At least the ACLU is consistent. They defended the Nazi in Skokie and the defended this douchebag, too. I need to call them the next time I feel like burning a cross or protesting against a new mosque or something.
So tell me why they fall flat on the 2nd Amendment.
Consistent my ASS....
Perhaps they simply disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (there are, actually, perfectly legitimate arguments on both sides). Anyway, you must admit they are quite consistent about the 1st.
but then people seemed "shocked" that I would not support this organization.
Why would I support an organization when I feel their interpretations are wrong? And personally, I would not support an organization which really seems to pick and choose which parts are worth defending.
The NRA and Gunowners of America have that covered. And besides, just how threatened is your 2nd amendment rights? It's the only part of the Constitution that Republicans have ever read. And when you live in a country where one side is loud, angry, and stupid, and the other side is bright, but spineless, then what happens is the spineless crowd loses every fucking time. Do you know why your 2nd amendment rights are NOT in any way threatened? Because Democrats don't like it.
But the rest of the Bill of Rights? Forget it. Free speech applies mostly to corporations having the "freedom of speech" to bribe politicians. The freedom of (and from) religion has been replaced with the Great Spook in the Sky on our currency, in our pledges, and in all the legislation Congress is writing. The 4th amendment has been replaced with the Patriot Act. The 5th amendment against Self-incrimination has been replaced with warrentless wiretaps, not just by Uncle Sam, but now by Rupurt Murdock (glad I'm no Brit), and now we have tea bag nutters who run for office on the idea of eliminating the 14th amendment right to due process of law in order to get rid of illegals (what they could do instead is revoke the corporate charter of companies like Chipotle and put the executives in fucking jail), and now they want to take away your right to vote for your Senators, and your right to vote for local representation.
run by fascists.
it's the hypocricy of the ACLU that sickens me even more than their screwed of views of the 2nd amendment.
I would pose a question back to you, what do you do when half of the country is loud, angry, and stupid, and the other side are Republicans.
BTW, saw your list regarding the forth & fifth amendments and other items. But explain this to me. Many of these went into effect before BHO, but since then you had a govenment where the executive branch and both houses of the government were in Democrat control and yet all these things remained.
So while you sit here and whine and pee your pants like a baby having a tantrum, why do you target the Tea party when in fact the Dems had all the power they needed to undo this stuff, and did not do a thing.
Dude, you've really trashed your own credibility really bad in this thread and your hypocricy and blind hatred is so blatant with you giving the Dems a pass when they actually had the power to do something and the Tea party never has...
when you say the Dems could have done something about the 2nd Amendment. You mean like pass a new Amendment? Do you have any idea about what that process entails? You need alot more than control over both houses and the White House. Plus, the Republicans have shown how, even when one party controls the Senate, the opposition can bring legislation to a standstill.
More disturbing is your blind assumption that the 2nd Amendment issue is just open-and-shut in your favor. Just as a simple matter of fact the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the basic issue of what the Constitution really says about the full extent of the right to bear arms. All it has done lately is strike down local laws that include an outright ban.
But exactly what the pertinent clause of the Bill Of Rights means is still open to debate. Even the phrasing and placement of commas leave it unclear. As someone who believes the right to bear arms exists but is limited, recent Supreme Court rulings don't bode well for my views. But I don't deny the other side has some legitimate points to make in the debate. To deny that both sides have legitimate ponits to make is to debase discussion of an important issue.
-- Modified on 4/24/2011 10:15:32 AM
I specifcially talked about not the 2nd amendment gut his compalining about the 14th and due process. He is referrign to Gitmo, remember, that place BHO was going to shut down. Change you can believe in...
In regards to teh second, you are right in the fact that it is not going aywhere. In fact, larger metropolitan areas that have passed local ordinances are now udner fire and in danger of having their laws tossed out.
