View Full Version : Thought this was hilarious...
Breaking from NewsMax.com
ACLU Doesn't Want English Signs
The American Civil Liberties Union has asked officials in a Detroit suburb to reject a proposal that would require businesses with foreign language signs to add English translations.
"We write to strongly urge you to abandon the measure as unconstitutional, anti-immigrant and unnecessary," the ACLU wrote to the city Thursday in a letter that was also signed by officials with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Michigan and Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development Inc.
In May, Sterling Heights, Mich., Councilwoman Barbara Ziarko asked the city's attorney to prepare an ordinance requiring businesses with foreign language signs to have identifiers such as "bakery" included, the Detroit News reports.
Fire Chief John Childs supported the move, arguing that people passing by the site of a fire or other emergency could inform dispatchers about the location more easily if they could read the signs.
He maintained that the issue has nothing to do with race.
"This is about response time," he said.
The city issued a statement Thursday defending the proposed ordinance.
"Any assertion that the city's public safety effort is intended as a restriction on the expression of cultural diversity is categorically denied," the statement said.
According to the News, Michael J. Steinberg of the ACLU said the proposal is unconstitutional "because it singles out businesses with signs."
EDIT:
Might I prevail upon a moderator to add the missing "t" to the end of the first word in the thread title? :wacko:
vidcc
07-15-2006, 04:32 PM
The reasoning stated above aside surely you would object to this attempted regulation on private businesses.
Busyman™
07-15-2006, 04:47 PM
This is somewhat different but it amazing that in Chinatown in DC, every business is required to have Chinese signs.
This is somewhat different but it amazing that in Chinatown in DC, every business is required to have Chinese signs.
It is the same in all essential aspects.
It's a goose/gander thing.
Actually, vid, Government and it's urge to regulate every little thing (only in the politically-correct way, of course), should just fuck right off.
vidcc
07-15-2006, 07:44 PM
Actually, vid, Government and it's urge to regulate every little thing (only in the politically-correct way, of course), should just fuck right off. Do you not object to the politically incorrect regulatory urges then ? :shifty:
Actually, vid, Government and it's urge to regulate every little thing (only in the politically-correct way, of course), should just fuck right off. Do you not object to the politically incorrect regulatory urges then ? :shifty:
I think that's what I just said.
Not only is it hilarious, but is really shows the absolute stupidity of the
ACLU. Singles out businesses with signs?????? :blink:
I'd say, "What's next?", but I don't think anyone here is as imaginative as those pricks.
Skweeky
07-17-2006, 12:31 AM
I don't quite understand...
Are these signs printed in some other alphabet or something? Because surely if it was just Spanish or Italian or something people would still be able to read it?
What's the use of being able to say to the fire department ' Yes, it's a shop called Het Zoete Broodje, oh, and it's a bakery, I can see it on the translation sign' ?
I don't quite understand...
Are these signs printed in some other alphabet or something? Because surely if it was just Spanish or Italian or something people would still be able to read it?
What's the use of being able to say to the fire department ' Yes, it's a shop called Het Zoete Broodje, oh, and it's a bakery, I can see it on the translation sign' ?
Ah, but you were inculcated in a multilingual society, kiddo.
This issue is actually an offshoot of the current trend of adding Spanish and other languages to signage that was heretofore English-only, so as to be more hospitable and inclusive-this gives rise to the difficulty of, say, a Spanish-only speaker trying to order a steak-and-cheese sandwich from an English-only speaker, with the attendant frustrations.
It has reached the point where, in some locales, municipal authorities have decided multilingual signage is a condition of doing business, and in many instances, businesses are viewed askance for not having multilingual staff capable of taking orders in other languages.
Now comes the ACLU stipulating that immigrant-owned businesses will suffer no such requirements, and there are many Arab-owned businesses (for example) strung out end-to-end as far as the eye can see-they do not cater to English-only speakers, and they couldn't care less about accomodating them.
Now, I don't read that language, and don't recognize the runes which make-up the signage.
That effectively means I cannot shop there, nor can I indicate what the establishment sells to anyone else, and I certainly wouldn't be able to indicate it's location in an emergency by any means other than gestures.
Damned inconvenient.
vidcc
07-17-2006, 03:02 AM
Who cares? to be honest a private company should be able to put any signs (apart from safety notices like fire exit) in whatever language it desires. There should be no requirement other than health and safety reasons to have translations in any other language than that desired by the business. It seems to me that if it was in a language other than English in the USA then the company would lose custom of english only speakers...that is their choice and their loss......
Who cares? to be honest a private company should be able to put any signs (apart from safety notices like fire exit) in whatever language it desires. There should be no requirement other than health and safety reasons to have translations in any other language than that desired by the business. It seems to me that if it was in a language other than English in the USA then the company would lose custom of english only speakers...that is their choice and their loss......
Yes, they should, and currently are able to. But I don't want to hear any complaining either when it takes the fire department/ambulance/cop 30 minutes to arrive at the Chinese, Arabic, Vietnamese, or whatever business b/c they couldn't locate it due to the language barrier. Would you know what to look for if someone told you to go to 'Chao mung da den voi to am cua chung toi' ?
The fire department is only trying to help for crying out loud. :ermm:
No one has even asked if the citizens in said district have any problem with this. Perhaps they are OK with it, and this is just another ACLU bellyache.
vidcc
07-17-2006, 05:26 PM
I wonder what right wingers have against that anti US document....the bill of rights?
JPaul
07-17-2006, 06:00 PM
Who cares? to be honest a private company should be able to put any signs (apart from safety notices like fire exit) in whatever language it desires. There should be no requirement other than health and safety reasons to have translations in any other language than that desired by the business. It seems to me that if it was in a language other than English in the USA then the company would lose custom of english only speakers...that is their choice and their loss......
Yup that's pretty much what I think.
JPaul
07-17-2006, 06:02 PM
With the usual rider, same rules for everyone.
If English speakers don't want to put up other language signs (other then H&S) then that's their choice too.
calm2chaos
07-17-2006, 10:23 PM
Imagine that..... The communist based ACLU fighting to not have english signs in America... Why doesn't that surpise me....
vidcc
07-17-2006, 10:38 PM
Imagine that..... The communist based ACLU fighting to not have english signs in America... Why doesn't that surpise me.... Is the bill of rights a communist thing then?
Who cares? to be honest a private company should be able to put any signs (apart from safety notices like fire exit) in whatever language it desires. There should be no requirement other than health and safety reasons to have translations in any other language than that desired by the business. It seems to me that if it was in a language other than English in the USA then the company would lose custom of english only speakers...that is their choice and their loss......
Would it surprise you to hear that I agree?
It is not right-wingers who are making these asinine demands, after all-which leads me to ask:
What are you on about, vid? :huh:
vidcc
07-18-2006, 01:30 AM
the anti aclu theme
the anti aclu theme
I think they should drop the "A" part.
They are copping legitimacy illegitimately, you see.
Do you take pride in an organization which "fights the good fight" for such as NAMBLA?
Much as a political cartoon I saw recently:
A "representation" of a certain member-country of the Human Rights Council of the U.N., uttering these words-
"It's called the Human Rights Council, not the PRO-Human Rights Council..."
vidcc
07-18-2006, 02:37 AM
The ACLU has just one client...the bill of rights.... and the last time I checked that was American.
Now we may not like the fact that some people have rights but that's the price of freedom. With your example the group has every right to exist as a group and campaign as they do, even though they are basically scum. What they don't have is the right to sleep with children.
The ACLU is made up of Democrats, real Republicans, not the theocrats or neo-fascists that seem to have taken over, Independents, and every vairiant of political thought in between. It has members of all kinds of religious belief and disbelief. They have one mission, to protect the constitution and they do so no matter whos behalf each case is raised on.
Skweeky
07-18-2006, 10:26 AM
Thanks for explaining Kev
One must ask itself though...
If you're in a neighbourhood with nothing but Arabic/Chinese/Hebrew, whatever language signage, then isn't it safe to assume most of the people in the neighbourhood will speak that particular language?
The ACLU has just one client...the bill of rights.... and the last time I checked that was American.
