Indesputable Evidence Unearthed in Russia that the ACLU was Founded by Communists

[bigrebnc1775]

SEE!!!!!!! So what was the argument for? Why must we fight all the time? Why can't we all just get along?

Sacrilege! This is a political message board. We're supposed to fight. And if there's nothing worth fighting about, we're supposed to make shit up and call each other nasty names and stuff.

Eh, what the hell. What kinda beer you got?

Anyone who knows what argument is knows that it has nothing to do with fighting.

We know we're just having a good time car for a drink?
I have somew homemade white stuff goldkatt has some beer the choice is yours.

 

[Publius1787]

Irrelevant. You are attacking an organization that exists for the purpose of protecting civil liberties for not protecting the civil liberty - right - of property ownership.

Please show the constitutional provision where we are, as a guaranteed civil liberty, given the fundamental right to own anything.

Here's an example, under the 6th a person charged by the government with a crime has the right to be represented by counsel. That is a civil liberty. If he or she cannot afford the services of an attorney, one will be appointed and provided by the government so that their right to liberty will not be denied without representation.

Where's the deed for my government-supplied house? Where's my government-issued gun? Where's my government-issued car? Show me where I have the "right" to own anything as a civil liberty.

I'll wait.

Property is an unaleinable right as viewed by the people who wrote the constitution and the declaration of independence. Property is just a tranfer of liberty from one form to another.

All of this is property!

1. I have the right to think and thus ....
2. I have the right to act upon my thoughts so as long as my actions do not harm othe lives or liberties of others and thus ....
3. I have the right to agree to associate or not associate with others and thus ....
4. I have the right to seek employment from others and thus ...
5. I have the right to agree or disagree to the terms of employment and thus ....
6. Once I agree to labor for others (or myself) the property I have in my thoughts is transfered in to the property I have in my actions which is traded for the property of the employer based upon the terms we agreeed to and thus ...
7. I have transfered the property I have in my thoughts and actions wich few recognise in to monetary property that many recognise which can be turned in to physical property upon agree ment of a sale.

You have no right to take the property I have in my thoughts just as you have no right to take the property I have monetairly UNLESSS government uses the property I have in my income as a fee for defending the natural rights and liberties that we all are entitled to. Any use otherwise only restricts the rights and natural liberties of some or most in order to give unnatural rights and privilages to others. Natural rights cannot be voted away by a majority. Furthermore, I fail to see where it is constitutional to do so.

Now we can go in to arguements about Article one Section 8 and we can talk about the 5th Amendment. But this is not the thread to do so. That descussion is here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ty-be-subject-to-the-needs-of-the-masses.html

None of which is based in law Nor is it a response to my question. Most important, it does not address the basis of your attack on an organization dedicated to defense of guaranteed civil liberties.

Clue: They don't give a flying rat's ass what you, personally, say "should" be a right. They defend civil liberties as defined objectively by law, enforced by the State. That is their function.

So I repeat my question, where is the enforceable constitutional provision giving me or any one of us the "right" to own property as a civil liberty?

Thoughts are not property. Speech is not property. If you don't know the difference you have more serious problems than believing that piece of nonsense in the OP is real because it was on the interwebz.

No. I'm not assisting in letting you hyjack this thread any further. This arguement can be found here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ty-be-subject-to-the-needs-of-the-masses.html

 

[goldcatt]

Property is an unaleinable right as viewed by the people who wrote the constitution and the declaration of independence. Property is just a tranfer of liberty from one form to another.

All of this is property!

1. I have the right to think and thus ....
2. I have the right to act upon my thoughts so as long as my actions do not harm othe lives or liberties of others and thus ....
3. I have the right to agree to associate or not associate with others and thus ....
4. I have the right to seek employment from others and thus ...
5. I have the right to agree or disagree to the terms of employment and thus ....
6. Once I agree to labor for others (or myself) the property I have in my thoughts is transfered in to the property I have in my actions which is traded for the property of the employer based upon the terms we agreeed to and thus ...
7. I have transfered the property I have in my thoughts and actions wich few recognise in to monetary property that many recognise which can be turned in to physical property upon agree ment of a sale.

You have no right to take the property I have in my thoughts just as you have no right to take the property I have monetairly UNLESSS government uses the property I have in my income as a fee for defending the natural rights and liberties that we all are entitled to. Any use otherwise only restricts the rights and natural liberties of some or most in order to give unnatural rights and privilages to others. Natural rights cannot be voted away by a majority. Furthermore, I fail to see where it is constitutional to do so.

Now we can go in to arguements about Article one Section 8 and we can talk about the 5th Amendment. But this is not the thread to do so. That descussion is here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ty-be-subject-to-the-needs-of-the-masses.html

None of which is based in law Nor is it a response to my question. Most important, it does not address the basis of your attack on an organization dedicated to defense of guaranteed civil liberties.

Clue: They don't give a flying rat's ass what you, personally, say "should" be a right. They defend civil liberties as defined objectively by law, enforced by the State. That is their function.

So I repeat my question, where is the enforceable constitutional provision giving me or any one of us the "right" to own property as a civil liberty?

Thoughts are not property. Speech is not property. If you don't know the difference you have more serious problems than believing that piece of nonsense in the OP is real because it was on the interwebz.

