Treason/ the A.C.L.U.

[Nathan Poe]

Why do you hate America?

What have you got against the constitution?

Are you kidding? Have you seen his C.S.A. thread? Shield hates the Constitution.

 

[NotreDame]

The vileness of the a.c.l.u. is documented.

Their hatred for the U.S. is legendary.

They should be arrested for Treason, and sentenced accordingly.

This is right and good.

The time to act is now, before we have not country left.

What are you basing this paranoia upon?

 

[NotreDame]

double post

 

[NotreDame]

Well, that does seem to me to be a pretty blatant church and state entanglement violating the first amendment.

Pray do tell how a public display of a cross constitutes as state entanglement with the church? Or are you completely unaware of the secular history of the cross, and secular uses of the cross today? Or do you want to continue to erroneously assume the cross only has one purpose, one of a religious nature?

 

[mont974x4]

The word I forgot was "beliefs".


How many cases do you need to hear about the ACLU in lawsuits because of nativity scenes or Christmas carols?




prayer?
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives...esboro-high-school-over-prayer-at-graduation/


oddly enough they supported forcing 12 years old to not simply learn about Islam, but to take muslim names and pray islamic prayers.


As to the history of the aclu....below is an exerpt from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959


One of the great myths of the 20th – and now 21st – century is the belief that the American Civil Liberties Union was an organization that had a noble beginning, but somehow strayed off course.
That myth is untrue. The ACLU set a course to destroy America – her freedom and her values – right from the start.
From its very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU's devotion to communism. A report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.
​

Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.
Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
​

 

[tulc]

ShieldofFaith pwned again

Careful! Someones going to bring the
"SMACKDOWN!! YE HAWW!!!" (tm) on your pagan self.
tulc(remember: never poke the The Lawgivva!!)

 

[mont974x4]

maybe the aclu is just confused?

"The ACLU is obviously engaged in religious bigotry ? in cases concerning homosexual groups, they argue that Prince fully applies, but now, when it clearly applies, using the ACLU's own standard, to a religious club, they are seeking to overturn the Prince decision," he said.

http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=159

 

[tulc]

The word I forgot was "beliefs".


How many cases do you need to hear about the ACLU in lawsuits because of nativity scenes or Christmas carols?




prayer?
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives...esboro-high-school-over-prayer-at-graduation/


oddly enough they supported forcing 12 years old to not simply learn about Islam, but to take muslim names and pray islamic prayers.


As to the history of the aclu....below is an exerpt from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

Editor's note: Be sure to get your copy of Alan Sears' powerful new book, "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values."



One of the great myths of the 20th – and now 21st – century is the belief that the American Civil Liberties Union was an organization that had a noble beginning, but somehow strayed off course.
That myth is untrue. The ACLU set a course to destroy America – her freedom and her values – right from the start.
From its very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU's devotion to communism. A report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.
​

Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.
Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
​

Hmmm so a group of people who were having their freedom of speech curtailed (communists in 1930's America) got together with other suppressed groups to fight for not only their but other peoples rights? Oh yeah, how un-American of them.
tulc(they're still going today, where's HUWAC?)

 

[mont974x4]

If they just worked to protect their rights I would have no issue. However, the stated goal of taking over our nation to make it communist, I can not support. Nor can I ignore all their lawsuits against Christian prayers while pretending to be for all free speach and free expression.

 

[jayem]

Or are you completely unaware of the secular history of the cross, and secular uses of the cross today? Or do you want to continue to erroneously assume the cross only has one purpose, one of a religious nature?

Well, the Red Cross is a secular image, but that is a block-type plus sign. AFAIK, the upright Latin Cross (three short arms with the lower one elongated) is pretty much only used as a symbol of religious faith. (Though I believe it did have pagan roots.) Today, does it have any non-religious associations?

I'm a non-believer, but personally I think that the ACLU sometimes gets a bit hung up on purely ceremonial religiosity. Just not that big a deal to me. I'd actually favor a different approach. If a city building displayed a cross, I'd try to find a Jewish or Muslim citizen (or better yet, both) to file suit and force the city to also display a Star of David and an Islamic crescent. And both would have to be just as large and just as prominent. It would still get the point across. And I think that actually would be more in keeping with the idea that government must show no preference to any lawful religion.

