Wow, Harris is out of her mind.

[MissileMan]

What is it you have against the bible and religion in general? What are you afraid of?

Religion in general is dangerous. I'm afraid that mankind is doomed to extinction because of this absurd need to have one's invisible, non-existent diety declared the "only true god" and their dogma declared the "only truth".

 

[dmp]

Religion in general is dangerous. I'm afraid that mankind is doomed to extinction because of this absurd need to have one's invisible, non-existent diety declared the "only true god" and their dogma declared the "only truth".

Indeed - you've just described everything but God. Religion will cause harm and destruction of one's soul. Christ will HEAL our souls. He's real. Just look for Him.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

From the original article:

I'm trying to get clarification if this is indeed the ACLU's stated policies or this guy's interpretation of them. If it's really printed policy, link it. If it's not, it's exaggerated "bullshit".

So you're not going to believe what this guy is saying because you can't find a written "policy statement" where the ACLU states in writing its goal and "intent" to "undermine the moral foundation and weaken the fabric of society"? Please tell me why the ACLU would want to state such a thing in public anyway? If they ever had such written statements in the past (which I believe they did) you can bet they're not allowing them out and about on the internet today.

Forget policy statements and just look at real life. The ACLU is DOING those things: supporting the legalization of all drugs (including "hard" drugs, like crack and PCP), public drunkenness, pornography (including "kiddie porn"), sexual perversion, (including sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia), prostitution (including child prostitution), euthanasia, and infanticide. No policy statement needed to see it.

It's also pretty easy to match up what the ACLU is actually DOING to the stated Communist goals as noted in the U.S. Congressional record. Here's an article from the World Net Daily, a reputable news organization, that pretty much sums it up.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41751

 

[MissileMan]

So you're not going to believe what this guy is saying because you can't find a written "policy statement" where the ACLU states in writing its goal and "intent" to "undermine the moral foundation and weaken the fabric of society"? Please tell me why the ACLU would want to state such a thing in public anyway? If they ever had such written statements in the past (which I believe they did) you can bet they're not allowing them out and about on the internet today.

It's the author's claim that they exist, not mine. He wrote like he was quoting from the ACLU playbook. I'm questioning the accuracy of his assessment of what the ACLU is out to accomplish, especially when things like "downfall of the U.S." is one of the claims touted.

Forget policy statements and just look at real life. The ACLU is DOING those things: supporting the legalization of all drugs (including "hard" drugs, like crack and PCP), public drunkenness, pornography (including "kiddie porn"), sexual perversion, (including sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia), prostitution (including child prostitution), euthanasia, and infanticide. No policy statement needed to see it.

It's also pretty easy to match up what the ACLU is actually DOING to the stated Communist goals as noted in the U.S. Congressional record. Here's an article from the World Net Daily, a reputable news organization, that pretty much sums it up.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41751

Dude! You've had a couple too many gulps of koolaid! All kinds of crap get entered into the congressional record. In this particular case, a congressman from Florida was apparently impressed by a book written by the Police Chief of Salt Lake City.

Now, since it's become your claim and not that of your original author, I'd like you to provide links to an ACLU lawsuit for each and every highlighted item above. And no bull about me looking myself...it's your claim, you back it up.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It's the author's claim that they exist, not mine. He wrote like he was quoting from the ACLU playbook. I'm questioning the accuracy of his assessment of what the ACLU is out to accomplish, especially when things like "downfall of the U.S." is one of the claims touted.

Dude! You've had a couple too many gulps of koolaid! All kinds of crap get entered into the congressional record. In this particular case, a congressman from Florida was apparently impressed by a book written by the Police Chief of Salt Lake City.

You got a problem with an ex-FBI agent and ex-Police Chief writing excellent information about communists and their goals? Have you read The Naked Communist?

Now, since it's become your claim and not that of your original author, I'd like you to provide links to an ACLU lawsuit for each and every highlighted item above. And no bull about me looking myself...it's your claim, you back it up.

It's not necessary to have a lawsuit for each and every item in order to see how the ACLU supports these items. I pulled what I could find quickly off the net to give you a pretty good idea about these items. You should be able to understand how the ACLU is supporting porn and perversion and thus the degeneracy of our country. However, despite the many facts, if you are one of those people who likes to stick his head in the sand, I'm sure it will not satisfy you.

