Bill Maher vs. Rush Limbaugh

[The ClayTaurus]

Ummm...I was making fun of the paranoia of the right regarding ACLU and NAMBLA. It was humor....I think?

It was. He's just got his birkenstocks a bit tight...

(is that even how birkenstock is spelled?)

 

[acludem]

I just realized that having re-read your post. I've just had that damn NAMBLA case thrown in my face so many times. It's the first thing anyone wants to talk about the minute I mention I'm in the ACLU. But hey, I should've read your post, my bad.

:duh3:

acludem

 

[Annie]

Oh Please don't pull your NAMBLA bullshit again. The ACLU's involvement in that case was about freedom of speech. Here's the ACLU's press release explaining the case: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86

This case is in the same category with the ACLU's defense of the neo-nazis, Ku Klux Klan, and other highly unpopular forms of speech.

The ACLU was only involved in the free speech issues. To advocate for someone's right to say what they want is not to advocate for the content of their speech. I support the right of NAMBLA to argue for what they believe, so long as they aren't directly encouraging people to harm children, which was the issue at the crux of this trial.

acludem

Ya know, it would really help if you would 'quote' off of whom you are directing your comments to.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I believe child molestation is even worse than racism. So here's nambla in your face again! "You support nambla".

 

[Nuc]

I just realized that having re-read your post. I've just had that damn NAMBLA case thrown in my face so many times. It's the first thing anyone wants to talk about the minute I mention I'm in the ACLU. But hey, I should've read your post, my bad.

:duh3:

acludem

NAMBLA yeah, but ACLU also defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie Ill. didn't they? So they defend idiots on the left and the right. Most people can't see beyond those kinds of extreme examples.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

NAMBLA yeah, but ACLU also defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie Ill. didn't they? So they defend idiots on the left and the right. Most people can't see beyond those kinds of extreme examples.

Do you think racism is worse than child molestation?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Do you think racism is worse than child molestation?

Are you hinting that Nazi's aren't as bad as NAMBLA members?

 

[Nuc]

Do you think racism is worse than child molestation?

I think pedophilia is the worst thing you can do to another human individual. What's your point?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think pedophilia is the worst thing you can do to another human individual. What's your point?

So that's a yes. You think pedophilia is worse than having racist opinions. Then the argument "Well they also defended nazis" does not reveal some sort of "fairness" since these actions are not morally equivalent, pedophilia being more offensive, as we established.

 

[Nuc]

So that's a yes. You think pedophilia is worse than having racist opinions. Then the argument "Well they also defended nazis" does not reveal some sort of "fairness" since these actions are not morally equivalent, pedophilia being more offensive, as we established.

My point is that the ACLA acts on behalf of the rights themselves, not the scumbags they advocate for. And frequently they advocate for good people.

To be honest it's hard to compare Nazism with pedophilia, because Nazism was an institution which operated on a large scale, whereas pedophilia is usually a one on one thing. That's why I used the word "individual" in my response to you. Nazism and similar ideologies are the bottom of the barrel on the societal scale.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My point is that the ACLA acts on behalf of the rights themselves, not the scumbags they advocate for. And frequently they advocate for good people.

To be honest it's hard to compare Nazism with pedophilia, because Nazism was an institution which operated on a large scale, whereas pedophilia is usually a one on one thing. That's why I used the word "individual" in my response to you. Nazism and similar ideologies are the bottom of the barrel on the societal scale.

I guess the right to free speech DOES include the right to advocate sex with children. It's just funny that The ACLU sees nambla's right to free speech as something worth fighting for and a Nativity scene as something worth fighting against. How is a nativity scene harmful? It's creating a theocratic regime? Oh yeah. That's the ticket.

 

[Nuc]

I guess the right to free speech DOES include the right to advocate sex with children. It's just funny that The ACLU sees nambla's right to free speech as something worth fighting for and a Nativity scene as something worth fighting against. How is a nativity scene harmful? It's creating a theocratic regime? Oh yeah. That's the ticket.

I'm not a member, so why don't you ask acludem? My guess is they would say they're protecting the separation of church and state. And I agree with you, there's nothing wrong with a nativity.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

there's nothing wrong with a nativity.

Christofascist!



I say we feed your ass to some lions for our own amusement! Long live rome!

 

[Nuc]

Christofascist!



I say we feed your ass to some lions for our own amusement! Long live rome!

Hey we need more holidays and celebrations, not less!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey we need more holidays and celebrations, not less!

Right! True multiculturalism, not forced secularism and atheism. Partay!

 

[acludem]

The ACLU would argue that individuals have the right to put a nativity scene in front of their homes and that the government shouldn't interfere with such displays, it's only when the government wants to display a nativity scene or allow one to be placed on public property that we have a problem - this would violate the separation of church and state because it would mean that the government is endorsing the story of Jesus' birth and divinity - something I'm sure most Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and even some Christians etc. might have a problem with.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The ACLU would argue that individuals have the right to put a nativity scene in front of their homes and that the government shouldn't interfere with such displays, it's only when the government wants to display a nativity scene or allow one to be placed on public property that we have a problem - this would violate the separation of church and state because it would mean that the government is endorsing the story of Jesus' birth and divinity - something I'm sure most Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and even some Christians etc. might have a problem with.

acludem

It's a decoration. It is in no way coercive. Nor does it deprive anyone of any real actual rights.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Anyone come up with anything besides personal attacks and decade old perot grudges against Rush or his listeners? Just wondering.

 

[Nuc]

Anyone come up with anything besides personal attacks and decade old perot grudges against Rush or his listeners? Just wondering.

Yeah, against his listeners (followers). They're parrots.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah, against his listeners (followers). They're parrots.

That's another criticism against his listeners. The correct answer to my question is no, you haven't come up with anything new.