The ACLU is widely viewed as a "dem and lib" organization.
"Dems and libs" are not at all afraid of defending the constitution. It is one of our primary goals.....
"Dems and libs" are not at all afraid of defending the constitution. It is one of our primary goals.....
I'm reminded of a clip on the Daily Show a few nights back. Showing just how far the Republican Party has come:
Postcards From the Pledge - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 9/23/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
John Boehner's word-for-word repetition of the same talking points from 12 years ago was brilliant.
I, too, consider the ACLU to be a "dem" and "lib" organization, and yet have supported it over the years in spite of that.
My unhappiness with the ACLU, as well as other organizations that are ostensibly non-partiian such as SPLC and Common Cause (both of which I originally supported) act in a very partisan manner. They run to the barricades and act quickly and very publicly when defending cases that are seen as benefiting Dems/Libs, but stand on the sidelines or reluctantly defend behind the scenes in cases that are seen as benefiting Reps/Consv. They have stated policies of unbiased defense of constitutional principles but conduct their day by day operations very differently.
It's hard to have much respect for such organizations.
Could you give examples?
Two questions:
1. What rights of the Duke players were violated? I thought that they were acquitted of all charges.
2. Did they ask the ACLU for assistance? If they asked and were turned down you may have an argument, but if they didn't ask there is no reason for complaint.
I'll give one example of these "non-partisan" organizations failing, very conspicuously, to defend constitutional rights: the case of the false accusations of rape against Duke University lacrosse players. As far as I remember none of the organizations I mentioned ever came forward to defend the civil rights of the Duke players. Yet you know as well as I that if the players had been black and the accuser white, the ACLU and SPLC would have trampled young children to death pushing their way to any camera they could find. The following is taken from an article written in December 2006:Where's the ACLU to Defend the Duke Lacrosse Players? - HUMAN EVENTS
"If ever there was a case screaming for the assistance of the ACLU on behalf of defendants suffering denial of their civil rights and the need to go after a prosecutor abusing his power, the Duke lacrosse case is it. Yet the ACLU remains silent."
"By now and for months, the prosecutors flouting of the most basic legal and civil rights procedures has become transparent and beyond question to all those following this case. The defendants have been accused by a plaintiff who misidentified them when given her chance during the police photo line-up. Worse, the DNA results of the sperm taken from the accuser do not match those of the boys she is accusing of rape. The ACLU is not moved."
I won't go into further such cases, but you can find many others, particularly cases where the ACLU will support Muslim groups involved in freedom of religion school policy disputes while doing exactly the opposite for Christian groups (Missouri, Michigan, California.) If you really want more examples I'll do the work to find the references, but I'm not eager to take much time away from my work.
Hmmm... You claim that "Yet you know as well as I that if the players had been black and the accuser white, the ACLU and SPLC would have trampled young children to death pushing their way to any camera they could find." I do not know that and I do not think that to be the case.
[FONT=Georgia,]...[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,]
In a 2007 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kaminer recounted how the organization, whose reputation has long been based on its defenses of freedom of speech, had switched to supporting censorship, even of the legal variety, as long as it was imposed on conservative Christians, critics of homosexuality, and even critics of Islam. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,][/FONT]
I did say we'll see if these numbers are real.(You might have been talking about the post previous to yours.)counting them chickens aint ya?
After NEocons, the right needed to rebrand it self.It's called rebranding. A marketing ploy that may or may not be successful.
Republicans=71%, but the other number is the important one,The statistics cited actually weaken the article's thesis. If 71% of Republicans support the Tea Party, then you essentially just have the same group with a new name. A third party is a major force when it is able to incorporate large swaths of various, already existent electorates, or generate its own from previous non-voters.
If it can't do that, it's just a re-branding attempt.
They aren't terrifeid of it, they just don't like people to read it, because they can twist it to mean anything they want if no one has read it.I would prefer that he repeat word-for-word from a different document from 223 years ago, as we Tea Party members do:
That will terrify the Dems and Libs more than anything else.
No, just wish to edit and alter what is in it. Just change a word here, a meaning here, ignore sections that limit them(like they ignore federal laws they don't support), and never forget sections that they can exploit.Not for the dems in Washington. For them, their primary goal is shredding the document.
Don't pretend that both sides don't occasionally find themselves shackled by what the constitution says. How many of the supposed "constitutional literalists" from the right opposed the Cordoba Mosque, conveniently forgetting what the constitution says about equal rights and freedom of religion?
In other words, you have no sound basis to oppose the building. Islam did not bring down the towers, 2 planes did.After all tis time and you STILL don't understand the issue? Are you reallly such a slow learner?
No one has ever argued that the owners of the property don't have the constitutional right to build. The issue has always been the appropriateness of the loction, and most of us still opose the building of the mosque on that basis.
After all tis time and you STILL don't understand the issue? Are you reallly such a slow learner?
No one has ever argued that the owners of the property don't have the constitutional right to build. The issue has always been the appropriateness of the loction, and most of us still opose the building of the mosque on that basis.
After NEocons, the right needed to rebrand it self.
Republicans=71%, but the other number is the important one,
1/3 of likely voters. 33%, Presidents have been elected with 45%.
How many times have people from the right said that the community centre "shouldn't be allowed"? If you're not a slow learner, you'll realise the implications of that statement. I'd put money on the fact that at least some of these people are the same ones who decried the health care bill as unconstitutional.