In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
ACLU I'm Confused
grumpygy
Member Posts: 48,464 ✭✭✭
Does that not stand for American Civil Liberties Union.
So why are they so concerned about What we do to a Foreigner to protect Americans.
So why are they so concerned about What we do to a Foreigner to protect Americans.
Comments
they hate America, they use the name in vain...on the other hand, without them life would be a lot more restricted, we wouldn't have porn, couldn't say squat without fear of arrest, the rights we enjoy would be gone as fast as the conservatives could take them. the opposite of ACLU is Taliban.
not true at all. porn was in america before the aclu was and you might want to learn a little about history before you accuse "conservatives" of taking away rights
John and Jane Doe, lost a lawsuit one day and ticked off at the judge went out and got council from the ACLU. County was proud and dumb enough to fight that sign getting taken down to the bitter end. County still has no funds, and lawyers made a killing. [V][V][V][V][V]
How's that for a limp weenie?
I have copies of both documents.
American Communist Lawyers Union
You are exactly right.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
Crazy
Lunitics
United
quote:Originally posted by scottm21166
they hate America, they use the name in vain...on the other hand, without them life would be a lot more restricted, we wouldn't have porn, couldn't say squat without fear of arrest, the rights we enjoy would be gone as fast as the conservatives could take them. the opposite of ACLU is Taliban.
not true at all. porn was in america before the aclu was and you might want to learn a little about history before you accuse "conservatives" of taking away rights
And you might want to learn a little about history in general. Opposing the Communist in Spain, Germany, and Italy were the conservative Fascist. They later took away the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for lots of people, but we'll deal with just Americans, okay.
Native Americans (Indians) had land stolen, couldn't vote, and were slaughtered by Conservative Christians both in and outside of government. Intent in ridding the country of heathen savages, they didn't even allow the children to learn the native language.
During WWII, the Nisei (Japanese American US citizens) were herded into concentration camps without compensation for property lost.
Does the right to buy groceries, gasoline, medicine, alcohol, or renting a movie at Blockbuster on a Sunday mean anything to you? Conservatives use to deny (in some places, still do) you those rights with "Blue Laws". They also used to deny the rights to fish or hunt on Sunday.
The Conservative Bush Administration tried to deny you the right to expect reasonable privacy. Even your library card was no longer safe, much less your banking or medical records. They fought the right OF AMERICAN CITIZENS to have an open trial if accused of terrorism, relying instead of star chamber justice in some cases. Remember the case of the lawyer whose fingerprint was misidentified by the FBI? He stayed in jail for quite a long time without recourse.
Robbie, these are just the easy examples of "conservatives" taking away rights. There are millions more.
Perhaps if more people knew what American ideals were, they would understand why the ACLU fights neo Nazis at every turn.
quote:Originally posted by scottm21166
they hate America, they use the name in vain...on the other hand, without them life would be a lot more restricted, we wouldn't have porn, couldn't say squat without fear of arrest, the rights we enjoy would be gone as fast as the conservatives could take them. the opposite of ACLU is Taliban.
not true at all. porn was in america before the aclu was and you might want to learn a little about history before you accuse "conservatives" of taking away rights
I was thinking the very same thing when I read that post...
Other than that, it seems that they always want to protect the little guy's right by taking away EVERYBODY ELSE'S RIGHTS. I can't mention God because HE is an atheist.
So what you are saying is that we don't have to apply our laws fairly to non-citizens? Not a very American thought there, bub.
Since when are non uniformed combatants (not even protected by the Geneva Convention) caught on the battlefield in a foreign country entitled to any protection, American or otherwise?
What part of that do you not understand?
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
quote:Originally posted by robbie penny
quote:Originally posted by scottm21166
they hate America, they use the name in vain...on the other hand, without them life would be a lot more restricted, we wouldn't have porn, couldn't say squat without fear of arrest, the rights we enjoy would be gone as fast as the conservatives could take them. the opposite of ACLU is Taliban.
not true at all. porn was in america before the aclu was and you might want to learn a little about history before you accuse "conservatives" of taking away rights
And you might want to learn a little about history in general. Opposing the Communist in Spain, Germany, and Italy were the conservative Fascist. They later took away the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for lots of people, but we'll deal with just Americans, okay.