Now we may not like the fact that some people have rights but that's the price of freedom. With your example the group has every right to exist as a group and campaign as they do, even though they are basically scum. What they don't have is the right to sleep with children.
The ACLU is made up of Democrats, real Republicans, not the theocrats or neo-fascists that seem to have taken over, Independents, and every vairiant of political thought in between. It has members of all kinds of religious belief and disbelief. They have one mission, to protect the constitution and they do so no matter whos behalf each case is raised on.
Are you an ACLU functionary of some sort?
Do you author their brochurage?
Honestly, while you are a fan of the ACLU, I am a fan only of their charter, and not their tactics.
Besides which, I think you are a bit presumptive appropriating "real Republicans" for duty there without their permission.
I think they'd object, I really do.
Busyman
07-18-2006, 08:08 PM
This is what happens with all the fucking around about having an official language.
Rat Faced
07-18-2006, 08:29 PM
Imagine that..... The communist based ACLU fighting to not have english signs in America... Why doesn't that surpise me....
An interesting thought...
I disagree though, I believe plenty of people in Democracies (of most political persuasions) like their Civil Liberties.
...and most Communist's and Facists (Both extremes) tend not to... so why would the Communists form a Civil Liberties Union?
vidcc
07-18-2006, 08:43 PM
They have one mission, to protect the constitution and they do so no matter whos behalf each case is raised on.
Are you an ACLU functionary of some sort?
Do you author their brochurage?
Honestly, while you are a fan of the ACLU, I am a fan only of their charter, and not their tactics.
Besides which, I think you are a bit presumptive appropriating "real Republicans" for duty there without their permission.
I think they'd object, I really do. If you read, what I said was that the ACLU protects the constitution. That is the point and the only point of the ACLU. If the constitution can be broken for one group of people then it can be broken for any group. They are protecting the constitution, not nambla or any other scum.
As I said we may not like some of the groups the contitution protects but that's the price of having and protecting the constitution.
As to the repulican comment...I stand by what I said. The party has been hijacked.
Thanks for explaining Kev
One must ask itself though...
If you're in a neighbourhood with nothing but Arabic/Chinese/Hebrew, whatever language signage, then isn't it safe to assume most of the people in the neighbourhood will speak that particular language?
Not necessarily.
When I visit Chicago, I see ethnic what-have-you strung out end-to-end, and there are no similar adjoining ethnic neighborhoods; I think they like to sew up certain areas, however, so they can do a lot of their shopping in one locale.
Makes sense to me.
They seem to be a very insular people...my sister-in-law walked into an Arab market looking for some sort of spice she needed, and she couldn't read the signs.
The fellow in attendance waved her to the door, and said something like, "leef!"
So she "leefed", and never went back. :huh:
Are you an ACLU functionary of some sort?
Do you author their brochurage?
Honestly, while you are a fan of the ACLU, I am a fan only of their charter, and not their tactics.
Besides which, I think you are a bit presumptive appropriating "real Republicans" for duty there without their permission.
I think they'd object, I really do. If you read, what I said was that the ACLU protects the constitution. That is the point and the only point of the ACLU. If the constitution can be broken for one group of people then it can be broken for any group. They are protecting the constitution, not nambla or any other scum.
As I said we may not like some of the groups the contitution protects but that's the price of having and protecting the constitution.
As to the repulican comment...I stand by what I said. The party has been hijacked.
Funny-the ACLU used to help those whose rights had been violated and had no recourse...kind of like legal aid.
Now they go 'round seeking out causes (like NAMBLA) on a pro-active basis.
Kind of like...hijacking.
As to your last, I don't know what you mean-what party has been hijacked?
longboneslinger
07-19-2006, 01:27 AM
Hmmm....how is it 'unconstitutional, anti-immigrant and unnecessary'?
Where does the constitution fit into this?? Anti immigrant? Oh hell.
Unnecessary? Well, as J2 says, how would I tell the emergency operator where to send the cops/rescue/fire/marines...whatever? "Its....uhhh...mune..many....uhhh.... Oh Hell...errr....is that an upside down v? WTF??" CLICK! They best hope I enabled GPS location on my cellphone. If not, burn baby burn. Or at best hope someone else can call and speaks english or that the EO has a translator.....lot of damn hopes. At least give the name and address in the native tongue.
Hell, if I were to 'immagrate' to Italy (for example)I would at least make an effort to learn to read and speak rudimentary Itallian. No hopes for fluency at first, just out of respect for the citizens of the country I'm 'immagrating' too. Gives them a giggle and helps me find a potty and after all, it's their country. I'm just a damn immigrant.
So why is it to much to ask for those immagrating to the US to learn English? Why should I learn Spanish? Or Arabic?
Why dont we round up the ACLU and.....
Later taters,
bone
Busyman™
07-19-2006, 01:49 AM
Well, as J2 says, how would I tell the emergency operator where to send the cops/rescue/fire/marines...whatever?
The address?:unsure:
calm2chaos
07-19-2006, 03:14 AM
Imagine that..... The communist based ACLU fighting to not have english signs in America... Why doesn't that surpise me.... Is the bill of rights a communist thing then?
So what your trying to do is tie the bill of rights to an organization started by admitted communist. An organization that defends group like nambla....LMAO Keep trying... sorry
calm2chaos
07-19-2006, 03:17 AM
The ACLU has just one client...the bill of rights.... and the last time I checked that was American.
Now we may not like the fact that some people have rights but that's the price of freedom. With your example the group has every right to exist as a group and campaign as they do, even though they are basically scum. What they don't have is the right to sleep with children.
The ACLU is made up of Democrats, real Republicans, not the theocrats or neo-fascists that seem to have taken over, Independents, and every vairiant of political thought in between. It has members of all kinds of religious belief and disbelief. They have one mission, to protect the constitution and they do so no matter whos behalf each case is raised on.
The ACLU is doing everything in it's undisclosed funding powers to do some major damage in this country. Why destroy from the outside when you can destroy it from the inside. Seems every scumbag that comes down the pike they want to defend. Yes they have rights. But why is the ACLU so intent on putting 40 lawyers on any case that involves a dirt bag
vidcc
07-19-2006, 05:42 PM
The ACLU is doing everything in it's undisclosed funding powers to do some major damage in this country. Why destroy from the outside when you can destroy it from the inside. Seems every scumbag that comes down the pike they want to defend. Yes they have rights. But why is the ACLU so intent on putting 40 lawyers on any case that involves a dirt bag
You mean the ACLU is protecting the constitution against anti constitutional right wing ideology...yes I have to agree with that..... what is the argument for these right wing judges again?
The ACLU is doing everything in it's undisclosed funding powers to do some major damage in this country. Why destroy from the outside when you can destroy it from the inside. Seems every scumbag that comes down the pike they want to defend. Yes they have rights. But why is the ACLU so intent on putting 40 lawyers on any case that involves a dirt bag
You mean the ACLU is protecting the constitution against anti constitutional right wing ideology...yes I have to agree with that..... what is the argument for these right wing judges again?
A person who fervently believes the U.S. Constitution to be under attack from the Right but not the Left is a liberal, dyed-in-the-wool.
Fact.
vidcc
07-19-2006, 07:59 PM
You mean the ACLU is protecting the constitution against anti constitutional right wing ideology...yes I have to agree with that..... what is the argument for these right wing judges again?
A person who fervently believes the U.S. Constitution to be under attack from the Right but not the Left is a liberal, dyed-in-the-wool.
Fact.
I made no such argument, but it seems that the only reason the ACLU is attacked and called traitors and communist is by right wingers when their unconstitutional ideology is tackled.
The bill of rights is not partisan.
A person who fervently believes the U.S. Constitution to be under attack from the Right but not the Left is a liberal, dyed-in-the-wool.
Fact.
I made no such argument, but it seems that the only reason the ACLU is attacked and called traitors and communist is by right wingers when their unconstitutional ideology is tackled.
The bill of rights is not partisan.
The ACLU, as an organization, has an absolute liberal bias-so much so, in fact, that to attempt to argue otherwise accomplishes naught but to reveal the arguer as...a liberal.
Fact.
Period.
End of sentence.
No debate necessary.