 

[mont974x4]

obviously there's a few that I would agree with, however, by and large they stand against the things I hold dear as a Christian and avid defender of the Constitution.

The ACLU has for years been a controversial organization by nature,[52] with most of their support coming from the left and opposition from the right. The reasons for opposition are varied, although conservatives often view the ACLU stance of separation of church and state as anti-religious,[53] and their defense of both accused and convicted criminals as undermining law and order. Furthermore, the nature of the ACLU is that they defend even the most unpopular forms of speech and expression, notably those with which most other organizations would not wish to associate themselves. Often, its clients are notoriously unpopular such as Neo-Nazi organizations and the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group which supports lifting all age restrictions on pederasty. In the case of NAMBLA, the ACLU's Massachusetts affiliate represented the organization, on first amendment grounds, in a wrongful death civil suit that was based solely on the fact that a man who raped and murdered a child had visited the NAMBLA website.[54] Although the ACLU does not endorse NAMBLA's message, its defense of the group has been widely criticized. Additionally the ACLU has initiated several court cases involving government funding of organizations that discriminate against homosexuals and atheists, prominently including the Boy Scouts of America.[55]
Among the most notable controversial cases which involved the American Civil Liberties Union are the following:

• The ACLU currently opposes, under the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, the retroactive application of Megan’s Law (which requires law enforcement authorities to identify convicted sex offenders to the public at large through various media outlets) to persons convicted before the law was passed.[56][57] The ACLU initially opposed the bill in its entirety, considering it "misguided political posturing that [would] do nothing to reduce sex crimes,"[58] but has not advocated that position recently.
• The ACLU also defended Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North,[54] whose conviction was tainted by coerced testimony — a violation of his fifth amendment rights.[59]
• The ACLU fought for the Westboro Baptist Church and Shirley Phelps-Roper after legislation prevented the group from picketing outside of veteran's funerals.[60] The Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for their picket signs that contain messages such as, "God Hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11." The ACLU issued a statement calling the legislation a "law that infringes on Shirley Phelps-Roper's rights to religious liberty and free speech."[61] The suit was successful. [62]
• The ACLU has filed 6 lawsuits against the Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana school board over what the group sees as teacher-led prayer in school activities.[63]
• The ACLU defended Frank Snepp, formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency, from an attempt by the government agency to enforce a gag order against him.[64]
• The ACLU has aided the Florida Justice Institute and WriteAPrisoner.com in supporting prisoner's rights, especially what the ACLU sees as the First Amendment right to post online profiles seeking pen pals during their incarceration and jobs upon their release.
• In 2006, the ACLU of Washington state and the Second Amendment Foundation jointly filed a lawsuit[65] against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington State for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access pro-gun web sites were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks.

Much ACLU work is done in the political arena where it faces frequent controversy as well.

• The ACLU has been a vocal opponent of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the PATRIOT 2 Act of 2003, and associated legislation made in response to the threat of domestic terrorism. The ACLU believes such legislation violates either the letter or the spirit of the U.S. Bill of Rights. In response to a requirement of the USA PATRIOT Act, the ACLU withdrew from the Combined Federal Campaign.[66] The requirement was that ACLU employees must be checked against a federal anti-terrorism watch list. The ACLU has stated that it would "reject $500,000 in contributions from private individuals rather than submit to a government 'blacklist' policy."[66]

See also: American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2004)

• The ACLU opposes the use of capital punishment, calling it "the ultimate denial of civil liberties."[67] The ACLU claims that the death penalty is unfairly applied to racial minorities and the poor, and considers it "cruel and unusual" punishment.[68] The organization often opposes executions on the grounds that the present method of lethal injection sometimes goes awry.[69]

• The ACLU's position on spam is considered controversial by a broad cross-section of political points of view. In 2000, Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such: "Standardized labeling is compelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete."[70] The debate found the ACLU joining with the Direct Marketing Association and the Center for Democracy and Technology in criticizing a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives in 2000. As early as 1997 the ACLU had taken a strong position that nearly all spam legislation was improper,[71] although it has supported "opt-out" requirements in some cases. The ACLU opposed the 2003 CAN-SPAM act[72] suggesting that it could have a chilling effect on speech in cyberspace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU

 

[Nathan Poe]

obviously there's a few that I would agree with, however, by and large they stand against the things I hold dear as a Christian and avid defender of the Constitution.