Native Americans (Indians) had land stolen, couldn't vote, and were slaughtered by Conservative Christians both in and outside of government. Intent in ridding the country of heathen savages, they didn't even allow the children to learn the native language.
During WWII, the Nisei (Japanese American US citizens) were herded into concentration camps without compensation for property lost.
Does the right to buy groceries, gasoline, medicine, alcohol, or renting a movie at Blockbuster on a Sunday mean anything to you? Conservatives use to deny (in some places, still do) you those rights with "Blue Laws". They also used to deny the rights to fish or hunt on Sunday.
The Conservative Bush Administration tried to deny you the right to expect reasonable privacy. Even your library card was no longer safe, much less your banking or medical records. They fought the right OF AMERICAN CITIZENS to have an open trial if accused of terrorism, relying instead of star chamber justice in some cases. Remember the case of the lawyer whose fingerprint was misidentified by the FBI? He stayed in jail for quite a long time without recourse.
Robbie, these are just the easy examples of "conservatives" taking away rights. There are millions more.
Perhaps if more people knew what American ideals were, they would understand why the ACLU fights neo Nazis at every turn.
Wrong! They ony fight for the rights of certain people whom they deem worthy, like terroriste, minorities & scumbags who think they were wronged bu the courts or some business. They are crooks who waste time & taxpayer money in court to justify their existance.
Nothing good rarely comes from what they do, unless your a worthless bum who sues & gets a fortune cause you didn't like the politics of a business, the Constitution or the Bible.
Once you start making up separate rules for separate people, you start down a slipperly slope. If you are going to say "non uniformed combatants are not entitled to any legal protections", then doesn't that give incentive to find ANY combatant was a "non uniformed combantant?" If we saw an Iraqi soldier, for example, who didn't have a full uniform (how many of them did you see in loafers?), are we to believe that this guy is REALLY a soldier? "He doesn't even have boots! Prove to us he's a uniformed enemy combatant. Until then, we can do what we want!"
What if there is no declaration of war?
I thought all this "legaleese" was what the neo-con men rallied against?
What part of that do YOU not understand?
Since when are non uniformed combatants (not even protected by the Geneva Convention) caught on the battlefield in a foreign country entitled to any protection, American or otherwise?
What part of that do you not understand?
Alpine - what I said is that we need to apply our laws fairly to non-citizens. What you are saying is that there is a class of people to whom you think are entitled to NO legal protection. A class of people to whom ANYTHING is fair game. That's not what Americans do or believe.
Once you start making up separate rules for separate people, you start down a slipperly slope. If you are going to say "non uniformed combatants are not entitled to any legal protections", then doesn't that give incentive to find ANY combatant was a "non uniformed combantant?" If we saw an Iraqi soldier, for example, who didn't have a full uniform (how many of them did you see in loafers?), are we to believe that this guy is REALLY a soldier? "He doesn't even have boots! Prove to us he's a uniformed enemy combatant. Until then, we can do what we want!"
What if there is no declaration of war?
I thought all this "legaleese" was what the neo-con men rallied against?
What part of that do YOU not understand?
Since when are non uniformed combatants (not even protected by the Geneva Convention) caught on the battlefield in a foreign country entitled to any protection, American or otherwise?
What part of that do you not understand?
BS. There are no silppery slopes here, just muddy thinking that the American legal system applies to every Tom, Dick, and Abdul in the world.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
...No, no matter how anyone spins "illegals have rights too"...I DON'T buy, let them have the rights THEIR Country afford them...I could care less about "their rights" if they are illegal.
...IF, the resolution hurts America/Americans, the ACLU will pursue that resolution to the bitter end, they are at the top of the list of groups that hate America.
...The group has used the cover of "fighting for American Rights" for YEARS, they ONLY take cases that would make Jack The Ripper & Joseph Stalin proud; look up their record and see for yourself the garbage they "defend".
...The ACLU and the far left are joined at the hip...[;)]
When she asked the ACLU guy "would you release these pictures if it will get American soldiers killed" he said YES.
