Looks Like The ACLU AND God Hates Fags

[dilloduck]

Pure kung fu. Your powers have grown substantially in my absence, young jedi.

Thanks you master:teeth:
and welcome back!

 

[Kagom]

Both sides? And what sides might those be ?

Let's look at it this way with two of the trials they've participated in considering Fred Phelps and NAMBLA. Both are polar opposites of the spectrum in terms of their "sides". That's an example if you'll take it, which I kinda doubt you will.

 

[Hobbit]

I watch the ACLU carefully. Most of the cases they take suppress free expression of religion in public. Most of the rest of the cases they take otherwise support a communistic agenda by protecting such things as government handouts. Every once in a while, they'll take a case that goes against this image, just to ensure they remain classified as a non-profit charity rather than a political lobby.

 

[jillian]

I watch the ACLU carefully. Most of the cases they take suppress free expression of religion in public. Most of the rest of the cases they take otherwise support a communistic agenda by protecting such things as government handouts. Every once in a while, they'll take a case that goes against this image, just to ensure they remain classified as a non-profit charity rather than a political lobby.

That's false. Many of the cases they take have to do with GOVERNMENT use of taxpayer funds to pursue religious goals or purvey religious symbolism which are violations of the first amendment. So you were saying.....

As for the "communist agenda" thing. That's just silly, as has been pointed out on this thread.

 

[dilloduck]

That's false. Many of the cases they take have to do with GOVERNMENT use of taxpayer funds to pursue religious goals or purvey religious symbolism which are violations of the first amendment. So you were saying.....

As for the "communist agenda" thing. That's just silly, as has been pointed out on this thread.

Which post dismissed the communist agenda as silly?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Not necessarily:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Also:

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 1992: The court went on to say that while the government can regulate the mode of delivery of the ideas (time, place, and manner), it cannot regulate the ideas themselves. In more recent decisions, the court has held that fighting words must "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate" and risk "an immediate breach of the peace" or they could not be prohibited.

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

Missouri is not telling Phelps that he can't picket; he just can't picket an hour before, during or an hour after.

Yeah, the protests at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to constitute "fighting words". If they showed up at the funeral of a family member of mine, the temptation to take a good hickory axe-handle to the bunch of inbred freaks would seem a reasonable course of action.

 

[musicman]

That's false. Many of the cases [the ACLU] take have to do with GOVERNMENT use of taxpayer funds to pursue religious goals or purvey religious symbolism which are violations of the first amendment.

Government at which level? And - if other than federal - by what authority does the ACLU do that?

 

[musicman]

Yeah, the protests at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to constitute "fighting words". If they showed up at the funeral of a family member of mine, the temptation to take a good hickory axe-handle to the bunch of inbred freaks would seem a reasonable course of action.

Agreed.

 

[007]

Yeah, the protests at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to constitute "fighting words". If they showed up at the funeral of a family member of mine, the temptation to take a good hickory axe-handle to the bunch of inbred freaks would seem a reasonable course of action.

*Shaking head in disbelief*... I don't know where you come up with such words as these, and then turn around and sound like mickey moore incarnate.

I'm baffled.

 

[007]

There's no such thing as "free speech". Somebody PAID for the right of someone to rattle off, and that somebody was the VETERAN. The very persons these shit stains are protesting. Do they think of that? No. They're too fucking stupid. And then you have the aclu DEFENDING them. The aclu is THE WORST anti-American association in this country. It serves no purpose worth mention.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But they've defended speech for both sides. It's not always about what follows their agenda.

You're admitting they have an agenda.

Sometimes they go "off agenda" to give the appearance of having no right/left political affiliation. That's what you're really saying.

 

[Abbey Normal]

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

Roger Baldwin---Founder of the ACLU

Ooh, I love Jeopardy! Can I play?

Answer: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” Roger Baldwin---Founder of the ACLU

Question: What are the real goals of the ACLU?


Definitely a quoatable quoted quote.

 

[Gunny]

*Shaking head in disbelief*... I don't know where you come up with such words as these, and then turn around and sound like mickey moore incarnate.

I'm baffled.

It's rather simple. The left just refuses to recognize the fact that extreme religious whackos do not represent the right, and we are at least willing to speak out against pieces of trash who claim to be "conservative."

I don't hide the fact that I am Christian; yet, I find these religious crackpots to be offensive and dangerous, and quite agree with Bully's plan of action in the position of a family member.