As I said, they should drop the "A", then petition for U.N. auspice.
You know it makes sense.
vidcc
07-20-2006, 12:14 AM
The ACLU, as an organization, has an absolute liberal bias-so much so, in fact, that to attempt to argue otherwise accomplishes naught but to reveal the arguer as...a liberal.
Fact.
Period.
End of sentence.
No debate necessary.
As I said, they should drop the "A", then petition for U.N. auspice.
You know it makes sense. Ah .....so anyone that supports the bill of rights is a liberal and thus not American.
Boy those founding fathers....what a bunch of commie traitors.
Btw.they are sooo liberal and thus not american that the supported that well know leftie and un-american, rush limbaugh when his privacy rights were being abused.... Good job that right wing judge (sorry, true american judge) was there to ensure Rush's rights were violated.
COuld it be that conservatives are mostly the ones violating the bill of rights so those are the ones brought to task?
The ACLU, as an organization, has an absolute liberal bias-so much so, in fact, that to attempt to argue otherwise accomplishes naught but to reveal the arguer as...a liberal.
Fact.
Period.
End of sentence.
No debate necessary.
As I said, they should drop the "A", then petition for U.N. auspice.
You know it makes sense. Ah .....so anyone that supports the bill of rights is a liberal and thus not American.
Boy those founding fathers....what a bunch of commie traitors.
Btw.they are sooo liberal and thus not american that the supported that well know leftie and un-american, rush limbaugh when his privacy rights were being abused.... Good job that right wing judge (sorry, true american judge) was there to ensure Rush's rights were violated.
COuld it be that conservatives are mostly the ones violating the bill of rights so those are the ones brought to task?
The Founders knew what the words of that document meant; they wrote them, as I recall.
They did not look upon it as a convenient item to have in one's grasp when struck by any old urge to bend, fold, stretch or otherwise mutilate something.
The ACLU has the same expansive ideas as every other liberal group.
Once again...fact.
MagicNakor
07-20-2006, 09:44 PM
I'm still not sure why the word "liberal" is so dirty in the US. Surely Lincoln would've been considered "liberal" in his time?
Please note I'm also very drunk and stoned.
:shuriken:
I'm still not sure why the word "liberal" is so dirty in the US. Surely Lincoln would've been considered "liberal" in his time?
Please note I'm also very drunk and stoned.
:shuriken:
The word liberal is fine.
The word progressive is likewise fine.
It's what people have done by choosing them as labels that has soiled them so.
You see vidcc disavow the label even more quickly than if someone called him a conservative...:D
vidcc
07-20-2006, 10:26 PM
The Founders knew what the words of that document meant; they wrote them, as I recall.
They did not look upon it as a convenient item to have in one's grasp when struck by any old urge to bend, fold, stretch or otherwise mutilate something.
Indeed the founders did know. How many are alive today?
To me it seems the founders wrote the document to ensure freedom for minorities as well as majorities would be protected.
conservatives wish to ignore this...unless it's their freedoms being abused....fact.
conservatives are expanding government restrictions on private concerns...and private lives...fact.
conservatives are the big government group...fact.
liberals are for freedom...conservatives are for anti freedom controls....fact.
It's the "land of the free"...not the "land of free to do only what conservatives approve of"
The ACLU has the same expansive ideas as every other liberal group.
Once again...fact.
expanding freedom...hmmm...what an anti-american ideology.
but then they are not expanding freedoms, they are protecting freedoms we already constitutionally have and restoring freedoms that have been unconstitutionally denied.
As I said the client is the bill of rights....not the humans in the case.
vidcc
07-20-2006, 10:32 PM
You see vidcc disavow the label even more quickly than if someone called him a conservative...:D I have said many times before...it doesn't bother me...... better be a liberal than a conservative, just don't complain when I lump you in with phelps when labelling conservatives.;)
You see vidcc disavow the label even more quickly than if someone called him a conservative...:D I have said many times before...it doesn't bother me...... better be a liberal than a conservative, just don't complain when I lump you in with phelps when labelling conservatives.;)
Thanks for that admission.
Whats a "phelps"?
vidcc
07-20-2006, 10:37 PM
Whats a "phelps"?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/graphics/photos/AP/fred.phelps.ap.jpg
BTW, vid-
I spoke not one word of "lumping", either.
This tactic is unnecessary.
Whats a "phelps"?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/graphics/photos/AP/fred.phelps.ap.jpg
Not familiar with him.
He looks like an incredibly aged Greg Norman.
vidcc
07-20-2006, 10:41 PM
Like I said i don't care what group you want to label me with overall, but I am definately not a conservative.
on many things i am liberal on others, libertarian...I am far right of you when it comes to being a libertarian on a vast range of issues and left on others.
vidcc
07-20-2006, 10:44 PM
Not familiar with him.
I find that hard to believe (http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/phelpsbio.html)
Like I said i don't care what group you want to label me with overall, but I am definately not a conservative.
on many things i am liberal on others, libertarian...I am far right of you when it comes to being a libertarian on a vast range of issues and I am far right of you when it comes to being a libertarian on a vast range of issues.
I find that, for myself, Conservative (of the popular "labels") best denotes or encompasses my views, a relative few of which can be construed as Libertarian.
I've found, in a lifetime of playing about "in the field" so to speak, that the vast majority of one's views must fall in one or another of the several ideological catagories in order that one might be defined as any other than confused; that is to say that one cannot entertain the full variety of choice in every area as someone who is "sufficiently engaged", and then coherently espouse ideas of several camps simultaneously merely to lay claim to the tag, "Pragmatist", which is a polite way to describe someone who is just wishy-washy.
What is it to say, "I am far right of you when it comes to being a libertarian on a vast range of issues"?
I beg you, please clarify this, and then provide an example wherein you might comfortably describe yourself as being to my ideological right? :huh:
Not familiar with him.
I find that hard to believe (http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/phelpsbio.html)
Why would you say that?
Have you knowledge of my inveterate hatred of "fags"?
vidcc
07-21-2006, 03:47 AM
conservatives are supposed to believe in small government with minimal powers in the private world. you believe that government has a place making laws and rules that determine what goes on in the privacy of ones own home...ones living arrangements. Now to me that would be government interference ...something you would pin onto liberals.... So I am far right of you on this.
As to phelps... if you remove the vitriol.... isn't he just pushing conservative values?.... certainly not liberal.
I find it hard to believe you have no knowledge of him.
On the wishy washy part I would suggest that if taking a stance on each issue rather than following a set rule makes one wishy washy then it's better than the alternative...being a brainwashed sheep
conservatives are supposed to believe in small government with minimal powers in the private world. you believe that government has a place making laws and rules that determine what goes on in the privacy of ones own home...ones living arrangements. Now to me that would be government interference ...something you would pin onto liberals.... So I am far right of you on this.
As to phelps... if you remove the vitriol.... isn't he just pushing conservative values?.... certainly not liberal.
I find it hard to believe you have no knowledge of him.
On the wishy washy part I would suggest that if taking a stance on each issue rather than following a set rule makes one wishy washy then it's better than the alternative...being a brainwashed sheep
It seems you have perceived an insult.
You are (as usual) wrong again, but alas, I am off to work.
I shall endeavor to relieve you of your ignorance after my business. :)
vidcc
07-21-2006, 02:30 PM
so if i offer up a counter i have perceived an insult?
Rat Faced
07-21-2006, 06:52 PM
I think that your both generalising...
Most sane people are Conservative on some things and Liberal on other things... only a fool is a "Conservative" on everything, and likewise a "Liberal" on everything due purely on the way his party is aligned. These people are also sheep and just have no way of formulating their own opinions... maybe we should pity them and lock them up for their own good. (and societies, these people have votes after all)
Personally, im quite Conservative on Laws that I think matter (such as Violent Crime), however quite Liberal on some others and I totally disregard those i think are unjust...
