ACLU Perv Pleads Guilty To Child Pornography

[Larkinn]

I believe they have an anti-religious agenda.

Thats because you are an idiot who doesn't know how to find news which isn't completely biased.

I also believe they have an anti-American agenda.

See above. By the way...even if you believe both of those things, that is NOT a reason to investigate them.

I'd like to know why the ACLU organization has been involved in so many Supreme Court cases. It's like their modus operandi to rip up our Constitution.

You moron, they are defending the Constitution.

They defend some extremely radical positions that are against the principles of most Americans.

Its a pity Americans don't know the Constitution better then.

They also fight every government effort for national defense.

Incorrect. They fight government invading privacy for national defense.

They may even be terrorist supporters.

Jesus you are a moron.

They certainly have internal problems regarding privacy issues and shady document shredding. Why is the ACLU afraid of an investigation?

What makes you think they are?

An investigation would expose the ACLU and make their agenda known to the American public.

So you want to bring criminal charges to expose an "agenda"? And you are bitching about others ripping up the Constitution? As I said before, you are a fucking fascist.

I'd say you're the moronic one as the joke's on you.

No doubt you would, dumbshit.

 

[Edward]

I read what you say and I basically agree with you. Screaming Eagle and I have debated it before. I even pulled the same quotes from the ACLU web site that you posted. As I understand Eagle’s opinion, it is just that the number of instances in which the ACLU defended Christians is not enough to satisfy Screaming Eagle. Also, these Christians that the ACLU did support were not real Christians or true Christians or typical Christians or something like that. Those Christians don’t count. We disagree. I think that there is a sufficient number to show that the ACLU is not pro-Christian or anti-Christian. Also, those Christians that were helped by the ACLU qualify as Christians just as any Christian. It is pro-civil-liberty no matter who has a legitimate issue.

I doubt very much that it has anything to do with the "number of instances in which the ACLU defended Christians" and more to do with his desire to impose his religious beliefs through the government. He doesn't want religious freedom, or the ACLU protecting the right to worship as one sees fit without government interference. On the contrary he wants the government to do the very thing the ACLU is opposed to it doing which is imposing religion. To have the state play more than a passive role in religion is inappropriate but he doesn't agree with that when it is his religion anymore than conservative Muslims like Osama bin Laden want religious freedom. These people want to impose their religion on the entire nation and use the government to do it. The ACLU defending the right to prosyletize isn't enough. The idea of "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." is disagreeable to him as is freedom and liberty in general. Debating him isn't enough. I understand that you want to be civil with this motherfucker but a little less of the pleasantries and you might get through to this piece of shit. Or at least make it obvious what a fucking tyrant he is. It is obvious to us that the ACLU is defending the rights of people regardless of whose rights are being violated by Screaming Eagle gets upset when he can't violate the rights of others through those whom he votes for.

 

[Shogun]

Edward:
"Actually, conservatives are inherently evil and have been for thousands of years, and they always support tyranny and that is why they met in 1789 in secret in Philadelphia. They were reactionaries and sought to undo the freedom we had obtained in 1776 and they prevailed."

One more reason why you find yourself ignored by those who you are desperately trying to interact with. You, sir, are the Fred Phelps of liberal politics. I understand how conservatives must feel when they vote in common with their far right nutjobs. You have the credibility of Pat Robertson at a GNC.

 

[dilloduck]

I don’t see the right as being more moral than the left or less moral than the left. I don’t see the left as being more moral than the right or more moral than the right. The difference for me seems to be based on relationships and messages. The right seems to have latched itself with mainline churches (or churches have latched themselves onto the right).

Look at Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” and how it criticizes the left. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/700_club

Read about the “Moral Majority”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

There does not seem to be a left wing equivalent. It is human nature to group people. If a republican is a guest on the 700 Club or has a show with the Moral Majority, people link that person with the organization (particularly if the person and organization agree with each other on topics). People also associate people with their messages and expect them to live up to what they say. Therefore it is as if Republicans set a higher standard for themselves than do Democrats (since they align themselves with groups that speak of morality). If both parties are morally equal but one party sets itself a higher standard, then it seems as that party is less moral. When a Republican falls, he seems to fall hard and the Republicans get rid of him so that they can keep favor with their religious right groups. When a Democrat falls equally, there is no “morality” PAC to hold him accountable so it seems as though it is no big deal.

The ACLU is just as guilty of claiming that they own the moral high ground as the religious right is. Let's not pretend that they are any less hypocritcal when it comes to "walking the walk".

 

[Waterrescuedude]

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

ok so some people may find this disturbing it is something nudists do they go around the house with no clothing on that doesn't mean that its sexual in nature.

-----------------

Republican Party Chairman Sam Walls, who is married, was urged to drop his candidacy for Congress when it was found he likes to dress up in women's clothing

I guess if thats what floats his boat..
-------------------
Also notice how to make the list look longer there are the same things on there 2 or 3 times????

 

[mattskramer]

The ACLU is just as guilty of claiming that they own the moral high ground as the religious right is. Let's not pretend that they are any less hypocritcal when it comes to "walking the walk".

