U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2007, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Small patch of terra firma
1,275 posts, read 2,127,640 times
Reputation: 536

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilypad View Post
The ACLU supports NAMBLA, and does its evil best to destroy the once-strong institutions of America, family, church, Boy Scouts, etc. That is all I need to know about them.
Obviously you fail to see the bigger picture and only want to support groups that will ENFORCE your beliefs instead of PROTECTING your rights. The ACLU doesnt support nambla, what they took was a case involving freedom of speech that affects everyone. They never took the case saying it was a right to practice what nambla believes in. Look up the information yourself to see what the case was really about. Be informed. There are too many people like you who hear nambla and ACLU and dont bother to ask the relevant question, what was the case about? All you hear is nambla and automatically assume what the case was about. That is called ignorance.

The strong institutions of family were destroyed by our economy. We have to survive on a two incomes and who is watching the children? Or did the ACLU create our capitalist driven society?

People love to distort the message when they disagree with it. They hear and repeat the distortion and dont feel compelled to validate it, it comports with their beliefs so they perpetuate it. If you feel so strongly about the Boy Scouts, you support them. I dont believe in their criteria they set so I dont support them.

The ACLU has supported and defended churches in the past, where they confront the church is when the church feels the need to use government authority to force their beliefs on others. Whether it is prayer or on symbols. If you feel so strongly about your church and/or faith, good for you, do you feel that you need government validation of your belief by having government authority lead and mandate prayer or erect your religious symbols for others to see? What if the political climate changes and the next party decides to follow another religion. Would you just say ok?

Read our nation's history and the statements of our forefathers. Yes, many were religious and felt strongly that faith was a personal matter and between man and his God. That it was not an area of government. Read for yourself and not what you heard.

Understand the nature of cause and effect. Cases that occur in court probably dont have a direct connection to us, but the resulting opinion can and government trying to expand their powers into our rights does need a group to defend our rights against our government.

Dont close your eyes and mind because "that's all you need to know", that's a bad policy and you'll be taken advantage of and be ill-informed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2007, 07:05 PM
 
7,139 posts, read 12,920,908 times
Reputation: 2315
I'm not ill-informed and never allow myself to be taken advantage of. Eyes always open, well except for the four hours' sleep I get each night.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2007, 07:06 PM
 
7,139 posts, read 12,920,908 times
Reputation: 2315
Where is the Bad Bad Organizations thread??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2007, 07:08 PM
 
597 posts, read 1,789,680 times
Reputation: 332
I totally understand your point madicarus2000, but the fact of the matter is that freedom of speech for child predators to explain how to attract children and molest them without being caught (that was the case against NAMBLA) in my mind is criminal and should not protected under the constitution. There are limits on free speech. This case in point was absolutely dispicable and I think the ACLU should be ashamed of themselves. Just my opinion, but I think the ACLU is jumping behind the wrong folks more often than not, when there are lots other causes that they won't get behind because of their political offiliation.

Some guy a few years ago wanted the ACLU's help because the US patent office wouldn't let him trademark "white pride, country wide", but yet there are patents for "black pride", "brown pride", "yellow pride", etc, etc. This is not even an explicitly harmful term, although it carries some connotations, depending on your viewpoint, but it is definitely not of the inflammatory nature of NAMBLA that they were eager to support. If you're gonna support one form of free speech, you better support them all. I smell duplicity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2007, 07:23 PM
 
7,139 posts, read 12,920,908 times
Reputation: 2315
A rat is smelled in there, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2007, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Small patch of terra firma
1,275 posts, read 2,127,640 times
Reputation: 536
kdizzle, the limits on freedom of speech have a, sometimes clear, line when it involves immediate threat to life or limb. Much as the yelling fire in a crowded theatre analogy can be thrown about, that would cause injury and not be "protected" speech. However we may disagree and dislike the speech by nambla, it is protected. We have to separate our feelings of disgust for the group with the general idea of writings that do not create an immediate threat to individuals. Yes, that point is is up for debate on this case, but the general point is the writings, as writings and not on content, were protected because they didnt involve any specifics that could be treated as threatening to any particular person. If I write on how to accurately stab a person so they become paralyzed, the writing may be despised but it is protected. Other writings protected are how to cheat on your taxes. It is all under a general protection of freedom of speech even though they are not on the same subject. I disagree with you on the their writing being criminal, despicable yes, criminal no. The person who acts on them based on their writings, then that is criminal and not protected.

Hard to say why they take certain case over others. Although I can see that they do have limited resources so they cant take every case. Much like the police/deputy cant be everywhere to "protect and serve".