I've often wondered if those two things could peacefully coexist on these boards.

The ACLU has for years been a controversial organization by nature,[52] with most of their support coming from the left and opposition from the right.

No argument -- so what?

The reasons for opposition are varied, although conservatives often view the ACLU stance of separation of church and state as anti-religious,[53] and their defense of both accused and convicted criminals as undermining law and order.

Well, conservatives can believe whatever they want about religion -- so long as they don't insist I foot the bill.

Aren't accused criminals supposed to be defended? And if defending convicted criminals is so wrong, why does our Judicial system have an appeals process?

Furthermore, the nature of the ACLU is that they defend even the most unpopular forms of speech and expression, notably those with which most other organizations would not wish to associate themselves.

So, only popular people get Constutional rights? It is the unpopular -- but still completely legal -- forms of expression which get their rights violated the most, and thus need organizations such as the ACLU.

Often, its clients are notoriously unpopular such as Neo-Nazi organizations and the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a group which supports lifting all age restrictions on pederasty. In the case of NAMBLA, the ACLU's Massachusetts affiliate represented the organization, on first amendment grounds, in a wrongful death civil suit that was based solely on the fact that a man who raped and murdered a child had visited the NAMBLA website.[54]

And thus we learned that Websites don't create pedophiles. As dispicable as NAMBLA is, there's no justice to be gained for punishing them for something they didn't cause.

Although the ACLU does not endorse NAMBLA's message, its defense of the group has been widely criticized. Additionally the ACLU has initiated several court cases involving government funding of organizations that discriminate against homosexuals and atheists, prominently including the Boy Scouts of America.[55]

Last I checked, discrimination was wrong. Furthermore, it is illegal for an organizatyion which receives government support (Such as the BSA) to practice discrimination.

Among the most notable controversial cases which involved the American Civil Liberties Union are the following:

• The ACLU currently opposes, under the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, the retroactive application of Megan’s Law (which requires law enforcement authorities to identify convicted sex offenders to the public at large through various media outlets) to persons convicted before the law was passed.[56][57] The ACLU initially opposed the bill in its entirety, considering it "misguided political posturing that [would] do nothing to reduce sex crimes,"[58] but has not advocated that position recently.

Laws are not, as a rule, retroactive. You can't arrest people who drank alcohol before prohibition was legislated.

• The ACLU also defended Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North,[54] whose conviction was tainted by coerced testimony — a violation of his fifth amendment rights.[59]

Coerced testimony is legally inadmissable -- Law school 101. Where;s the problem?

• The ACLU fought for the Westboro Baptist Church and Shirley Phelps-Roper after legislation prevented the group from picketing outside of veteran's funerals.[60] The Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for their picket signs that contain messages such as, "God Hates [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11." The ACLU issued a statement calling the legislation a "law that infringes on Shirley Phelps-Roper's rights to religious liberty and free speech."[61] The suit was successful. [62]

As despicable as I find the WBC, the First Amendment applies to them as well. Besides, I'd rather have the religious kooks up on their soapboxes so we can all get a good laugh at them.

• The ACLU has filed 6 lawsuits against the Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana school board over what the group sees as teacher-led prayer in school activities.[63]

Because teacher-led prayer in public schools is illegal. Who didn't know this?

• The ACLU defended Frank Snepp, formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency, from an attempt by the government agency to enforce a gag order against him.[64]

Why was the gag order sought in the first place?

• The ACLU has aided the Florida Justice Institute and WriteAPrisoner.com in supporting prisoner's rights, especially what the ACLU sees as the First Amendment right to post online profiles seeking pen pals during their incarceration and jobs upon their release.

sounds like a good step towards rehabilitation.

• In 2006, the ACLU of Washington state and the Second Amendment Foundation jointly filed a lawsuit[65] against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington State for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access pro-gun web sites were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks.

The ACLU's stance on the second amendment is ambivilent -- they may not like guns, but that doesn't mean people can't be allowed to talk about them.

Much ACLU work is done in the political arena where it faces frequent controversy as well.

