLE". The U.S.
Constitution makes a distinction between the state, and the people who
are citizens of the state. It is very clear when it refers to what the
state can do, and what the people can do. Just look at the tenth
amendment: Any powers not delegated to the state, are granted to the
people. In the the first amendment, the right of the people to assemble
peacefully is not argued by the ACLU as a right belonging to the state.
In the fourth amendment, the right of the people to be secure in their
persons and papers is not argued by the ACLU as a right belonging to the
state.
However, they decide to make this stand on the 2nd amendment. There can
be made no justification for their stance other than one of political
ideology.
|
klg
|
|
response 273 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:43 UTC 2006 |
(Maybe they don't think it is "settled law" based on mega super duper
precedents.)
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 274 of 404:
|
Jan 18 20:55 UTC 2006 |
"mega super duper precedents"
I don't know why, but that makes me laugh.
|
drew
|
|
response 275 of 404:
|
Jan 18 22:05 UTC 2006 |
They're 'fraid of getting their asses
shot off I guess...
|
cross
|
|
response 276 of 404:
|
Jan 18 23:55 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 277 of 404:
|
Jan 19 00:46 UTC 2006 |
Nathan STILL seems utterly unable to comprehend what ""A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means. He
accepts a dogma in which that doesn't appear in the amendment, and then
argues as though no one can see it there as plain as day.
|
twenex
|
|
response 278 of 404:
|
Jan 19 00:47 UTC 2006 |
More agreement. Ugh! ;-)
|