Public drunkeness (via bums in the streets)
http://aspin.asu.edu/hpn/archives/Jan99/0198.html

kiddie porn, pedophilia
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/16/123428.php
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38540,00.html

bestiality
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html
http://www.unknownnews.net/030919endofcivilization.html

necrophilia
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15539prs19970508.html

child prostitution
The ACLU supports prostitution, teen sex, and child porn; it indirectly supports child prostitution because it supports the porn industry.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/10/11/aclu-perverting-the-constitution/

infanticide
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/07/21/infanticide-to-the-aclu-its-womens-health/ http://www.unitedforlife.org/press_releases/031103_abortion_industry_halloween_lawsuits.htm

 

[MissileMan]

You got a problem with an ex-FBI agent and ex-Police Chief writing excellent information about communists and their goals? Have you read The Naked Communist?



It's not necessary to have a lawsuit for each and every item in order to see how the ACLU supports these items. I pulled what I could find quickly off the net to give you a pretty good idea about these items. You should be able to understand how the ACLU is supporting porn and perversion and thus the degeneracy of our country. However, despite the many facts, if you are one of those people who likes to stick his head in the sand, I'm sure it will not satisfy you.

Public drunkeness (via bums in the streets)
http://aspin.asu.edu/hpn/archives/Jan99/0198.html

kiddie porn, pedophilia
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/16/123428.php
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38540,00.html

bestiality
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html
http://www.unknownnews.net/030919endofcivilization.html

necrophilia
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15539prs19970508.html

child prostitution
The ACLU supports prostitution, teen sex, and child porn; it indirectly supports child prostitution because it supports the porn industry.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/10/11/aclu-perverting-the-constitution/

infanticide
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/07/21/infanticide-to-the-aclu-its-womens-health/ http://www.unitedforlife.org/press_releases/031103_abortion_industry_halloween_lawsuits.htm

Before I answer any of the specific links you provided, I would ask that you read them all in their entirety before presenting them as proof of your allegations. I'm offering you the opportunity to cull or substitute most of them before we proceed with the debate.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Before I answer any of the specific links you provided, I would ask that you read them all in their entirety before presenting them as proof of your allegations. I'm offering you the opportunity to cull or substitute most of them before we proceed with the debate.

Waiting for your answer. No need to reread them. I'm just hoping you're not going to bore me with reams of wordy attacks that pick apart the details to weasel your way into proof that the ACLU is only supporting "free speech" et al - which is also the ACLU's typical modus operandi in our court system. If you don't understand by now that the ACLU is a supporter of all kinds of sexual perversion under the guise of "free speech", then you don't understand the ACLU.

 

[MissileMan]

Waiting for your answer. No need to reread them. I'm just hoping you're not going to bore me with reams of wordy attacks that pick apart the details to weasel your way into proof that the ACLU is only supporting "free speech" et al - which is also the ACLU's typical modus operandi in our court system. If you don't understand by now that the ACLU is a supporter of all kinds of sexual perversion under the guise of "free speech", then you don't understand the ACLU.

OK, if you insist.

Public drunkeness (via bums in the streets)
http://aspin.asu.edu/hpn/archives/Jan99/0198.html

Philadelphia is trying to make being homeless a criminal offense. Tha ACLU isn't trying to legalize public drunkeness as you allege, they are trying to prevent "being homeless" turned into a crime. Your first allegation goes into the trash.

kiddie porn, pedophilia
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/16/123428.php
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38540,00.html

I'll admit I don't understand their arguments on this issue. It doesn't make sense that they only want to ban the production, but not the possession of kiddie porn. You can keep this allegation.

bestiality
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...8_0747_ZS.html
http://www.unknownnews.net/030919endofcivilization.html

The first of these 2 links has nothing to do with beastiality, I'm not sure why you included it. The second link is to a case in Kansas dealing with uncriminalizing sex between homosexuals and has nothing to do with beastiality. This allegation goes in the trash.

necrophilia
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/1...s19970508.html

This is a case about poetry, not necrophilia...this allegation goes in the trash.

child prostitution
The ACLU supports prostitution, teen sex, and child porn; it indirectly supports child prostitution because it supports the porn industry.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005...-constitution/

The ACLU wants to legalize prostitution, not CHILD prostitution...this allegation goes in the trash.

infanticide
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006...womens-health/ http://www.unitedforlife.org/press_r...n_lawsuits.htm

This case was about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. The ban was written to include abortions as early as 13 weeks, clearly outside the scope of partial birth. Again, the ACLU wasn't trying to legalize partial-birth abortion.

Since all but one of your supporting links couldn't stand up to scrutiny, perhaps you'd like to try again. Might I suggest that you actually read them before you use them this time though.

 

[jillian]

I think I'm gonna jump in on this one. The ACLU takes some pretty awful positions. BUT THAT'S ITS JOB!! There is no need to protect "pleasant" or "acceptable" speech. You only defend the right to speech by defending everyone's right to it, no matter how vile what they say.