I'm conservative enough to hate Red Tape, and Liberal enough to put up with it for certain things without complaint (whilst cursing it for other stuff)
vidcc
07-21-2006, 07:09 PM
I think that your both generalising...
surely not:rolleyes:.. your powers of deduction are incredible holmes :P
Most sane people are Conservative on some things and Liberal on other things... only a fool is a "Conservative" on everything, and likewise a "Liberal" on everything due purely on the way his party is aligned. These people are also sheep and just have no way of formulating their own opinions... maybe we should pity them and lock them up for their own good. (and societies, these people have votes after all)
Personally, im quite Conservative on Laws that I think matter (such as Violent Crime), however quite Liberal on some others and I totally disregard those i think are unjust...
I'm conservative enough to hate Red Tape, and Liberal enough to put up with it for certain things without complaint (whilst cursing it for other stuff)
On the wishy washy part I would suggest that if taking a stance on each issue rather than following a set rule makes one wishy washy then it's better than the alternative...being a brainwashed sheep....
On the wishy washy part I would suggest that if taking a stance on each issue rather than following a set rule makes one wishy washy then it's better than the alternative...being a brainwashed sheep....
So, how many times have you repeated those sentiments without my taking offense?
I gotta get a haircut-back later.
Rat Faced
07-21-2006, 10:22 PM
I gotta get a haircut-back later.
Thats the trouble with the skinhead styling... so many damn haircuts. :rolleyes:
:P
I gotta get a haircut-back later.
Thats the trouble with the skinhead styling... so many damn haircuts. :rolleyes:
:P
Ooooh.
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh.
Hmmmm.
I'll think of something...
vidcc
07-21-2006, 10:36 PM
The skinhead is natural..........
These days when Kev gets a haircut the barber just does his nose and ears:shifty:
Skweeky
07-21-2006, 10:58 PM
The skinhead is natural..........
These days when Kev gets a haircut the barber just does his nose and ears:shifty:
:lol: :lol:
brilliant
The skinhead is natural..........
These days when Kev gets a haircut the barber just does his nose and ears:shifty:
I've never had to do my nose or ears, and the hair on my head (while thinning) is still rather abundant.
I'll settle for that. ;)
conservatives are supposed to believe in small government with minimal powers in the private world. you believe that government has a place making laws and rules that determine what goes on in the privacy of ones own home...ones living arrangements. Now to me that would be government interference ...something you would pin onto liberals.... So I am far right of you on this.
On this point you have misapprehended not only me, but conservatives in general.
At to "what goes on in the privacy of ones own home...", let us cut to the chase, and winnow your concerns down to the bedroom, which should serve to clarify the issue.
You believe (as a liberal) that it is not enough to merely "live and let live" in sexual matters outside those which normally and routinely adhere to heterosexuals, you feel that the rest must be given blanket and official legal sanction.
While I grant there are certain statutes (I speak here of those which seek to forbid such as sodomy), the enforcement of which upon consenting adults is arguably passe and a logistical impossiblility, that might well be stricken, I see no need to pro-actively force societal acquiescense in such matters.
This is precisely the point at which you steer left, while I tack to the right.
Then:
In an attempt to address the issue of pedophilia and other crimes against innocents (I believe this was in Texas, was it not?), a legislative attempt to deprive those who prey on children of privacy arising from an unfortunate (and theoretical) interpretation of the Constitution was undertaken, and then struck down rather comprehensively by the courts.
The court's action had the effect (once again) of officially sanctioning the activities of those whose stories, once known, sicken and dishearten us all.
Here again, you side (however regrettfully) with the court, under the guise of extending rights as far and wide as possible, no matter who may fall under the umbrella you've erected.
This tendency is not Libertarian in nature, it is Liberal.
I, on the other hand, would continue to chase the pedophiles, while contending with the rest of the liberal machinery (ex., your beloved ACLU) arrayed against me.
I am, after all, for law and order, you see?
vidcc
07-22-2006, 03:56 PM
Oh so liberals are not only unamerican, they want to legalise paedophillia...... I would like you to explain how liberals approve of and want to legalise Paedophillia.
You believe (as a liberal) that it is not enough to merely "live and let live" in sexual matters outside those which normally and routinely adhere to heterosexuals, you feel that the rest must be given blanket and official legal sanction.
While I grant there are certain statutes (I speak here of those which seek to forbid such as sodomy), the enforcement of which upon consenting adults is passe and a logistical impossiblility, that might well be stricken, I see no need to pro-actively force societal acquiescense in such matters.
This is precisely the point at which you steer left, while I tack to the right.
Absolutely....the state has no place making laws when it come to CONSENTING ADULTS IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES. and it is that point, and only that point which is being pro-actively pursued.
You seem to be confusing this with forcing people to participate. Nobody is asking you to approve of what people do in private, they are saying keep your meddling laws out of my home.
In Texas, which had a sodomy law, someone did indeed get "raided" by the cops and charged....It did happen... but let's consider ordinances like the one that forces the couple with 3 children to leave their home...because they were not married. Nobody is asking for approval of those living arrangements, they are saying it's none of your business and certainly none of governments business to deny them.
But I will extend your "sexual matters outside those which normally and routinely adhere to heterosexuals" to the part that comes outside the home. I believe in equal rights (created equal are we not?) for consenting adults and so believe government has no place denying rights that shouldn't be denied, and when it comes to outside the home it is that point, and only that point which is being pro-actively pursued. Nobody is asking for special treatment, it could be argued that as married heterosexuals we are the one that are asking for special treatment, nobody is asking for approval, they are asking for that unamerican ideology...freedom and equality
So if one is against government regulation one is a conservative...unless that regulation is in the privacy of the home...then any objection is blatantly liberal (not libertarian) and thus unamerican because that's precisely what government should be doing...........correct??????
Oh so liberals are not only unamerican, they want to legalise paedophillia...... I would like you to explain how liberals approve of and want to legalise Paedophillia.
You believe (as a liberal) that it is not enough to merely "live and let live" in sexual matters outside those which normally and routinely adhere to heterosexuals, you feel that the rest must be given blanket and official legal sanction.
While I grant there are certain statutes (I speak here of those which seek to forbid such as sodomy), the enforcement of which upon consenting adults is passe and a logistical impossiblility, that might well be stricken, I see no need to pro-actively force societal acquiescense in such matters.
This is precisely the point at which you steer left, while I tack to the right.
Absolutely....the state has no place making laws when it come to CONSENTING ADULTS IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES. and it is that point, and only that point which is being pro-actively pursued.
You seem to be confusing this with forcing people to participate. Nobody is asking you to approve of what people do in private, they are saying keep your meddling laws out of my home.
In Texas, which had a sodomy law, someone did indeed get "raided" by the cops and charged....It did happen... but let's consider ordinances like the one that forces the couple with 3 children to leave their home...because they were not married. Nobody is asking for approval of those living arrangements, they are saying it's none of your business and certainly none of governments business to deny them.
But I will extend your "sexual matters outside those which normally and routinely adhere to heterosexuals" to the part that comes outside the home. I believe in equal rights (created equal are we not?) for consenting adults and so believe government has no place denying rights that shouldn't be denied, and when it comes to outside the home it is that point, and only that point which is being pro-actively pursued. Nobody is asking for special treatment, it could be argued that as married heterosexuals we are the one that are asking for special treatment, nobody is asking for approval, they are asking for that unamerican ideology...freedom and equality
So if one is against government regulation one is a conservative...unless that regulation is in the privacy of the home...then any objection is blatantly liberal (not libertarian) and thus unamerican because that's precisely what government should be doing...........correct??????
1. Find for me an instance when I posted anything to the effect that liberals were not patriotic.
2. Liberals are for a "no exceptions" rights agenda, that is to say, if a law was written in such a way as to target pedophiles, liberals would agitate for a judicial "remedy" on the extreme off-chance a non-pedophile suffered a mis-step, rather than address this post-action, as the system allows.
Better to leave pedophiles on the street than mistakenly question the integrity of an individual, right?
Such blind opposition has the effect of coddling pedophiles.
Fact.
3. What the rest of your post ignores is the fact that, should a cunning pedophile coax a youngster into the "PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES" without being observed, he/she/they are entitled to have his/her/their way with that youngster (by law!), ignoring the fact that mistaken entries can be treated in a compensatory fashion; such entries must by made only in the case of relevant suspicion-in other words, the crack pipe on the bedstand is not an issue, and the embarrassment of suffering the display of one's ugly naked ass does not out-weigh the risk of a child's abuse.