Just for full disclosure, yes I am an ACLU member. I do not agree with every case they have taken or their stance on some issues, but only on specifics on certain issues. But overall they are a valuable and necessary group, even if others disagree on that last point.

final word on freedom of speech. I dont remember where I heard it but it was the comment "freedom of speech protects the speech you dont like".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2007, 07:48 PM
 
597 posts, read 1,789,680 times
Reputation: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by madicarus2000 View Post
kdizzle, the limits on freedom of speech have a, sometimes clear, line when it involves immediate threat to life or limb. Much as the yelling fire in a crowded theatre analogy can be thrown about, that would cause injury and not be "protected" speech. However we may disagree and dislike the speech by nambla, it is protected. We have to separate our feelings of disgust for the group with the general idea of writings that do not create an immediate threat to individuals. Yes, that point is is up for debate on this case, but the general point is the writings, as writings and not on content, were protected because they didnt involve any specifics that could be treated as threatening to any particular person. If I write on how to accurately stab a person so they become paralyzed, the writing may be despised but it is protected. Other writings protected are how to cheat on your taxes. It is all under a general protection of freedom of speech even though they are not on the same subject. I disagree with you on the their writing being criminal, despicable yes, criminal no. The person who acts on them based on their writings, then that is criminal and not protected.

Hard to say why they take certain case over others. Although I can see that they do have limited resources so they cant take every case. Much like the police/deputy cant be everywhere to "protect and serve".

Just for full disclosure, yes I am an ACLU member. I do not agree with every case they have taken or their stance on some issues, but only on specifics on certain issues. But overall they are a valuable and necessary group, even if others disagree on that last point.

final word on freedom of speech. I dont remember where I heard it but it was the comment "freedom of speech protects the speech you dont like".
Yeah, I tend to agree with a lot of the points you made here. But, unlike yourself, I do believe that this particular writing was criminal. Despicable--most definitely. This is an organization, with members who are promoting this, and they are explaining how to get away with molesting a child... it just makes my skin crawl and it isn't on the same level as cheating on your taxes. Also, we have to remember that the people being targeted don't have as many rights as we do and therefore need more protection under the law IMO.

On that topic...I would actually very much like to see an amendment to the constitution that would allow us to sterilize pedophiles and molesters, since this is something I think they did in the past and I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, I think after the second offense these people should be up for the death penalty. Or at least let the families of the victim decide what they want to do to the molester...wouldn't that be fair? I can't believe we even let these people out of prison, but it happens several times in most cases and they tend to be constant offenders. Something has to be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2007, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Small patch of terra firma
1,275 posts, read 2,127,640 times
Reputation: 536
Another comment on this, since it is all relative and hopefully everyone understands the point I'm trying to make. We may sit comfortably in our homes and never have to go to court to protect our rights or ever get involved in any situation that would require legal protection against our government. So we're never the test subjects to government authority or the realms of our rights. So the chance is slim to nil that I'll ever get to test the 4th amendment protection against warrantless searches of my home. However it is nice to know what my rights are and where the line of government authority is. The problem is still that I'm not the test subject to know where that line is, it is the alleged criminal who is the test subject.

Example, lets say a cop thought the subject looks suspicious and is maybe a drug dealer and decides to go into the subjects house, without probable cause and no warrant, and finds a lot of drugs. We may applaud and say great, more drugs taken off our street. However we forget, or are indifferent because the suspect is a drug dealer, that certain rights we have were violated. So in this case the search was illegal and the suspect walks free. We may not like it but what if the cop thought the same thing about us? Criminals or those who we may not like or agree with are the ones testing the boundaries of governement authority and the realm of our rights. And those test affect us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2007, 07:59 PM
 
207 posts, read 617,478 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyandMarried View Post
On the 'Describe what a liberal is to you' board we are having a good discussion that seems to come back to the topic of the ACLU.

So I would like to know - is the ACLU good or bad for America?

Do you agree with them, or are they misguided?

Let's here your opinions!
I suggest reading Bill O'Reilly's book, "Culture Warrior"....

That should answer the question!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2007, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Small patch of terra firma
1,275 posts, read 2,127,640 times
Reputation: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMuir View Post
I suggest reading Bill O'Reilly's book, "Culture Warrior"....

That should answer the question!
If Bill O'Reilly is good or bad for the country just ask Al Franken, if Al Franken is good or bad for the country just as Ann Coulter, if Ann Coulter is good or bad for the country just ask... you know where this string is going. The fact is all of it is good. Even those groups you completely disagree with because they keep the political discussion going. There seems to have been a time when it was "trust the government", well there are those who still say that but only when it is a party that they trust in power, when it is not them then they are on the other side questioning government.

Our government derives its powers from the "consent of the governed". So no matter how much we agree or disagree, it is all good for America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top