You referenced a post I made with respect to comparing and contrasting the self-righteous rhetoric and hypocrisy or Republicans and Democrats. Anyway, I do think that all groups have its share of such. It is entertaining to see some members act as though the Republican people and groups are totally pure and that the Democrat people and groups are totally filthy. I like to throw out exceptions and try to reduce the tiresome extremist rhetoric.

 

[dilloduck]

It is entertaining to see some members act as though the Republican people and groups are totally pure and that the Democrat people and groups are totally filthy. I like to throw out exceptions and try to reduce the tiresome extremist rhetoric.

So which is it----entertaining or tiresome ?

 

[mattskramer]

So which is it----entertaining or tiresome ?

Sometimes it is entertaining and sometimes it is tiresome.

 

[dilloduck]

Sometimes it is entertaining and sometimes it is tiresome.

There are factions on every point of the political spectrum that have an agenda. Just because every proponent of that agenda can't walk the walk doesn't mean the agenda can be summarily written of as "bad". Shooting at the "hypocrites" however does seem to be the preferred method of discrediting an entire agenda.

 

[mattskramer]

There are factions on every point of the political spectrum that have an agenda. Just because every proponent of that agenda can't walk the walk doesn't mean the agenda can be summarily written of as "bad". Shooting at the "hypocrites" however does seem to be the preferred method of discrediting an entire agenda.

You are preaching to the choir.

 

[Scenic Point]

REPUBLICAN SEX CRIMES:



The list of scandals involving just one democrat icon, Bill Clinton, is far longer than all the 'Republican sex crimes' mentioned and dems still consider him a hero.

The problem is that dems, having no morals of their own, champion others who likewise have no respect for themselves, their families, their country or, their political positions.

I have seen no Republican - much less the entire party - rallying behind any of the offenders on that list.

 

[Larkinn]

The list of scandals involving just one democrat icon, Bill Clinton, is far longer than all the 'Republican sex crimes' mentioned and dems still consider him a hero.

Really? Care to list Clintons crimes which are "far longer" than all the Republican sex crimes mentioned?

The problem is that dems, having no morals of their own, champion others who likewise have no respect for themselves, their families, their country or, their political positions.

Amusing that you talk about morals, and lie, in the same post.

I have seen no Republican - much less the entire party - rallying behind any of the offenders on that list.

Really? You think that Republicans don't support Schwarznegger?

 

[mattskramer]

The list of scandals involving just one democrat icon, Bill Clinton, is far longer than all the 'Republican sex crimes' mentioned...

The list on post number 5 of this thread seems to be very long. Do you have a link to a list of specific Bill Clinton scandals?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clinton spent 8 years ( I believe) as Governor and another 8 as President, all the time a serial abuser of women that worked for him. As Governor he used State Police to procure women that worked for the State for him.

But hey your right, he was just a tadpole.

 

[mattskramer]

Clinton spent 8 years ( I believe) as Governor and another 8 as President, all the time a serial abuser of women that worked for him. As Governor he used State Police to procure women that worked for the State for him.

Clinton was an embarrassment in my opinion. I still prefer honesty and exactness even when criticizing someone. As I recall the claims that governor Clinton used state police to procure women that worked for the state for him were merely allegations. They were never substantiated nor proven. Even if they are facts, do they constitute a crime? If so, where is the prosecution? How many different instances were there?

What do you mean by “a serial abuser of women that worked for him”? An abuser worked for Bill Clinton?

But hey your right, he was just a tadpole.

I don’t know what you mean by Bill Clinton being a tadpole. I never called him one. In my opinion, he was a big embarrassment.

 

[dilloduck]

Clinton was an embarrassment in my opinion. I still prefer honesty and exactness even when criticizing someone. As I recall the claims that governor Clinton used state police to procure women that worked for the state for him were merely allegations. They were never substantiated nor proven. Even if they are facts, do they constitute a crime? If so, where is the prosecution? How many different instances were there?
QUOTE]

We're talking about scandals---not necessarily crimes.

 

[Scenic Point]

Really? You think that Republicans don't support Schwarznegger?

Schwarzenegger is the Governor of the most liberal state in the union. Need I say more?

Plus, his supposed 'crime' amounts to an allegation and its consideration only validates the importance of equal consideration of the Clinton scandals which are given no credence whatsoever by those in the democrat party.

 

[mattskramer]

We're talking about scandals---not necessarily crimes.

Okay. Fair enough. Remove my comment about whether or not they were crimes. Were the scandals proven to be true events?

 

[dilloduck]

Okay. Fair enough. Remove my comment about whether or not they were crimes. Were the scandals proven to be true events?

Here we go again. What is the benefit of proving either party has had more scandals ? It might make for a good trivial pursuit question but mostly is just proves that people succumb to temptation. Sure I wanna see the better people in office but I seriously doubt that it can be determined by their party affiliation.

 

[Larkinn]

Schwarzenegger is the Governor of the most liberal state in the union. Need I say more?

So him being the governor of California means...what exactly? That Republicans in the rest of the country don't care about him?

Plus, his supposed 'crime' amounts to an allegation and its consideration only validates the importance of equal consideration of the Clinton scandals which are given no credence whatsoever by those in the democrat party.

Irrelevant. I've proved what you said was a lie, don't try to change the topic now.