Clean your broad brush and put it away, vid.
calm2chaos
07-22-2006, 05:08 PM
Imagine that..... The communist based ACLU fighting to not have english signs in America... Why doesn't that surpise me....
An interesting thought...
I disagree though, I believe plenty of people in Democracies (of most political persuasions) like their Civil Liberties.
...and most Communist's and Facists (Both extremes) tend not to... so why would the Communists form a Civil Liberties Union?
Since the ACLU was founded by admitted communist i was just stating fact
vidcc
07-22-2006, 05:13 PM
1. Find for me an instance when I posted anything to the effect that liberals were not patriotic.
So you didn't say anyone that supports the ACLU has to be a liberal, you didn't suggest that the ACLU in liberal and you didn't suggest they drop the "A"
2. Liberals are for a "no exceptions" rights agenda, that is to say, if a law was written in such a way as to target pedophiles, liberals would agitate for a judicial "remedy" on the extreme off-chance a non-pedophile suffered a mis-step, rather than address this post-action, as the system allows.
Better to leave pedophiles on the street than mistakenly question the integrity of an individual, right?
Such blind opposition has the effect of coddling pedophiles.
No, they say the bill of rights has to be protected. If it can be violated for one group, no matter what scum that group is, then it can be violated for any other group as a precedence has been set. what do official oaths of office say?....something about protecting and upholding the constitution perhaps? How about the military oath?...anything in there?
I repeat yet again....it's the constitution being protected, not the human.
Fact.
3. What the rest of your post ignores is the fact that, should a cunning pedophile coax a youngster into the "PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES" without being observed, he/she/they are entitled to have his/her/their way with that youngster (by law!), ignoring the fact that mistaken entries can be treated in a compensatory fashion; such entries must by made only in the case of relevant suspicion-in other words, the crack pipe on the bedstand is not an issue, and the embarrassment of suffering the display of one's ugly naked ass does not out-weigh the risk of a child's abuse.
Clean your broad brush and put it away, vid.
what part does coaxing a minor have to do with
CONSENTING ADULTS IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES.?...nice try omitting CONSENTING ADULTS though...... However that would not be......CONSENTING ADULTS as one party would not be a CONSENTING ADULT
Busyman™
07-22-2006, 05:50 PM
3. What the rest of your post ignores is the fact that, should a cunning pedophile coax a youngster into the "PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES" without being observed, he/she/they are entitled to have his/her/their way with that youngster (by law!), ignoring the fact that mistaken entries can be treated in a compensatory fashion; such entries must by made only in the case of relevant suspicion-in other words, the crack pipe on the bedstand is not an issue, and the embarrassment of suffering the display of one's ugly naked ass does not out-weigh the risk of a child's abuse.
Clean your broad brush and put it away, vid.
I see you're trying to do some cleaning with the spin cycle.:dry:
It's not even very good spinning at that while you latch on for dear life to PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME. :ermm:
what part does coaxing a minor have to do with
CONSENTING ADULTS IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES.?...nice try omitting CONSENTING ADULTS though...... However that would not be......CONSENTING ADULTS as one party would not be a CONSENTING ADULT
Oh, fuck; there you go again with the post cleaver-I'll have none of that.
I left out "CONSENTING ADULTS" because I address the problem of under-age individuals, and thus seek to hew to what is relevant-no other reason; I have no blankets to waft onto other issues.
The rest is indecipherable, sorry.
3. What the rest of your post ignores is the fact that, should a cunning pedophile coax a youngster into the "PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES" without being observed, he/she/they are entitled to have his/her/their way with that youngster (by law!), ignoring the fact that mistaken entries can be treated in a compensatory fashion; such entries must by made only in the case of relevant suspicion-in other words, the crack pipe on the bedstand is not an issue, and the embarrassment of suffering the display of one's ugly naked ass does not out-weigh the risk of a child's abuse.
Clean your broad brush and put it away, vid.
I see you're trying to do some cleaning with the spin cycle.:dry:
It's not even very good spinning at that while you latch on for dear life to PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME. :ermm:
Wrong, and (!) wrong again.
Besides which, if I had or took the time to lay out my entire argument in one post, it would resemble those no one can be fussed to read, for fear of it's length.
One must keep some powder dry, after all. ;)
Busyman™
07-22-2006, 06:45 PM
I see you're trying to do some cleaning with the spin cycle.:dry:
It's not even very good spinning at that while you latch on for dear life to PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME. :ermm:
Wrong, and (!) wrong again.
Besides which, if I had or took the time to lay out my entire argument in one post, it would resemble those no one can be fussed to read, for fear of it's length.
One must keep some powder dry, after all. ;)
Leaving out something that is against the law is spin.
If I murder someone in the privacy of my home, it harms another and the act itself is against the law.
If you made reasonable arguments they would simply make sense and have teeth.
The only posts that many aren't fussed to read are your CAP posts.
The fact is your #3 is transparently spurious and boring.
vidcc
07-22-2006, 06:50 PM
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
aclu nambla statement (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html)
vidcc
07-22-2006, 07:12 PM
This is a more eloquent version of what I am trying to get across
The ACLU and the NAMBLA Case
Much has been made of the fact that the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU has taken on a case defending NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, in a civil lawsuit arising from the kidnapping and killing of a 10 year old boy. There is no more controversial or emotionally-charged issue than this. NAMBLA is universally, and justifiably, viewed as a vile organization that advocates something that nearly everyone despises in the strongest possible terms. Unfortunately, that makes it a perfect target for demagoguery and superficial demonizing, and that is just what we have seen. One group has even begun a website called the "ACLU NAMBLA Rage Page" where people can register their revulsion. Bill O'Reilly has ranted against the ACLU for taking the case, as has virtually everyone on the right in America, and many people claim outright that the ACLU is fighting for the right to rape children. But in the midst of this understandably emotional outpouring, something has been lost - the legal issue. This is, after all, a court case and court cases are decided not by emotional reactions, but by reference to legal precedents. So what is the legal issue at stake and under dispute?
Here are the facts of the case. A 10 year old boy named Jeffrey Curley was tortured and murdered by two men, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari. The men were caught, tried, convicted and sentenced. Furthermore, the parents of the victim filed a civil lawsuit against the two men and won a $200 million verdict, which they will surely never collect. But then the parents went a step further by suing NAMBLA, an organization that advocates that the age-of-consent laws be changed to allow sexual relations between adult men and juvenile boys. Jaynes was a member of NAMBLA and the police found that he had 8 issues of their publication in his home and had accessed their website at the Boston Public Library.
The legal argument that the parents of the victim are making is that NAMBLA's publications fostered an atmosphere that caused the crime to take place. That's right - they do not allege that there was anything that specifically instructed Jaynes to rape and kill a child, that either their publications or their website provided any material support for the crime, or even that it advocated committing such a crime, only that the "totality of the child sex environment" advocated by NAMBLA somehow caused this to happen. In fact, the defendants filed a motion early on in the case asking that the plaintiffs spell out specifically what statements or expressions in either the group's publications or website could reasonably be construed as causing Jaynes to commit this crime. The amended complaint did not do so, referring instead only to the general "climate" fostered by NAMBLA. And herein lies the crux of the case.
It's not illegal to advocate a change in the laws, and nowhere in their complaint do the plaintiffs point to any statement made in any NAMBLA publication that urges that one violate the laws in place currently. And in most cases, it's not even illegal to advocate breaking the law. Multiple court rulings have established that only if the advocacy carries a "clear and present danger" of an "imminent breach of the peace" can speech that advocates criminal behavior be censored and punished by law. This is known as the Brandenberg test because of the Supreme Court case it stems from, and the standard has been upheld several times by the Court, as recently as 2000. But the question at stake here is not so much whether the government can censor such speech, but whether the person or organization that advocates a change in the laws should be held responsible for the actions of someone who reads their material and thereafter breaks those laws.
