Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
YES the ACLU also fights for NAMBLA North american man boy love association. In other words a club for pedophiles that exchanges pornograghic material, arranges for places for adult men and boys to meet. A disgusting immoral aliance if there ever was one. The ACLU is in bed with these types of orgs. Sorry They may claim to be on the side of constitutional law but their track record speaks volumes.
Yes, here we have a phony argument once again,
...the ACLU takes cases based not on who may be effected by an unConstitutional interpretation of the law, but regardless of who may be effected.
The Constitution and the rights of our citizens are there to protect all of us.
Just because I or you don't agree with, (or can't stand), another group of people, that alone does not by itself disqualify them being afforded the same protections of the law that we all are guaranteed.
Subvert the law for one, and the law is subverted for all. That wouldn't be a tenable solution to anything.
Again, you're venom is misdirected..... I'll join you in condemning NAMBLA or those even closely resembling NAMBLA, but trying to blame the ACLU for that is ill-conceived and false.
...the ACLU takes cases based not on who may be effected by an unConstitutional interpretation of the law, but regardless of who may be effected.
The Constitution and the rights of our citizens are there to protect all of us.
Just because I or you don't agree with, (or can't stand), another group of people, that alone does not by itself disqualify them being afforded the same protections of the law that we all are guaranteed.
Subvert the law for one, and the law is subverted for all. That wouldn't be a tenable solution to anything.
Again, you're venom is misdirected..... I'll join you in condemning NAMBLA or those even closely resembling NAMBLA, but trying to blame the ACLU for that is ill-conceived and false.
I believe that anyone who protects or defends an association that calls for romantic relationships between men and boys (literally) should be scorned, don't you think? If I defend NAMBLA, would my credibility or morals not be questioned? It's really rather simple. If it is good for a person to be judged in this manner, why not an entire organization?
Putting several of your best attorneys to work, subpoenaing the principal, and spending thousands of dollars in court costs, to defend the right of a 12-year old girl to wear purple hair, a nose ring, and a bare midriff to the classroom, and forcing the school administration to "back off", is not something I think is a vital constitutional concern for our society. The ACLU is welcome to pursue this type of crusade all they want, but they'll have to do it without my contributions. If you want ME to take you seriously, ACLU, you'll have to "pick your fights" a little better. This isn't "money well spent", as far as I'm concerned.
I believe that anyone who protects or defends an association that calls for romantic relationships between men and boys (literally) should be scorned, don't you think? If I defend NAMBLA, would my credibility or morals not be questioned? It's really rather simple. If it is good for a person to be judged in this manner, why not an entire organization?
The ACLU is not defending what NAMBLA may call it's 'mission statement', just like the ACLU is not defending what the Ku Klux Klan, Fred Phelps, or the Baptist Church stands for.
The ACLU defends the rule of law and the Constitution.
There is no moral question of the ACLU defending NAMBLA, because they don't defend what NAMBLA stands for.
They don't defend NAMBLA, Fred Phelps, or the Baptist Church, or the Ku Klux Klan.
They merely work to guarantee the law is applied equally and correctly to all people at all times, as the Constitution requires.
Again, if you don't like the law, get it changed. But don't try to blame the people who defend what the law says, simply because you don't like what the law says.
Putting several of your best attorneys to work, subpoenaing the principal, and spending thousands of dollars in court costs, to defend the right of a 12-year old girl to wear purple hair, a nose ring, and a bare midriff to the classroom, and forcing the school administration to "back off", is not something I think is a vital constitutional concern for our society. The ACLU is welcome to pursue this type of crusade all they want, but they'll have to do it without my contributions. If you want ME to take you seriously, ACLU, you'll have to "pick your fights" a little better. This isn't "money well spent", as far as I'm concerned.
Thankfully, macmeal
There are enough people with the judgement to see beyond Moderator cut: personal attack. Those folks will donate to the ACLU and the ACLU will be fine without your support.
The ACLU receives requests from far more people than they have the funding to pursue they don't come close to taking all, or even most, of those cases.
They do extensive reviews to make sure that their efforts can be effective, and that they have a case they think they can win based on clear legal precedents.
Whether you think the case has merit is not their concern, and I would guess you are professionally incapable of judging or ascertaining the merits of any specific case, especially since you are neither trained in the law, nor do you seem to be especially respectful of what those laws ultimately mean if they are subverted.
...the ACLU takes cases based not on who may be effected by an unConstitutional interpretation of the law, but regardless of who may be effected.
The Constitution and the rights of our citizens are there to protect all of us.
Just because I or you don't agree with, (or can't stand), another group of people, that alone does not by itself disqualify them being afforded the same protections of the law that we all are guaranteed.
Subvert the law for one, and the law is subverted for all. That wouldn't be a tenable solution to anything.
Again, you're venom is misdirected..... I'll join you in condemning NAMBLA or those even closely resembling NAMBLA, but trying to blame the ACLU for that is ill-conceived and false.
Misdirected??? I think not. They knowingly support and defend confessed and admitted pedophiles. They knowingly attempt to defend the NAMBLA life style. Yes they hide behind the ever popular excuse " We are defending the constitution" The fact is at the end of the day they are defending pedophiles and fighting to give them the freedom to abuse male children.
Let us not forget the multitude of lawsuits they raise on behalf of the prison populations. Everything from Not providing the brand of choice underware to not ensuring none of the cookies served at dinner are broken.
I will admit that on the surface the ACLU is a noble idea. Unfortunately its manned by whack jobs.
I agree. I have defended the ACLU before, and have argued the NAMBLA issue on this board and others.
"Though I disagree with what you say, I will defend your right to say it."
This sums up the ACLU's involvement with NAMBLA (the KKK, etc.)
Quote:
I just don't understand what constitutional rights they are trying to protect by opposing immigration and employment laws.
I don't either. When I have time I'll peruse their website.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