Most of the more egregious violations of our liberties occurs in the political arena. You go where the action is.

• The ACLU has been a vocal opponent of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the PATRIOT 2 Act of 2003, and associated legislation made in response to the threat of domestic terrorism. The ACLU believes such legislation violates either the letter or the spirit of the U.S. Bill of Rights. In response to a requirement of the USA PATRIOT Act, the ACLU withdrew from the Combined Federal Campaign.[66] The requirement was that ACLU employees must be checked against a federal anti-terrorism watch list. The ACLU has stated that it would "reject $500,000 in contributions from private individuals rather than submit to a government 'blacklist' policy."[66]

Blacklists? I thought those went out with McCarthy. Everything old is new again, I suppose.

• The ACLU opposes the use of capital punishment, calling it "the ultimate denial of civil liberties."[67] The ACLU claims that the death penalty is unfairly applied to racial minorities and the poor, and considers it "cruel and unusual" punishment.[68] The organization often opposes executions on the grounds that the present method of lethal injection sometimes goes awry.[69]

I personally disagree with the ACLU on this one, although I do say that capital punishment is never something that should be considered lightly.

• The ACLU's position on spam is considered controversial by a broad cross-section of political points of view. In 2000, Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such: "Standardized labeling is compelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete."[70] The debate found the ACLU joining with the Direct Marketing Association and the Center for Democracy and Technology in criticizing a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives in 2000. As early as 1997 the ACLU had taken a strong position that nearly all spam legislation was improper,[71] although it has supported "opt-out" requirements in some cases. The ACLU opposed the 2003 CAN-SPAM act[72] suggesting that it could have a chilling effect on speech in cyberspace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU

Censoring the Internet is impossible, and any attempt to do so would simply be a massive waste of time and tax dollars.

So, where's the problem with the ACLU? Looks to me like they're on the side of enforcing the law -- fairly and equally.

 

[NotreDame]

Well, the Red Cross is a secular image, but that is a block-type plus sign. AFAIK, the upright Latin Cross (three short arms with the lower one elongated) is pretty much only used as a symbol of religious faith. (Though I believe it did have pagan roots.) Today, does it have any non-religious associations?

I'm a non-believer, but personally I think that the ACLU sometimes gets a bit hung up on purely ceremonial religiosity. Just not that big a deal to me. I'd actually favor a different approach. If a city building displayed a cross, I'd try to find a Jewish or Muslim citizen (or better yet, both) to file suit and force the city to also display a Star of David and an Islamic crescent. And both would have to be just as large and just as prominent. It would still get the point across. And I think that actually would be more in keeping with the idea that government must show no preference to any lawful religion.

The last paragraph rests upon the assumption the cross is a purely religious symbol, which it is not. The cross is also a secular symbol used in a secular manner, not a religious one. So the mere fact a town has displayed a cross does not make the cross a religious symbol, such that other religious symbols must be displayed.

In addition, your assumption the government shows no preference to religion by publicly displaying an assortment of religious symbols is problematic. The argument can and has successfully been made any display of religious symbols, whether one or twenty, is a religious preference for religion, and the religious, unless the context deprives it of its religious character.

 

[imind]

The ACLU was started by a self professed communist with teh stated goal of taking the US down from within the system.

it may be true they had roots in communism, but to suggest they intended to take down the US is absurd. their orgins are, of course, irrelevant to the work they do today.

How active their active attempts to censor Christians at every turn while giving every other faith group a pass?

rubbish. here are some examples...

ACLU Defends Christian Librarian Disciplined for Refusing to Promote Harry Potter

ACLU Defends Christian Worker Required to Remove Bible from Desk at Government Job

ACLU Defends Right of Individual Christian to Display Nativity Scene on Public Property

ACLU Defends Christians Protesting Gay Rights in Florida

ACLU Champions Religious Freedom Of Mormon College Student

ACLU Fights for Christian Church's Mission to Feed the Poor

ACLU Fights for Christmas Tree

ACLU Files Suit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protesting Wal-Mart's Policy on Gays

ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services

ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison

ACLU of WA Wins Right of Christian Minister to Preach in Spokane Plaza

ACLU Fights for Baptist Preacher in Illinois

ACLU Defends Rights of Christian Group to Make Religious Protest at Funerals

ACLU Backs Christian Abortion Protester in Ohio

ACLU of Oregon Defends Religious Liberty Of Adventist School Boys Basketball Players