Let's think about the ramifications of this precedent if the plaintiff wins. There have been numerous cases of anti-abortion advocates killing abortion doctors. One such activist was recently put to death in Florida for committing murder. Under the precedent that would be given if the plaintiffs win in the NAMBLA case, anti-abortion groups whose literature such a murderer had read, or whose website they visited, could be sued and held responsible for the actions of the individual who pulled the trigger. After all, they advocate a change in the laws and they "foster an atmosphere" in which abortion doctors are viewed as murderers who must be stopped. Let's say a law is passed banning the ownership of automatic weapons. The NRA would surely oppose such a law and would advocate that the law be changed in their publications and on their website. Could the parents of a victim of a murder by such a weapon blame the NRA on the same grounds as NAMBLA is being sued? Of course they could. The NRA would be "fostering a climate of lawlessness" by claiming that the gun laws are unjust and illegitimate.
Once we establish the legal principle that groups which advocate changing the laws can be held responsible for the actions of those who break the laws, the sky is the limit for such lawsuits. What is now legal advocacy aimed at changing the laws would be suppressed by the need to avoid civil damages. And the principle of individual responsibility would be undermined in America yet again. The responsibility for the murder of Jeffrey Curley lies with the two men who committed the act and those men have been tried and convicted - and frankly, if someone in prison takes a shiv to one or both of them, I don't think any of us will lose any sleep over it. But we cannot let our justifiable outrage at this horrible crime allow us to set a precedent that could destroy what is now legal and protected political advocacy in America. We cannot allow that emotional reaction to prompt us to destroy a bedrock principle of our legal system, the notion that it is actions that are punishable, not words no matter how repulsive they may be.
The ACLU is, in my view, correct to take this case. They are not defending the right of men to rape and kill little boys, the men were duly convicted of crimes and the laws that they were convicted under are not at issue. They are not defending the message that NAMBLA puts out, anymore than the Jewish ACLU attorney David Goldberger was defending the anti-semitic message that the Nazis were advocating when he took their case and defended their right to assemble and speak their views, even if those views are repulsive to virtually everyone. It may well be that the ACLU will suffer financially because of this highly controversial case, as they did when they lost 30% of their membership after taking the Nazi case in Skokie. But if they do, it will be a result of the triumph of emotional demagoguery over sober thinking. And that will hurt us all far more than most people can currently envision.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2003/12/the_aclu_and_th.php
Wrong, and (!) wrong again.
Besides which, if I had or took the time to lay out my entire argument in one post, it would resemble those no one can be fussed to read, for fear of it's length.
One must keep some powder dry, after all. ;)
Leaving out something that is against the law is spin.
If I murder someone in the privacy of my home, it harms another and the act itself is against the law.
If you made reasonable arguments they would simply make sense and have teeth.
The only posts that many aren't fussed to read are your CAP posts.
The fact is your #3 is transparently spurious and boring.
I will pause here only long enough to note your post omits any mention of the legal status of the person you "murder" in your home.
Is he/she by any chance an intruder?
The rest of your post is pish.
This is a more eloquent version of what I am trying to get across
The ACLU and the NAMBLA Case
Much has been made of the fact that the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU has taken on a case defending NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, in a civil lawsuit arising from the kidnapping and killing of a 10 year old boy. There is no more controversial or emotionally-charged issue than this. NAMBLA is universally, and justifiably, viewed as a vile organization that advocates something that nearly everyone despises in the strongest possible terms. Unfortunately, that makes it a perfect target for demagoguery and superficial demonizing, and that is just what we have seen. One group has even begun a website called the "ACLU NAMBLA Rage Page" where people can register their revulsion. Bill O'Reilly has ranted against the ACLU for taking the case, as has virtually everyone on the right in America, and many people claim outright that the ACLU is fighting for the right to rape children. But in the midst of this understandably emotional outpouring, something has been lost - the legal issue. This is, after all, a court case and court cases are decided not by emotional reactions, but by reference to legal precedents. So what is the legal issue at stake and under dispute?
Here are the facts of the case. A 10 year old boy named Jeffrey Curley was tortured and murdered by two men, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari. The men were caught, tried, convicted and sentenced. Furthermore, the parents of the victim filed a civil lawsuit against the two men and won a $200 million verdict, which they will surely never collect. But then the parents went a step further by suing NAMBLA, an organization that advocates that the age-of-consent laws be changed to allow sexual relations between adult men and juvenile boys. Jaynes was a member of NAMBLA and the police found that he had 8 issues of their publication in his home and had accessed their website at the Boston Public Library.
The legal argument that the parents of the victim are making is that NAMBLA's publications fostered an atmosphere that caused the crime to take place. That's right - they do not allege that there was anything that specifically instructed Jaynes to rape and kill a child, that either their publications or their website provided any material support for the crime, or even that it advocated committing such a crime, only that the "totality of the child sex environment" advocated by NAMBLA somehow caused this to happen. In fact, the defendants filed a motion early on in the case asking that the plaintiffs spell out specifically what statements or expressions in either the group's publications or website could reasonably be construed as causing Jaynes to commit this crime. The amended complaint did not do so, referring instead only to the general "climate" fostered by NAMBLA. And herein lies the crux of the case.
It's not illegal to advocate a change in the laws, and nowhere in their complaint do the plaintiffs point to any statement made in any NAMBLA publication that urges that one violate the laws in place currently. And in most cases, it's not even illegal to advocate breaking the law. Multiple court rulings have established that only if the advocacy carries a "clear and present danger" of an "imminent breach of the peace" can speech that advocates criminal behavior be censored and punished by law. This is known as the Brandenberg test because of the Supreme Court case it stems from, and the standard has been upheld several times by the Court, as recently as 2000. But the question at stake here is not so much whether the government can censor such speech, but whether the person or organization that advocates a change in the laws should be held responsible for the actions of someone who reads their material and thereafter breaks those laws.
Let's think about the ramifications of this precedent if the plaintiff wins. There have been numerous cases of anti-abortion advocates killing abortion doctors. One such activist was recently put to death in Florida for committing murder. Under the precedent that would be given if the plaintiffs win in the NAMBLA case, anti-abortion groups whose literature such a murderer had read, or whose website they visited, could be sued and held responsible for the actions of the individual who pulled the trigger. After all, they advocate a change in the laws and they "foster an atmosphere" in which abortion doctors are viewed as murderers who must be stopped. Let's say a law is passed banning the ownership of automatic weapons. The NRA would surely oppose such a law and would advocate that the law be changed in their publications and on their website. Could the parents of a victim of a murder by such a weapon blame the NRA on the same grounds as NAMBLA is being sued? Of course they could. The NRA would be "fostering a climate of lawlessness" by claiming that the gun laws are unjust and illegitimate.
Once we establish the legal principle that groups which advocate changing the laws can be held responsible for the actions of those who break the laws, the sky is the limit for such lawsuits. What is now legal advocacy aimed at changing the laws would be suppressed by the need to avoid civil damages. And the principle of individual responsibility would be undermined in America yet again. The responsibility for the murder of Jeffrey Curley lies with the two men who committed the act and those men have been tried and convicted - and frankly, if someone in prison takes a shiv to one or both of them, I don't think any of us will lose any sleep over it. But we cannot let our justifiable outrage at this horrible crime allow us to set a precedent that could destroy what is now legal and protected political advocacy in America. We cannot allow that emotional reaction to prompt us to destroy a bedrock principle of our legal system, the notion that it is actions that are punishable, not words no matter how repulsive they may be.
The ACLU is, in my view, correct to take this case. They are not defending the right of men to rape and kill little boys, the men were duly convicted of crimes and the laws that they were convicted under are not at issue. They are not defending the message that NAMBLA puts out, anymore than the Jewish ACLU attorney David Goldberger was defending the anti-semitic message that the Nazis were advocating when he took their case and defended their right to assemble and speak their views, even if those views are repulsive to virtually everyone. It may well be that the ACLU will suffer financially because of this highly controversial case, as they did when they lost 30% of their membership after taking the Nazi case in Skokie. But if they do, it will be a result of the triumph of emotional demagoguery over sober thinking. And that will hurt us all far more than most people can currently envision.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2003/12/the_aclu_and_th.php
Your debatably eloquent C & P aside, my point vis a vis the ACLU is, how does the membership of NAMBLA warrant ACLU services, when the victims of pedophilia do not?