There are so many typos in your first sentence that I can't even decipher it. Hard to keep up with a thread that you've made incoherent. Is it remotely possible that I couldn't understand your post because it was so poorly written? Please do what I do and re-read what you're about to post, then correct the errors before posting it. I mean, "gut his compalining?" Give me a break!
Sometimes I post too late at night, let's try this again, sorry
Original
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I specifcially talked about not the 2nd amendment gut his compalining about the 14th and due process. He is referrign to Gitmo, remember, that place BHO was going to shut down. Change you can believe in...
In regards to teh second, you are right in the fact that it is not going aywhere. In fact, larger metropolitan areas that have passed local ordinances are now udner fire and in danger of having their laws tossed out.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Translated from Gibberish to English
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I specifcially talked about not the 2nd amendment but his compalining about the 14th and due process. He is referring to Gitmo, remember, that place BHO was going to shut down. Change you can believe in...
In regards to the second, you are right in the fact that it is not going aywhere. In fact, larger metropolitan areas that have passed local ordinances are now under fire and in danger of having their laws tossed out.
If I'm reading your translation correctly, as well as your prior post, you are wrong again! You referred not to the 14th Amendment but to the 4th and 5th. Even so, it was impossible to know for sure exactly which amendments your rant ("pee in your pants") was about. Anyway, thanks for your manning up re the mangled post. I actually like one of your neologisms (new words): "compalining." I assume that means complaining about palin. If I am correct, it is a useful addtion to our lexicon for the coming political season. I plan to do a lot of "compalining."
The ACLU seems to be rather consistant on the protection of the first amendment, regardless of who it is. They've defended commies and white supremacists alike. Are you suggesting that Republicans are bright, but spineless? Did you catch Eric Cantor having to get a lesson from Democrats how a bill is made into law?
I have long been in support of everything in the Bill of Rights. I want my first amendment rights and I want my 2nd amendment rights. I'm pissed that reich wingers have taken my 4th and 5th amendment rights away, and I'm pissed that Dems have not restored those rights.
But, the difference here Snow, is that Dems are not running for office trying to eliminate my 14th amendment rights of Due Process of Law just because they don't like Hispanics. The Dems may have failed to close Gitmo, but they didn't OPEN Gitmo. I'm pissed that the Dems have not yet gotten us out of Iraq, but they didn't get us INTO Iraq. I'm pissed that the Dems have not charged the last guy with committing torture and war crimes, but they weren't the ones that started the torture and war crimes.
Come on Willy!! Did you really say this, and I quote...
"The Dems may have failed to close Gitmo, but they didn't OPEN Gitmo."
LMAO!! Now that is FUNNY!!!
The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Look it up...
OK, so they are consistent on the first (even backing Limbaugh's case in Florida), I will grant you that. But it seems too convenient for them to cherry pick what they want to defend.
Here are a few examples of what I am talking about....
http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2011/03/aclu-hypocrisy.html
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/07/26/aclu-hates-boy-scouts-love-hypocrisy/
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2010/03/aclu-hypocrisy-on-abortion.html
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/2007/022507ACLUHypocrisy.html
If you can burn the flag, or the Bible with full protection by the law, why not a koran?
I don't think any religion should be above criticism, and burning a koran definitely falls under a persons first ammendment rights to free speech.
As to the second ammendment, that's an argument for a different thread.
wrapped in bacon!
putting the torch to a koran?
Holy artistic expression Batman!!!
-- Modified on 4/23/2011 9:34:25 AM
Stuff a pig with korans like we stuff turkeys at thanksgiving and roast that sucker up. Then serve the roast pork up at one of those mega churches where they teach 7 year olds to "speak in tongues" and handle poisonous snakes. When the services are over, you get David Vitter to fuck the pig carcass while watching fetus porn and wearing an American flag diaper, while a dozen Arabic providers take turns spanking him...
Hmm...does anyone know how to fill out the paperwork to get a NEA grant?
-- Modified on 4/23/2011 3:50:16 PM
Try this: