Thought this was hilarious...

[j2k4]

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]

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??????

[j2k4]

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]

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]

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™]

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.

It's not even very good spinning at that while you latch on for dear life to PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME.

[j2k4]

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.

[j2k4]

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.

It's not even very good spinning at that while you latch on for dear life to PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME.

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™]

I see you're trying to do some cleaning with the spin cycle.

It's not even very good spinning at that while you latch on for dear life to PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME.

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]

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