Again, I hark back to my earlier mention pf the ACLU's imperative (which originally mirrored those of other such organizations), which does not seek currently to defend any but the stance of the pedophile, as opposed to the (perhaps) underfinanced efforts of the victim of the pedophile, whose rights have most surely also have been violated.
Have you any idea what is the acronym of whatever group has been formed to defend the victims of pedophilia, or perhaps how much they have reaped from that crowd of liberals who find themselves inclined to donate to minority and/or underfinanced legal causes?
Or has this particular cause been overlooked by the ACLU? :huh:
vidcc
07-22-2006, 08:58 PM
Your debatably eloquent C & P aside, my point vis a vis the ACLU is, how does the membership of NAMBLA warrant ACLU services, when the victims of pedophilia do not?
This is an argument based on emotion, not law. the victim of the paedopile are given the services of the prosecuctor. Had the prosecutor tried to claim that the victim has no rights and refused the victim due process then the aclu will step in. Can you give me one example where the ACLU has defended a paedophiles right to molest a child, in a child molestation case or in policy? There are none. They have not and do not support child molestation. What they defend is free speech and the bill of rights.
Again, I hark back to my earlier mention pf the ACLU's imperative (which originally mirrored those of other such organizations), which does not seek currently to defend any but the stance of the pedophile, as opposed to the (perhaps) underfinanced efforts of the victim of the pedophile, whose rights have most surely also have been violated.
Again you are making emotion over laws, Can you give me an example where anyone has had their free speech rights violated by being prevented from condeming Nambla?
If you are trying to make the ACLU seem like only wanting to defend unpopular speech and scum could you give me an example of popular speech that has been prevented (against the bill of rights) and if so could you show me where the ACLU refused to take up the case.
Have you any idea what is the acronym of whatever group has been formed to defend the victims of pedophilia, or perhaps how much they have reaped from that crowd of liberals who find themselves inclined to donate to minority and/or underfinanced legal causes?
Or has this particular cause been overlooked by the ACLU? :huh:
Are you suggesting the Aclu formed just to defend paedophiles?
I think you will find that Accronym is the D.O.J. .... And there are probably many support groups and charitites out there that deal with the victims and I would guess that liberals, some may be ACLU members, donate plenty to them. The ACLU takes up cases where the bill of rights has been violated. It doesn't have to take up cases where it is not violated. they are defenders of civil rights, not a criminal prosecution group. As I said if the DOJ refused to take up a victim of padophilia case without due process then the ACLU would go after the prosecutor because then the victims rights would have been violated. They would gladly want a day when they could pack up.
Rat Faced
07-23-2006, 12:44 AM
2. Liberals are for a "no exceptions" rights agenda, that is to say, if a law was written in such a way as to target pedophiles, liberals would agitate for a judicial "remedy" on the extreme off-chance a non-pedophile suffered a mis-step, rather than address this post-action, as the system allows.
Better to leave pedophiles on the street than mistakenly question the integrity of an individual, right?
Such blind opposition has the effect of coddling pedophiles.
Fact.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me
Busyman™
07-23-2006, 12:57 AM
Leaving out something that is against the law is spin.
If I murder someone in the privacy of my home, it harms another and the act itself is against the law.
If you made reasonable arguments they would simply make sense and have teeth.
The only posts that many aren't fussed to read are your CAP posts.
The fact is your #3 is transparently spurious and boring.
I will pause here only long enough to note your post omits any mention of the legal status of the person you "murder" in your home.
Is he/she by any chance an intruder?
The rest of your post is pish.
Of course you think your CAP posts are gold laden works of art.:smilie4:
I didn't go into what the legal status of that person. Since I said murder, it's murder, not self defense.
If a person such as yourself shoots a old lady that wanders into your home in the back that's on you.....that must be self-defense.
As an aside, we agree on capping someone illegally entering our home. We differ on why we are capping them. I want to protect self and family. You just want to shoot them 'cause they illegally entered.:stars:
vidcc
07-27-2006, 06:18 PM
Seems the Aclu is now defending Phelps...who would have thought it...the obviously liberal agenda infected ACLU defending a right wing biggots freedom of religion and speech :rolleyes:.
Of course the right wingers objecting to phelps now didn't have a problem with their vile hate tactics when they were doing it at funerals of homosexuals for most of the last two decades... then it was religious freedom and free speech all the way.:dry:
Seems the Aclu is now defending Phelps...who would have thought it...the obviously liberal agenda infected ACLU defending a right wing biggots freedom of religion and speech :rolleyes:.
Contrary to your proffer, such does not reflect ill upon any but the ACLU.
BTW-
What is a "biggot"?
Of course the right wingers objecting to phelps now didn't have a problem with their vile hate tactics when they were doing it at funerals of homosexuals for most of the last two decades... then it was religious freedom and free speech all the way.:dry:
As a true conservative, naturally I totally missed these activities you speak of.
As someone who can speak knowledgeably, I wonder if you can tell me-was the ACLU compelled to backstop these "vile hate tactics" under the guise of religious freedom and free speech"?
Ah-didn't think so...they practice politics, too, don't they? :)
vidcc
07-29-2006, 04:16 PM
Contrary to your proffer, such does not reflect ill upon any but the ACLU.
Again it seems that it is impossible to look past the plaintiff to realise free speech needs to be defended.
As a true conservative, naturally I totally missed these activities you speak of.
Perhaps that would be because protesting at the funeral of a homosexual, shouting at the parents that their son/daughter will be burning in hell and that aids is gods punishment for their sin doesn't spark outrage on the news or commentary outlets you listen to or read.... But to be fair they got little press from most of the main stream media
As someone who can speak knowledgeably, I wonder if you can tell me-was the ACLU compelled to backstop these "vile hate tactics" under the guise of religious freedom and free speech"?
Ah-didn't think so...they practice politics, too, don't they? :)
The ACLU have been condemning this groups message for years
Given unmistakable wording and the nature of the message how could it not be "religious free speech"........ But to answer your question on the ACLU's motives........the guise is the first amendment..... [repeat]Again it seems that it is impossible to look past the plaintiff to realise free speech needs to be defended.[repeat/]
Why is it that laws are only just being presented to curtail these hatemongering freaks when they have been at it for the best part of two decades basically unchallenged?
But just think, if the aclu fails then we can ban protests outside abortion clinics, we can stop religious groups attending gay rallies and handing out their literature, we can ban door to door evangalism. Government could ban any kind of protest against their policies...wouldn't that be wonderful, a government that couldn't be protested..........
But just think, if the aclu fails then we can ban protests outside abortion clinics, we can stop religious groups attending gay rallies and handing out their literature, we can ban door to door evangalism. Government could ban any kind of protest against their policies...wouldn't that be wonderful, a government that couldn't be protested..........
And, wonder of wonders, this does not happen...:huh:
Curious, eh?
What with the ACLU on every corner (just like Starbucks), but only in liberal neighborhoods (unlike Starbucks).
The ACLU picks it's spots.
Fact.
vidcc
07-29-2006, 06:03 PM
But just think, if the aclu fails then we can ban protests outside abortion clinics, we can stop religious groups attending gay rallies and handing out their literature, we can ban door to door evangalism. Government could ban any kind of protest against their policies...wouldn't that be wonderful, a government that couldn't be protested..........
And, wonder of wonders, this does not happen...:huh:
Curious, eh?
thanks to groups like the aclu and other constituional defenders
What with the ACLU on every corner (just like Starbucks), but only in liberal neighborhoods (unlike Starbucks).
The ACLU picks it's spots.
Fact.is there a point there?
And, wonder of wonders, this does not happen...:huh:
Curious, eh?
thanks to groups like the aclu and other constituional defenders
What with the ACLU on every corner (just like Starbucks), but only in liberal neighborhoods (unlike Starbucks).
The ACLU picks it's spots.
Fact.is there a point there?
Yes.
MagicNakor
07-29-2006, 08:24 PM
Living in a country where there is no organization like the ACLU, but periodically get news about what it's doing down there, it's fascinating to watch this thread.
I'll just be over here now.