No. I'm not assisting in letting you hyjack this thread any further. This arguement can be found here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ty-be-subject-to-the-needs-of-the-masses.html

Nobody's hijacking anything. At least not with the post you're addressing.

I've pointed out that you're criticizing an organization dedicated to defending civil liberties based on your assertion that they fail to protect a civil liberty you can't prove exists. Because it doesn't.

Therefore, your criticism is invalid.

You can expect me to chase your posts of the same nonsense all over the board all you want, I'm not doing it. We're having a discussion on this topic, on this thread, which you began for its own purpose. If you can't make your argument here and germane to this topic that's not my problem. If you claim the ACLU is hypocritical but can't prove it ignores its own stated purpose, not the one you assign to it, that is also not my problem.

Lighten up, dude. The fate of the world doesn't hang on you being right. Have a beer and relax...you seem to need it more than I do.

 

[Publius1787]

None of which is based in law Nor is it a response to my question. Most important, it does not address the basis of your attack on an organization dedicated to defense of guaranteed civil liberties.

Clue: They don't give a flying rat's ass what you, personally, say "should" be a right. They defend civil liberties as defined objectively by law, enforced by the State. That is their function.

So I repeat my question, where is the enforceable constitutional provision giving me or any one of us the "right" to own property as a civil liberty?

Thoughts are not property. Speech is not property. If you don't know the difference you have more serious problems than believing that piece of nonsense in the OP is real because it was on the interwebz.

No. I'm not assisting in letting you hyjack this thread any further. This arguement can be found here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ty-be-subject-to-the-needs-of-the-masses.html

Nobody's hijacking anything. At least not with the post you're addressing.

I've pointed out that you're criticizing an organization dedicated to defending civil liberties based on your assertion that they fail to protect a civil liberty you can't prove exists. Because it doesn't.

Therefore, your criticism is invalid.

You can expect me to chase your posts of the same nonsense all over the board all you want, I'm not doing it. We're having a discussion on this topic, on this thread, which you began for its own purpose. If you can't make your argument here and germane to this topic that's not my problem. If you claim the ACLU is hypocritical but can't prove it ignores its own stated purpose, not the one you assign to it, that is also not my problem.

Lighten up, dude. The fate of the world doesn't hang on you being right. Have a beer and relax...you seem to need it more than I do.

Ive told you where this debate exists and laid my terms for engaging in such debate. This thread is about the ACLU founded by a communist. I said that they dont defend property rights and you say we dont have a right to property as if the federal government can vote to become communist if they wanted to. They dont. Thats a debate for another thread. Whatever you are as bold enough to declare as invalid I dont care because this arguement doesent belong here. Reply if you want. I will simply ignore. Thats called free association. End of story.

 

[goldcatt]

No. I'm not assisting in letting you hyjack this thread any further. This arguement can be found here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ty-be-subject-to-the-needs-of-the-masses.html

Nobody's hijacking anything. At least not with the post you're addressing.

I've pointed out that you're criticizing an organization dedicated to defending civil liberties based on your assertion that they fail to protect a civil liberty you can't prove exists. Because it doesn't.

Therefore, your criticism is invalid.

You can expect me to chase your posts of the same nonsense all over the board all you want, I'm not doing it. We're having a discussion on this topic, on this thread, which you began for its own purpose. If you can't make your argument here and germane to this topic that's not my problem. If you claim the ACLU is hypocritical but can't prove it ignores its own stated purpose, not the one you assign to it, that is also not my problem.

Lighten up, dude. The fate of the world doesn't hang on you being right. Have a beer and relax...you seem to need it more than I do.

Ive told you where this debate exists and laid my terms for engaging in such debate. This thread is about the ACLU founded by a communist. I said that they dont defend property rights and you say we dont have a right to property as if the federal government can vote to become communist if they wanted to. They dont. Thats a debate for another thread. Whatever you are as bold enough to declare as invalid I dont care because this arguement doesent belong here. Reply if you want. I will simply ignore. Thats called free association. End of story.

Yep, you definitely need that drink more than I do.

 

[BlindBoo]

Even if one buys your theory, so what? Does that make it a "communist" organization?

We should FEAR the ACLU?

Like every organization, they'll be judged on the merits of their work .. not because the right simply doesn't like anything done on the left.

Stupid.

A simple search of the ACLU web page will show their "key issues" to which they fight for Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union . Notice that the unaleinable right to earned private property is not among them. What did Karl Marx say about Communism? “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”. The ACLU, which was another legal organization designed to be a legal aid to communist front groups is, was, and always will be, an organization that places our enemies first and formost before the rights of our citizens in the United States. Just like the National Lawyers Guild, who were indeputably outed as a communist front group by the House Unamerican Activites Commitee, that openly admits in their mission statement that "human rights shall be more sacred than property interests." Mission - National Lawyers Guild - Student Organizations - Current Students | UNM School of Law . I guess they dont believe the pursuit and ownership of property is included as a "human right". And the ACLU is no different.

Where exactly is that unaleinable right to property spelled out in the constitution or the Bill of rights? I say that is an inherient right that is gaurded by the US Consitution and the Amendments thereof. Thus the right is also protected by the ACLU. Wasn't Helen Keller a Socialist, also a founding member of the ACLU too? Couldn't you get more milage out of that connection? Evil ACLU. I bet even Evil Bert is a member!

http://www.bertisevil.tv/img/bert4.gif