The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[tulc]

And nothing demonstrated that the ACLU defends gun ownership rights.

...well they might if guns could talk. But they deal with other issues.

The closest mention was that they are neutral.

Well think of it as a reason to not feel conflicted about disliking them so much!

Would that they were equally neutral on other rights.

Well I'm not sure that would be good either.
tulc(finishing my coffee for the night)

 

[MachZer0]

As well as justices who hold political ideologies similar to mine.

Justices are human, and until the scientists at MIT design and implement the Compu-Judge 9000, we're just going to have to deal with that.



If it ever comes to that, I'll have to accept it, won't I? I may not necessarily like it, but eventually, justices who hold views I agree with will be appointed, and sanity will be restored -- until the cycle starts again.

Not a perfect system, but it's the best we got.

Such a view is a perversion of the way the system was established. The original ideal should be restored which may require an impeachment process for sitting judges.

I'm sure it involves a screening process that insures that the applicant is not a raving psychopath. Is that too restrictive? And besides, what exactly does the second Amendment say?

It is far more stringent than that, requiring thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the proper permits. That is indeed an infringement on the right to bear arms.

Well, there you go. The Second Amendment is alive and well. Problem solved.

Yes, except that you said nobody was trying to take away our right to won guns. Wrong, as I demonstrated

The ACLU does not operate on taxpayer funds, they work on the donations of its members -- I should know, I sent them a payment of $50 just today -- And it's not even tax-deductible.

And the reason no government entity is trying to establish a religion is because certain organizations work tireless to prevent our public lands from being turned into cathedrals.

The ACLU receives federal funding. That may be why you don't get a tax deduction. If you did, they may have to give up the federal funds

 

[MachZer0]

...well they might if guns could talk. But they deal with other issues.

That's why I said they should be the American [some] Civil Liberties Union.Because they aren't at all concerned about all rights or even everyone's rights, only those that promote their communist agenda

Well think of it as a reason to not feel conflicted about disliking them so much!

I'm not conflicted about disliking them at all. disliking them is the apprpriate stance for someone of my convictions

Well I'm not sure that would be good either.
tulc(finishing my coffee for the night)

But America would be the Land of the Free for a lot longer if we got rid of them

 

[notto]

That's why I said they should be the American [some] Civil Liberties Union.Because they aren't at all concerned about all rights or even everyone's rights, only those that promote their communist agenda

Abortion protesters and Christian ministers promote the communist agenda? Wow. That is quite an accusation.!

 

[MachZer0]

Abortion protesters and Christian ministers promote the communist agenda? Wow. That is quite an accusation.!

We've all seen those cases, many of them posted earlier here. I don't see how that changes their agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if they took a few of those just to present a facade of fairness. I don't believe their links to communism can be disputed adequately though.

 

[notto]

We've all seen those cases, many of them posted earlier here. I don't see how that changes their agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if they took a few of those just to present a facade of fairness. I don't believe their links to communism can be disputed adequately though.

Well, it's not like you would be one to present an objective opinion on the matter and their consistency in supporting free speech for all demonstrates that your opinion of them is probably wrong.

That is why all you are left with is trying to smear them. You can't show any inconsistency in their work so you need to claim that they only support the rights of those you agree with because they are up to something. You just can't accept that they do what they do because the rights of all are important to them. Yet you can't quite demonstrate this double standard you accuse them of.

Why is that?

You defeat your own argument. They either take these cases as a facade of fairness (yet they still take them) or they are showing a double standard by not taking them. It is a logical inconsistency that your entire argument is based on.

So, are they putting up a facade or a double standard? It can't be both.

Maybe they are just doing what they say they will do. Support the first ammendment rights of all. After all, that is the only thing you have really been able to demonstrate about them factually.

 

[tulc]

I'm not conflicted about disliking them at all. disliking them is the apprpriate stance for someone of my convictions

But think how you might be conflicted if they DID defend gun rights?
been here?
http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=303_0_2_0_C
or that the Texas ACLU recently spoke in favor of an NRA supported bill. I suspect it's the end of the world.
tulc(well...as we know it anyway!)

 

[MachZer0]

Well, it's not like you would be one to present an objective opinion on the matter and their consistency in supporting free speech for all demonstrates that your opinion of them is probably wrong.

That is why all you are left with is trying to smear them. You can't show any inconsistency in their work so you need to claim that they only support the rights of those you agree with because they are up to something. You just can't accept that they do what they do because the rights of all are important to them. Yet you can't quite demonstrate this double standard you accuse them of.

Why is that?

You defeat your own argument. They either take these cases as a facade of fairness (yet they still take them) or they are showing a double standard by not taking them. It is a logical inconsistency that your entire argument is based on.

So, are they putting up a facade or a double standard? It can't be both.

Maybe they are just doing what they say they will do. Support the first ammendment rights of all. After all, that is the only thing you have really been able to demonstrate about them factually.

The facade would be to conceal the double standard, but it only conceals it from those who are likeminded with them. The ACLU's involvement in a few cases hardly matches the massive caseload on the other side. And they do not support the first amendment rights of all. They do not support the free exercise of religion, except when it suits them, and they definitely do not support the freedom of speech for all, as seen in the ACLU's sponsorship of censorship in the case of the valedictorian

 

[MachZer0]

But think how you might be conflicted if they DID defend gun rights?
been here?
http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=303_0_2_0_C

Of course, that had nothing to do with the ACLU defending the right of gun ownership

 

[MachZer0]

or that the Texas ACLU recently spoke in favor of an NRA supported bill. I suspect it's the end of the world.
tulc(well...as we know it anyway!)