Obviousy the ACLU doesn't care about the rights of our service people in a war zone, just the radical left-wingers here at home.
quote:Originally posted by Jgreen
Alpine - what I said is that we need to apply our laws fairly to non-citizens. What you are saying is that there is a class of people to whom you think are entitled to NO legal protection. A class of people to whom ANYTHING is fair game. That's not what Americans do or believe.
Once you start making up separate rules for separate people, you start down a slipperly slope. If you are going to say "non uniformed combatants are not entitled to any legal protections", then doesn't that give incentive to find ANY combatant was a "non uniformed combantant?" If we saw an Iraqi soldier, for example, who didn't have a full uniform (how many of them did you see in loafers?), are we to believe that this guy is REALLY a soldier? "He doesn't even have boots! Prove to us he's a uniformed enemy combatant. Until then, we can do what we want!"
What if there is no declaration of war?
I thought all this "legaleese" was what the neo-con men rallied against?
What part of that do YOU not understand?
Since when are non uniformed combatants (not even protected by the Geneva Convention) caught on the battlefield in a foreign country entitled to any protection, American or otherwise?
What part of that do you not understand?
BS. There are no silppery slopes here, just muddy thinking that the American legal system applies to every Tom, Dick, and Abdul in the world.
As it does when Tom, Dick and Abdul are tried in an American court.
Why are you who are so anti-ACLU so opposed to the rule of law?
Let me ask this:
Why are you who are so anti-ACLU so opposed to the rule of law?
I am not opposed to "the rule of law." What I AM opposed to is all of the frivolous law suits meant to make the majority bow to the minority. In my neck of the woods, there is a disabled lawyer that makes his living by going around and suing business for handicap access. He sues businesses that he has no intention of supporting or patronizing. Many of the businesses that he sues were built long before the ADA imposed guidelines. As far as being up to code, they are grandfathered in, but it costs them so much to fight. I know of one business that has been an icon in the town for decades that just closed their doors because of him.
If I could, I would open a business and put the "We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE" sign right on the door. If he rolled into my business, I would tell him that he is not welcome therefore, I don't need to put a handicap drinking fountain in for him. If he comes in again, it would be trespassing and the cops would be called.
Alas, the things you can't do unless you have money.
Let me ask this:
Why are you who are so anti-ACLU so opposed to the rule of law?
I have not read anything in this thread that would even imply that any here are against the rule of law. This discussion is about an ORGANIZATION that is very selective about what laws and rights it chooses to fight for while ignoring so many other laws/rights.
According to your question, if I oppose PETA then I must hate animals, right (my pets would disagree if they could talk). Or if I don't like ELF because they promote domestic terrorism, then I must be against protecting our environment.
Pretty weak attempt at an argument.
Since when does the majority need a lawsuit to make the minority bow to them? Usually the majority just kicks their * or out votes them.
Good ole Larry Flynt put it very succulently when he said "The First Amendment is not about protecting speech you like, it's about protecting speech you don't like".
All the deep thinkers get this. If you don't, just turn it over in your head until you understand. I personally despise religion that believes in a maternal or paternal god. It causes nothing overall but problems, but the ACLU would step in if the government tried to ban bibles or churches/synagogues. If rednecks were rounded up and put in concentration camps, you can bet your * the ACLU would intercede. They helped a kid that got kicked out of school because his tee shirt had a gun on it. It's not just lowlifes they protect, it's everyone.
Does that not stand for American Civil Liberties Union.
So why are they so concerned about What we do to a Foreigner to protect Americans.
Bingo!
The detainees at GITMO are not American.
quote:Originally posted by robbie penny
quote:Originally posted by scottm21166
they hate America, they use the name in vain...on the other hand, without them life would be a lot more restricted, we wouldn't have porn, couldn't say squat without fear of arrest, the rights we enjoy would be gone as fast as the conservatives could take them. the opposite of ACLU is Taliban.
not true at all. porn was in america before the aclu was and you might want to learn a little about history before you accuse "conservatives" of taking away rights
And you might want to learn a little about history in general. Opposing the Communist in Spain, Germany, and Italy were the conservative Fascist. They later took away the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for lots of people, but we'll deal with just Americans, okay.