 

[dilloduck]

I think I'm gonna jump in on this one. The ACLU takes some pretty awful positions. BUT THAT'S ITS JOB!! There is no need to protect "pleasant" or "acceptable" speech. You only defend the right to speech by defending everyone's right to it, no matter how vile what they say.

The point is however that they DON'T. They choose who they defend in a blatantly biased manner

 

[ScreamingEagle]

OK, if you insist.

Philadelphia is trying to make being homeless a criminal offense. Tha ACLU isn't trying to legalize public drunkeness as you allege, they are trying to prevent "being homeless" turned into a crime. Your first allegation goes into the trash.

If "being homeless" was the only crime I might give you this one, however it's not. The "homeless" are basically drunks and panhandlers who trash the fair cities of law-abiding taxpayers. They puke and pee and spit on the streets. They sleep on park benches and in store owners' doorways and spend the day in front of their stores scaring away customers. They loiter and smell bad and harass passersby. They make the environment disgusting. What right do they have to do that? They're certainly not taxpayers. Most of these people are either drunks/druggies or unstable misfits - most likely the result of a long alcoholic life. By allowing these "homeless", i.e. bums, to live on the streets, the ACLU is - by extension - supporting public drunkeness.

I'll admit I don't understand their arguments on this issue. It doesn't make sense that they only want to ban the production, but not the possession of kiddie porn. You can keep this allegation.

Yes, the ACLU supports the selling of "pictures" of children being molested or
as someone aptly put it, "crime scene photos".

The first of these 2 links has nothing to do with beastiality, I'm not sure why you included it. The second link is to a case in Kansas dealing with uncriminalizing sex between homosexuals and has nothing to do with beastiality. This allegation goes in the trash.

The ACLU supports all forms of pornography. This includes beastiality.

This is a case about poetry, not necrophilia...this allegation goes in the trash.

The ACLU supports all forms of pornography. This includes necrophilia.

The ACLU wants to legalize prostitution, not CHILD prostitution...this allegation goes in the trash.

The ACLU supports prostitution.
It supports underage children having sex.
It supports NAMBLA.
It supports the porn industry.
All of the above are related to the prostitution of children.
Get A CLU.

This case was about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. The ban was written to include abortions as early as 13 weeks, clearly outside the scope of partial birth. Again, the ACLU wasn't trying to legalize partial-birth abortion.

The ACLU supports all abortions including partial-birth. Partial-birth abortion was the "legal" way of getting around killing a full term healthy child half way out of the mother. Tell me that isn't really infanticide.

In all our wars 651,000 brave Americans have died. Because of the ACLU pushing abortion over 46,000,000 helpless Americans have died from surgical abortion procedures.

The ACLU is also a supporter of the infamous "Baby Doe" cases where parents end a baby's life (hiding under "right to privacy") because it was born with a problem. This is infanticide, plain and simple.
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff.html

Since all but one of your supporting links couldn't stand up to scrutiny, perhaps you'd like to try again. Might I suggest that you actually read them before you use them this time though.

Yeah, right, you can hide the truth under whatever you want.
Might I suggest you read The ACLU vs America?

Consider these ACLU positions and imagine what America would be like if these dreams were fulfilled:

• All legal prohibitions on the distribution of obscene material - including child pornography - are unconstitutional.
  
  
• Pornographic outlets can locate wherever they please - whether next to day-care centers or near residential neighborhoods.
  
  
• Tax-funded libraries should not restrict access of children to pornography on the Internet.
  
  
• Parents should have no legal recourse when it comes to shielding their children from exposure to hard-core pornography.
  
  
• The military cannot enforce even the most basic codes of conduct - such as discipline for disrespectful behavior toward a superior officer.
  
  
• The military cannot stop open displays of homosexual behavior within its ranks.
  
  
• Parents cannot limit their children's exposure to, or participation in public school classes and assemblies, any topic - except Orthodox Jewish or Christian teachings - that violates the family's religious and moral beliefs.
  
  
• Public schools cannot observe recognized religious, historical, and cultural holidays such as Christmas, Easter, or Hanukkah, despite hundreds of years of American tradition.
  
  
• All legislative, military, and prison chaplain programs should be abolished.
  
  
• All criminal and civil laws that prohibit polygamy and same-sex "marriage" should be done away with.