ACLU Backs Missouri Nurse Penalized for Wearing Cross-Shaped Lapel Pin

ACLU Defends Christian Street Preacher in Las Vegas

ACLU Argues for Legal Recognition of Small Christian Church

ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln

ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways

ACLU Defends Inmate's Access to Material from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

ACLU Defends Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Florida Cemetery

ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

ACLU Argument In Support of the Display of a Christian Cross in a Public Forum

ACLU Defends Free Speech Rights of Christians And Others On Main Street Plaza

ACLU Defends Prisoner's Rosary Beads

ACLU Defends Christian Group's Anti-Abortion Ads On Phoenix Buses

ACLU Pledges to Back Church in a Zoning Battle

ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American Baptist Church

ACLU Offers To Represent Private Prayer on Public Property and

ACLU Joins Falwell To Fight For Church Incorporation Rights

link

and trying to force the removel of crosses and Christian symbols from veterans graves.

this never happened. please stop spreading lies.

"The ACLU is obviously engaged in religious bigotry ? in cases concerning homosexual groups, they argue that Prince fully applies, but now, when it clearly applies, using the ACLU's own standard, to a religious club, they are seeking to overturn the Prince decision," he said.

http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?nam...owpage&pid=159

nonsense.the group at this school wants to discriminate based on religious beliefs. the two cases are in no way similar...

In July 2006, the ACLU submitted an amicus brief supporting a lower court ruling that upheld the school district’s actions. The court found that the Bible club, by forcing students to take a religious test to become voting members, discriminated against students of other religions. The ACLU pointed out that school officials were not violating any rights of the student group, because it could still meet and hold activities at school.

link

again, please stop spreading lies.

by and large they stand against the things I hold dear as a Christian and avid defender of the Constitution.

please, be specific.

 

[Shadowfax503]

The ACLU may not get it right every time but as an American and a Christian I am glad they stand up and try.

The separation of church and state thing I think they take a bit too far sometimes but I do understand where they are coming from.

Remember our founders may have been of the Christian faith but they wanted to make sure that government NEVER censored or mandated religious expression of any kind. (well maybe not human sacrifice).

Most Christians view the ACLU as this big mean anti-Christian group when they really are not. What they are is a group that sticks up for the constitutional rights of the minority. Just because I live in a predominately Christian nation does not mean I have to follow all the tenets of that faith. Our constitution gives us the right to choose if we want to follow that faith or any faith.
The problem is alot of Christians think that because our founders were Christian and most Americans are Christian then having Christian things and services and symbols everywhere in the government is ok. Well our government is a democratic republic not a theocracy. Therefore government (from the Federal to the Local) should not favor one form of religion over another.
As long as we can still worship in the manner we choose I see no problem with what the ACLU does.

Also the ACLU has defended many Christians on their right to express their Christian religion.

 

[Sphere]

Treason has a legal definition. And seeing the the radicalized anti-American far-right use it incorrectly is very amusing.

Especially when the guy using it incorrectly--admittedly loathes the United States and the Constitution.

Luckily, the United States will never become a theocracy where Christification camps open the doors for mass executions/forced conversions of unbelievers, and where the looney religious far-right can destroy the Constitution and trample human rights.

ShieldOFaith would be much happier living in Iran.

 

[Harpuia]

The vileness of the a.c.l.u. is documented.

Their hatred for the U.S. is legendary.

They should be arrested for Treason, and sentenced accordingly.

This is right and good.

The time to act is now, before we have not country left.

Yet four months ago, you wanted to create the CSA and break away from the U.S.

And this is not treason?

 

[tulc]

Yet four months ago, you wanted to create the CSA and break away from the U.S.

And this is not treason?

uhmmm actually, that thread is still going, in it's 3rd thread
tulc(it's like the longest train wreck in history but you can't look away)

 

[Harpuia]

uhmmm actually, that thread is still going, in it's 3rd thread
tulc(it's like the longest train wreck in history but you can't look away)

...

...

You're kidding.

 

[tulc]

...

...

You're kidding.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7185446
tulc(check it out)