Native Americans (Indians) had land stolen, couldn't vote, and were slaughtered by Conservative Christians both in and outside of government. Intent in ridding the country of heathen savages, they didn't even allow the children to learn the native language.
During WWII, the Nisei (Japanese American US citizens) were herded into concentration camps without compensation for property lost.
Does the right to buy groceries, gasoline, medicine, alcohol, or renting a movie at Blockbuster on a Sunday mean anything to you? Conservatives use to deny (in some places, still do) you those rights with "Blue Laws". They also used to deny the rights to fish or hunt on Sunday.
The Conservative Bush Administration tried to deny you the right to expect reasonable privacy. Even your library card was no longer safe, much less your banking or medical records. They fought the right OF AMERICAN CITIZENS to have an open trial if accused of terrorism, relying instead of star chamber justice in some cases. Remember the case of the lawyer whose fingerprint was misidentified by the FBI? He stayed in jail for quite a long time without recourse.
Robbie, these are just the easy examples of "conservatives" taking away rights. There are millions more.
Perhaps if more people knew what American ideals were, they would understand why the ACLU fights neo Nazis at every turn.
I agree. Let's learn a bit about history, and focus on the true oppressors, the actual destroyers of freedom and libery, shall we? Let's look at the extreme far left, those who have and will micro-manage every aspect of peoples' lives - everything citizens eat, drink, smoke, use or consume in any way. Things like groceries, gasoline, medicine, alcohol, and renting a movie from Blockbuster on Sunday or any other day.
Progressives divide the world into victims and exploiters, and see themselves as saviors of the underdogs who are incapable of fending for themselves. And that requires greater government power in their hands, to vanquish the exploiters. Progressives are equal-opportunity oppressors.
Progressives have brought us Prohibition, women's suffrage, the AFL-CIO, the NEA (both National Education Association and National Endowment for the Arts), NAACP, ACLU, immigration "reform," civil rights "reform," and a myriad of things like the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act."
Illegal immigration, like abortion is a cause celebre and Progressives will resist the smallest limitation on the grounds that it might lead to the idea that there are legitimate reasons to control borders.
Progressives offer all sorts of explanations for their bizarre, inefficient, ineffective, illogical, irrational, contradictory, and demonstrably failed theories and policies. But that's just their puppet show; their circuses for public consumption.
The reason for gun registration is not the safety of citizens, Progressives know perfectly well that most legal gun owners are responsible and, in fact, have fewer accidents with firearms than most police departments. They don't care if you get shot by a criminal. They don't care if criminals are the only people with guns. They don't care if the streets are safe or not. They don't care if criminals get brazen and bold like they are now in England & Australia where they have confiscated legal guns. What they do care about is that registering guns gives government more power over more people in more ways. And they know guns in the hands of citizens is a direct threat to their power-lust ambitions.
They don't care about the "Earth". Controlling energy gives them total control of the means of production. Which translates as total control over food, shelter, goods and services. It's the perfect undercover communist/fascist coup - as they wrap themselves in virtue for "saving the planet." Hitler was an "environmentalist" too.
They don't care about endangered species. They care about being able to control private property, the single most important bulwark against government tyranny.
Progressives don't care about children. They care about growing the next generation of zombies who believe in, support and trust Big Government. How can those who run the education system in America care about "the children" when it graduates illiterates, indoctrinates rather than informs, and literally requires that children not think for themselves, that punishes "diverse" thought, that discourages excellence and achievement and competition?
Progressives don't care about women. The only "liberation" they want for mothers is from husbands who could keep them from being dependent on the state.
They don't care about blacks. They only want to keep them on the plantation, voting for Progressives en masse while receiving just enough to keep them ignorant, broken, hungry and angry so they'll believe they need their masters, the Federal Government, to exist, and despise and fear any path that would make them independent - like God, good marriages, children with fathers, pride of accomplishment, respect for education, or a focus beyond race.
Progressives don't care about gays. They only want to break marriage, damage the culture, hurt the morals, virtues and culture of a strong and prosperous middle class - which so undermines totalitarianism.
BTW, there was nothing "conservative" about the Bush Administration, which contributed greatly to the Progressive agenda, and definitely set the stage for our present communist/fascist/globalist administration.