Support the ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/default.aspx

 

[MissileMan]

If "being homeless" was the only crime I might give you this one, however it's not. The "homeless" are basically drunks and panhandlers who trash the fair cities of law-abiding taxpayers. They puke and pee and spit on the streets. They sleep on park benches and in store owners' doorways and spend the day in front of their stores scaring away customers. They loiter and smell bad and harass passersby. They make the environment disgusting. What right do they have to do that? They're certainly not taxpayers. Most of these people are either drunks/druggies or unstable misfits - most likely the result of a long alcoholic life. By allowing these "homeless", i.e. bums, to live on the streets, the ACLU is - by extension - supporting public drunkeness.




Yes, the ACLU supports the selling of "pictures" of children being molested or
as someone aptly put it, "crime scene photos".



The ACLU supports all forms of pornography. This includes beastiality.



The ACLU supports all forms of pornography. This includes necrophilia.



The ACLU supports prostitution.
It supports underage children having sex.
It supports NAMBLA.
It supports the porn industry.
All of the above are related to the prostitution of children.
Get A CLU.

I asked for cases where the ACLU was trying to legalize public drunkeness, beastiality, necrophilia, and child prostitution. You've provided none of them. If your claims were legitimate, you would have no problem backing them up. Your "evidence" is supposition and innuendo. It's not only unconvincing, but an overt grasping at straws that I find rather pathetic.

The ACLU supports all abortions including partial-birth. Partial-birth abortion was the "legal" way of getting around killing a full term healthy child half way out of the mother. Tell me that isn't really infanticide.

The ACLU is pro-abortion...provide a case where they are specifically fighting for partial-birth abortion and not early abortion that was tied to partial-birth abortion by some overzealous legislator.

Yeah, right, you can hide the truth under whatever you want.
Might I suggest you read The ACLU vs America?

It appears written by someone with the same propensity for exaggeration as yourself. It's no wonder you find it compelling. I don't.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I asked for cases where the ACLU was trying to legalize public drunkeness, beastiality, necrophilia, and child prostitution. You've provided none of them. If your claims were legitimate, you would have no problem backing them up. Your "evidence" is supposition and innuendo. It's not only unconvincing, but an overt grasping at straws that I find rather pathetic.

The ACLU is pro-abortion...provide a case where they are specifically fighting for partial-birth abortion and not early abortion that was tied to partial-birth abortion by some overzealous legislator.

It appears written by someone with the same propensity for exaggeration as yourself. It's no wonder you find it compelling. I don't.

What's pathetic is your denial. You may have "asked" for cases but that doesn't mean I have to provide direct cases on each point explicitly to prove my statements about the ACLU. If the ACLU is making a case for "homelessness" it is by default defending public drunkeness. If the ACLU is making a case for pornographic poetry that includes necrophilia - it is supporting necrophilia. Etc. I don't need to provide a "direct case" on necrophilia per se to prove it. You prove to me that the ACLU doesn't support pornography.

Regarding the ACLU and abortion:
(from The ACLU vs America)

"The ACLU has a long history of advancing unrestricted access to abortion, right up to the moment of live birth. It played an influential role in Griswold vs Connecticut, Doe vs Bolton, and Roe vs Wade. The ACLU stated in 1980, "Our litigation strategy has been to challenge every statute restricting reproductive freedom...In states where there are no lawyers willing to undertake these controversial cases, the entire litigation is conducted from the national office.""

U.S. vs Viutch: "Vuitch was a pivotal case because it gave the ACLU and its pro-abortion allies the legal wording that has been used for the past thirty years to either strike down or weaken any law that would stop the most horrific forms of abortion, such as partial-birth abortion. In almost every case challenging partial-birth abortion laws, the ACLU trots out the "health of the mother" argument, which the Court expanded in concept far beyond physical health to the almost undefinable concept of mental health. Therefore, any legal restriction, no matter how reasonable or proper, on abortion is rendered almost meaningless if "health-of-the-mother" language is inserted. No concern is ever shown for the child."

Finally, if you STILL think the ACLU doesn't support partial-birth abortion, read on their own site where they flatly state that they OPPOSE the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortionbans/12519leg20030618.html

 

[CharlestonChad]

Indeed - you've just described everything but God. Religion will cause harm and destruction of one's soul. Christ will HEAL our souls. He's real. Just look for Him.

Do you realize what you just said?

Religion (Christianity for example) hurts the souls, but religious figures that are celebrated by religion are good.

 

[archangel]

I think I'm gonna jump in on this one. The ACLU takes some pretty awful positions. BUT THAT'S ITS JOB!! There is no need to protect "pleasant" or "acceptable" speech. You only defend the right to speech by defending everyone's right to it, no matter how vile what they say.