I found the situation of which you spoke and it had nothing to do with defending gun ownership.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Such a view is a perversion of the way the system was established. The original ideal should be restored which may require an impeachment process for sitting judges.

Well, one man's perversion is another man's business as usual -- but enough about the sodomy laws.

This is your system. You can deal with it, or whine for the "good ol' days." Your choice.

It is far more stringent than that, requiring thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the proper permits. That is indeed an infringement on the right to bear arms.

Not according to the wording and intent of the Second Amendment. I thought you were a strict Constitutionalist?

Yes, except that you said nobody was trying to take away our right to won guns. Wrong, as I demonstrated

No, the state has a right to reasonable regulate firearms, and the Second Amendment does not say they don't. If you think New York's registration process goes beyond reasonable, then sue.

The ACLU receives federal funding. That may be why you don't get a tax deduction. If you did, they may have to give up the federal funds

What Federal Funds?

The ACLU and the ACLU Foundation are not-for-profit 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3) organizations respectively. We are wholly supported through membership dues, private individual donations and foundation grants. Neither entity receives any federal funds, whatsoever.

You were saying, Mach?

 

[MachZer0]

Well, one man's perversion is another man's business as usual -- but enough about the sodomy laws.

This is your system. You can deal with it, or whine for the "good ol' days." Your choice.

No need to whine. I can work to reestablish the system as it was originally intended

Not according to the wording and intent of the Second Amendment. I thought you were a strict Constitutionalist?

What part of
shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand

No, the state has a right to reasonable regulate firearms, and the Second Amendment does not say they don't. If you think New York's registration process goes beyond reasonable, then sue.

It's funny that the ACLU supporters can't seem to apply the 14th amendment to gun rights. States have no right to restrict gun ownership. That right shall not be infringed

What Federal Funds?



You were saying, Mach?

The ACLU gets government awards in civil cases for cases filed by people who claim to be offended by religious displays. So, the ACLU finds a client, sues, gets paid by the government entity. Quite a scam

Rep. John Hostettler, (R-Ind) has taken the lead to end this scam by authoring legislation that would disallow groups like the ACLU from collecting such fees

 

[Nathan Poe]

No need to whine. I can work to reestablish the system as it was originally intended

As is your right.

What part of
shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand

What part of "militia" is so difficult to understand?

It's funny that the ACLU supporters can't seem to apply the 14th amendment to gun rights. States have no right to restrict gun ownership. That right shall not be infringed

Slightly unrelated question: Do you own a gun?

The ACLU gets government awards in civil cases for filed by people who claim to be offended by religious displays. So, the ACLU finds a client, sues, gets paid by the government entity. Quite a scam

Lawyers collecting fees???? SAY IT AIN'T SO!

Really, is this the best you have?

Rep. John Hostettler, (R-Ind) has taken the lead to end this scam by authoring legislation that would disallow groups like the ACLU from collecting such fees

What exactly is a "group like the ACLU"?

 

[MachZer0]

As is your right.

One I doubt the ACLU would defend

What part of "militia" is so difficult to understand?

What part of the right of the PEOPLE, is so difficult to understand

Slightly unrelated question: Do you own a gun?

It's not about me

Lawyers collecting fees???? SAY IT AIN'T SO!

Really, is this the best you have?

A scam to collect taxpayer money. That's plenty.

What exactly is a "group like the ACLU"?

Groups that pick and choose which rights to defend in order to push an ideology and then force the taxpayer to pad their pockets. Clear enough?

 

[JedPerkins]

MachZer0, do you feel you have the right to own nuclear weapons?

 

[MachZer0]

MachZer0, do you feel you have the right to own nuclear weapons?

Again, it's not about me, but about the double standard seen among some leftist groups, like the ACLU.

 

[JedPerkins]

Again, it's not about me, but about the double standard seen among some leftist groups, like the ACLU.

The question would ultimately address a double standard issue if you would actually answer it, I think.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

A judge who creates a new law is taking direct vigorous action om a controversial issue. A judge who rules based on the existing law is just doing his job. Big difference.

Right now, a judge who ruled AGAINST abortion rights would be creating a new law (or, rather, re-interpreting existing law, which is all judges do - they don't create laws at all). But you wouldn't call him an activist, despite the fact that he obviously is. You just want to reserve 'activist' for judges who you disagree with.

Your argument could be used the same way regarding abortion clinics. One group is violent, another is not. Why not impose a bubble zone only on the violent ones?

Because such a thing would not be even remotely feasible. How do you physically do it? Force the violent ones to wear a badge? Or maybe the non-violent ones? The only rational solution is to impose a bubble on everyone.

The reason is that abortion is the sacred cow for many leftists. It must be protected at all costs, even at the cost of the freedom of speech.

No, that's not the reason. A rational reason has been given which you'll no doubt ignore in your attempt to blast the ACLU and the left in general. Of course, abortion is one right among many that the ACLU believe must be protected, along with (in general) the left. There is NO support whatsoever that they think the right to abortion outweighs the right to freedom of speech.

 

[MachZer0]

The question would ultimately address a double standard issue if you would actually answer it, I think.

Can you demonstrate where the ACLU has taken a case in defense of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[MachZer0]

Right now, a judge who ruled AGAINST abortion rights would be creating a new law (or, rather, re-interpreting existing law, which is all judges do - they don't create laws at all)

Right now, the only judges who can rule against abortion are Supreme Court judges. If the Supreme Court judges ruled against it, they would not be creating new law, but rather restoring the law to it's proper place, per the Constitution