:shuriken:
vidcc
07-29-2006, 08:58 PM
Living in a country where there is no organization like the ACLU, but periodically get news about what it's doing down there, it's fascinating to watch this thread.
I'll just be over here now.
:shuriken:http://www.ccla.org/ :huh:
Living in a country where there is no organization like the ACLU, but periodically get news about what it's doing down there, it's fascinating to watch this thread.
I'll just be over here now.
:shuriken:http://www.ccla.org/ :huh:
I see the acronym is different, 'cuz it's all about Canadia.
I'm sure it's better than our version, but only by a smidge.
In fact, I know this to be true, 'cuz I read some stuff. :whistling
MagicNakor
07-29-2006, 10:25 PM
It doesn't have much (if any) political clout. ;)
:shuriken:
vidcc
07-29-2006, 10:40 PM
It doesn't have much (if any) political clout. ;)
:shuriken:
I'm not sure "political clout" is the intention, with the ACLU at least. They don't need political clout, they have the constitution.
I'm not sure "political clout" is the intention, with the ACLU at least. They don't need political clout, they have the constitution.
Yes, they've sprung for the maleable-flexo-bendy version favored by the Supreme Court.
vidcc
07-29-2006, 11:34 PM
Yes, they've sprung for the maleable-flexo-bendy version favored by the Supreme Court.
yet you wish to bend the 1st for unpopular speech :rolleyes:
Yes, they've sprung for the maleable-flexo-bendy version favored by the Supreme Court.
yet you wish to bend the 1st for unpopular speech :rolleyes:
I do?
vidcc
07-29-2006, 11:52 PM
seems that way to me
I believe speech should not be constitutionally infringed upon or limited as to content, sentiment or lunacy.
Place can be a problem ( Saying "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, for example).
Our difference is only one of consequence:
I believe it is within reason to suffer the slings and arrows of societal judgement as to sanction/censure for the exercise thereof, while you think the government (with the aid of such as the ACLU) should somehow issue legal estoppal so as to insulate the "anything goes, speech-wise" crowd from peril or harm in every non-legal sense.
That about right?
vidcc
07-30-2006, 03:23 AM
I believe speech should not be constitutionally infringed upon or limited as to content, sentiment or lunacy.
Place can be a problem ( Saying "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, for example).
Our difference is only one of consequence:
I believe it is within reason to suffer the slings and arrows of societal judgement as to sanction/censure for the exercise thereof, while you think the government (with the aid of such as the ACLU) should somehow issue legal estoppal so as to insulate the "anything goes, speech-wise" crowd from peril or harm in every non-legal sense.
That about right?
I believe that government has no place making laws preventing free speech.....and that the 1st amendment clearly says they have no right. What owners decide is acceptable on private property is different.
I find it funny that the falsely shouting fire scenario is often used when trying to say that free speech isn't absolute, and when it creates "clear and present danger" then there is of course merit to that argument....However.... that has little if anything to do with unpopular speech.
As to consequence, if it can be shown that harm is done by falsehoods then the "victim" has the right to seek compensation. (how karl rove still has a shirt on his back is amazing)... But then, again, this has little to do with unpopular speech. Hurt feelings are not what I would call harm.
There is the right to not have to listen. In a public place one has the right to walk away and the right to free speech does not extend to blocking the way. Captive audiences have the right to not have to views forced upon them.
I believe speech should not be constitutionally infringed upon or limited as to content, sentiment or lunacy.
Place can be a problem ( Saying "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, for example).
Our difference is only one of consequence:
I believe it is within reason to suffer the slings and arrows of societal judgement as to sanction/censure for the exercise thereof, while you think the government (with the aid of such as the ACLU) should somehow issue legal estoppal so as to insulate the "anything goes, speech-wise" crowd from peril or harm in every non-legal sense.
That about right?
I believe that government has no place making laws preventing free speech.....and that the 1st amendment clearly says they have no right. What owners decide is acceptable on private property is different.
I find it funny that the falsely shouting fire scenario is often used when trying to say that free speech isn't absolute, and when it creates "clear and present danger" then there is of course merit to that argument....However.... that has little if anything to do with unpopular speech.
As to consequence, if it can be shown that harm is done by falsehoods then the "victim" has the right to seek compensation. (how karl rove still has a shirt on his back is amazing)... But then, again, this has little to do with unpopular speech. Hurt feelings are not what I would call harm.
There is the right to not have to listen. In a public place one has the right to walk away and the right to free speech does not extend to blocking the way. Captive audiences have the right to not have to views forced upon them.
As to the "Fire/theater" caution, I find it bears mention in every discussion of free speech, lest one be hoist on the petard it presents.
I hereby declare such obligation fulfilled.
It sounds as if you are saying that, if people are subject to speech they disagree with, they are forestalled from objecting to said speech on the basis that to do so is to fail to exercise their right not to listen in the first place.
In other words, less-discerning orators shall not be denied an opportunity and unfettered access to whatever choir they might gather.
A corollary right to free speech is free consumption of same, so as to indulge one's right to nit-pick or call bullshit (another branch of the wide, wonderful world of free speech).
I guess the lesson to be learned is, anytime one feels compelled to give voice to the random opinion or viewpoint, he'd best be prepared to debate.
Such is the inescapable responsibility of the free exercise of speech.
vidcc
07-30-2006, 02:42 PM
I should indeed have also put that you have the right to heckle/debate etc. etc. I should not forget to cover every possible option
The issue was law preventing free speech, not replying to it...replying is your right of free speech is it not? Of course one can respond, but responding is different from making laws preventing. It must follow that if I am against laws preventing free speech then I am against laws preventing replying......or does that particular reasoning not extend unless specifically mentioned?
In phelps case there is a group of vetrans/bikers that stand in front of them and drown them out.....nobody is suggesting making laws to ban this tactic.....as long as it is non violent and doesn't cause an obstruction both sides have that right...for good or bad
I should indeed have also put that you have the right to heckle/debate etc. etc. I should not forget to cover every possible option
The issue was law preventing free speech, not replying to it...replying is your right of free speech is it not? Of course one can respond, but responding is different from making laws preventing. It must follow that if I am against laws preventing free speech then I am against laws preventing replying......or does that particular reasoning not extend unless specifically mentioned?
In phelps case there is a group of vetrans/bikers that stand in front of them and drown them out.....nobody is suggesting making laws to ban this tactic.....as long as it is non violent and doesn't cause an obstruction both sides have that right...for good or bad
Those who practice or suffer such strategies merit and reap the cacaphonies they create, and are generally seen for what they are.
As long as physical order is maintained, "laws" can go suck.
Busyman™
07-30-2006, 06:58 PM
As to the "Fire/theater" caution, I find it bears mention in every discussion of free speech, lest one be hoist on the petard it presents.
I hereby declare such obligation fulfilled.
:glag:
As to the "Fire/theater" caution, I find it bears mention in every discussion of free speech, lest one be hoist on the petard it presents.
I hereby declare such obligation fulfilled.
:glag:
When mucking about with vid, such caveats are necessary.
He has flocks of precisely this type of ankle-biting concerns awaiting loosement.
Kinda like a defense lawyer, y'know?
vidcc
07-30-2006, 09:08 PM
I could have pointed out that your "caveat" isn't quite correct...you can say(shout) fire! in a crowded theatre...... but I just used the correct term in my post.;)
Busyman™
07-30-2006, 10:59 PM
:glag:
When mucking about with vid, such caveats are necessary.
He has flocks of precisely this type of ankle-biting concerns awaiting loosement.
Kinda like a defense lawyer, y'know?
Mmmk. You talk like that normally though and it's quite funny. On a rare occasion I showed wifey one of your posts.
She said it reminded her of the legalese you see in fine print at the end of a contract.:glag:
On a rare occasion I showed wifey one of your posts.
"On a rare occasion..." :huh:
Indeed.
I can honestly say I feel the full brunt of her confusion.
Have you shown here any of your own?
Busyman™
07-31-2006, 01:44 AM
On a rare occasion I showed wifey one of your posts.
"On a rare occasion..." :huh:
Indeed.
I can honestly say I feel the full brunt of her confusion.
Have you shown here any of your own?
She's seen some, sure.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.