But this is where we part company...the ACLU does not I again say does not support "Free Speech" if they did they would not have taken on the case about the "Ten Commandments" et al on public property...this is actual free speech as defined...they take on cases of sexual deviation..ie: pictures and art and child pornograpghy...the list goes on and on and has nothing whatsoever to do with "Free Speech"...since when does pornography have anything to do with 'Speech'? They also take on cases that attack Christian beliefs and yet turn a blind eye to radical Islam and even support the doctrine! Sorry but the ACLU= Anti..Christ..Legions..Unleashed..end of story for this Communist Party!

 

[MissileMan]

What's pathetic is your denial. You may have "asked" for cases but that doesn't mean I have to provide direct cases on each point explicitly to prove my statements about the ACLU.

I disagree. You've made accusations and when pressed for evidence, so far, only offered up those same accusations as evidence.

If the ACLU is making a case for "homelessness" it is by default defending public drunkeness. If the ACLU is making a case for pornographic poetry that includes necrophilia - it is supporting necrophilia. Etc. I don't need to provide a "direct case" on necrophilia per se to prove it. You prove to me that the ACLU doesn't support pornography.

This is nonsense. The bible contains a story about murder (Cain and Abel). Since you support the bible, are we to assume you support murder? Your inability to provide "direct cases" only further proves that you have a much weaker case against the ACLU than the one that exists solely in your imagination.

Regarding the ACLU and abortion:
(from The ACLU vs America)

"The ACLU has a long history of advancing unrestricted access to abortion, right up to the moment of live birth. It played an influential role in Griswold vs Connecticut, Doe vs Bolton, and Roe vs Wade. The ACLU stated in 1980, "Our litigation strategy has been to challenge every statute restricting reproductive freedom...In states where there are no lawyers willing to undertake these controversial cases, the entire litigation is conducted from the national office.""

U.S. vs Viutch: "Vuitch was a pivotal case because it gave the ACLU and its pro-abortion allies the legal wording that has been used for the past thirty years to either strike down or weaken any law that would stop the most horrific forms of abortion, such as partial-birth abortion. In almost every case challenging partial-birth abortion laws, the ACLU trots out the "health of the mother" argument, which the Court expanded in concept far beyond physical health to the almost undefinable concept of mental health. Therefore, any legal restriction, no matter how reasonable or proper, on abortion is rendered almost meaningless if "health-of-the-mother" language is inserted. No concern is ever shown for the child."

Finally, if you STILL think the ACLU doesn't support partial-birth abortion, read on their own site where they flatly state that they OPPOSE the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortionbans/12519leg20030618.html

As I stated earlier, they opposed the ban because it included abortions outside the scope of partial-birth.

 

[dmp]

Do you realize what you just said?

Religion (Christianity for example) hurts the souls, but religious figures that are celebrated by religion are good.

Christianity is not "religion". That's what you're not grasping.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Funny, I know lots of liberal and moderate Christians.... just not the extremist kind. And I wouldn't say "bat-shit crazy", but I WOULD say insular and intolerant... oh yeah.... and so certain of their correctness that they feel the need to ram their beliefs down everyone else's throats.

So you were saying?

I'm neither liberal nor Christian........and I find there are individuals/extremists of both persuasions (Christian and non-Christian) that "feel the need to ram their beliefs down everyone else's throats". I find both to be offensive.

However, I believe everyone has the right to lay out the foundation of their belief system, and those who are reading or listening should be the ones to discern what is true for themselves. It becomes offensive when one or the other starts referring to those who do not agree with their beliefs as "bat-shit crazy" and other negative connotations.

 

[kurtsprincess]

It's fine with me if people want to elect people of their same religion, but when nutjobs like this woman, Harris, say that god has put people like bush in power, myself (and anyother sane person) has to take a step back and realize how psychotic that sounds. Even "political and christian officials" were amazed at how outlandish and untruthful her comments were.


Yes, they should and need to hang those beliefs at the door. It's a government job!!!!!!!

People are what they believe in --- they are a compiliation of their values and ethical belief system. I think hanging those beliefs and values at the door is why our government is so corrupt.

 

[kurtsprincess]

"weak-minded" lol


When you tell me that what the bible says is "THE truth" (caps mean you're putting force into the words), you are telling me that I am wrong and you are right. If that's not ramming your beliefs, then I don't know what is, outside of physical force.

Well, CC, it seems that you are trying just as hard to say that the Bible is NOT the truth. How is your belief system any more valid than those that say the Bible is the truth?

I have read very, very little of the Bible, but I would not argue with those who believe it to be THEIR truth and I won't argue with your right to say it's not YOUR truth. But your posts seem to be a case of the "pot calling the kettle black".