Hey ACLU!

[aikido kid]

Freak'in commies, I can't stand them. (http://msnusers.com/_Secure/0VQAAAI0a93X4EW*B6aURl!VCdbGhEnUvR1ZUqUZMCP9bE7SF7 3FA5rvGwAUgP8dQX9UQuFQTIjw17qgSMASv0FTx3E7DvZMIRV* ZmLTRp*6QKa6eKjq6GoI*YG8CDWxx/COP%20POSTER.jpg?dc=4675514401099176975)

[Mraughh]

LMAFO :D

Now I expect to see the other sides riposte.

[retired]

LMAFO :D

Now I expect to see the other sides riposte.

Who is the other side? :confused:

[Mraughh]

Who is the other side? :confused:

You and I both know who it is lol.

[retired]

You and I both know who it is lol.


No I don't? I thought we we were all Americans, just with different opinions. There are many issues that I don't agree with the ACLU, but there are other issues that I agree with them. Privacy rights are one. To call them communists is irresponsible, specious, and without foundation.

[Mraughh]

well I always say, if the shoe fits, wear it, in regards to the ACLU. I was expecting the liberal members of the board to respond with a hitleresque picture or something in response to Aikidos pic, since thats the common reference for us conservatives.

[Slippery Pete]

Hey aikido kid~

Is there any way I can get an unedited copy of that poster? I may be able to get you a copy of the same thing with a fighter pilot instead of a cop, if you want it (a friend has it printed out, not sure if he has it electronically). Let me know.

[aikido kid]

I just thought that was funny.I'm being a little sarcastic here too.


oh and there is a little truth here. Roger Nash Baldwin was the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union and a notable American Communist.

"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal."

[Bowles]

Heck, as long as we're throwing posters at the ACLU let'em have this one too!



http://www.geocities.com/nchillbilly11/warcoffee1.jpg

[Interceptor]

Freak'in commies, I can't stand them. (http://msnusers.com/_Secure/0VQAAAI0a93X4EW*B6aURl!VCdbGhEnUvR1ZUqUZMCP9bE7SF7 3FA5rvGwAUgP8dQX9UQuFQTIjw17qgSMASv0FTx3E7DvZMIRV* ZmLTRp*6QKa6eKjq6GoI*YG8CDWxx/COP%20POSTER.jpg?dc=4675514401099176975)


I have another version of that poster. Looks like a old WW2 fighter pilot climbing in his plane.

Any chance you can email me a uncensored version of the police one?

[1sgkelly]

You know what I like best about the ACLU?

:confused:

Not a God damn thing.

:eek:

I'm past my second!

:eek: :o

[Tinkertoys]

Lol, so true.

-Tink

[1sgkelly]

How about a class action suit against the aclu for not looking out for the rest of us; you know the folks who work, pay their bills and taxes, go to church, obey the law, serve their country, and are just all-round nice folks?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Chiram]

Kelly- I'll get in on that one. Heck, I might even know a lawyer with brass balls big enough to take them on!

[Isla_]

Heck, as long as we're throwing posters at the ACLU let'em have this one too!



http://www.geocities.com/nchillbilly11/warcoffee1.jpg

that is just hilarious!

[NCHawk56]

I love conservative ideology. :rolleyes:

[letshearit4blue]

Several things to comment on here:
1) I LOVE this thread!
2) Mraughh, I love the Savage quote you have on your signature.

I run a republican club online. (OK, Its mostly on an RPG) But anyways I make and put up a lot of graphics at http://photobucket.com/albums/v690/walktrotcanter/Right%20Wing%20Riders/

Mraughh, while the quote was already made into a pic, I feel compelled to put another one here:

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/walktrotcanter/Right%20Wing%20Riders/pic8.bmp" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

[aikido kid]

dittos to ya letshearit4blue. funny bumper stickers. if i drove a big pick up truck i would slap thoes all over the back. except for the "you had an abortion and i had a beautiful baby" one, thats not right. haha.

[letshearit4blue]

dittos to ya letshearit4blue. funny bumper stickers.
Thank you *takes a bow*
BTW, buffalo rox. lol

[aikido kid]

yeah its ok i guess. our government is F'ed up and people are fleeing in droves. (I being one of them) .but it's my home town so i love it.

[AJAILER1]

LMAFO :D

Now I expect to see the other sides riposte.
I READ IT. GREAT BOOK....(L.I.A. M. DISORDER) SGT. TONY

[Bowles]

except for the "you had an abortion and i had a beautiful baby" one, thats not right. haha.



Whats not right about the truth.

[Mraughh]

I Love "Bad Liberal, No Welfare"

:D

During my hiatus from the boards, I've been doing alot of thinking about various issues. And a hell of alot of studying of ancient history namely, Rome, the "original" republic, which, I believe, has given me some more insights on issues happening in our country today. Now, for the ACLU, they are nothing but hypocrites, why? well if they were in support of upholding the rights established within the constitution, then they should vhemently support the 2nd amendment, but they dont, they are neutral on that particular issue since it does not fit into their communist agenda. Yes, they are communists. Look at the "ideals" of Marxism and you'll see a surprising parallel with what the ACLU advocates.

Flame on.

[Duke]

I Love "Bad Liberal, No Welfare"

:D

During my hiatus from the boards, I've been doing alot of thinking about various issues. And a hell of alot of studying of ancient history namely, Rome, the "original" republic, which, I believe, has given me some more insights on issues happening in our country today. Now, for the ACLU, they are nothing but hypocrites, why? well if they were in support of upholding the rights established within the constitution, then they should vhemently support the 2nd amendment, but they dont, they are neutral on that particular issue since it does not fit into their communist agenda. Yes, they are communists. Look at the "ideals" of Marxism and you'll see a surprising parallel with what the ACLU advocates.

Flame on.

I agree...

[retired]

I Love "Bad Liberal, No Welfare"

:D

Now, for the ACLU, they are nothing but hypocrites, why? well if they were in support of upholding the rights established within the constitution, then they should vhemently support the 2nd amendment, but they dont, they are neutral on that particular issue since it does not fit into their communist agenda.
Flame on.



Perhaps they are neutral because they don't interpret the 2nd amendment the way you do. :) Perhaps they feel as most of the appeallete courts have already ruled, that the second amendmen doesn't grant you any right to own or possess firearms.

How do they have a communist agenda?

The SCOTUS has never really ruled on that aspect of the 2nd amendment. :)

I found the following after I posted this message, so I am adding it now for your information.

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

[Delta784]

How do they have a communist agenda?

The first two things a communist government does;

1) Ban private ownership of firearms.

2) Attack organized religion.

Connect the dots, anyone?

[retired]

The first two things a communist government does;

1) Ban private ownership of firearms.

2) Attack organized religion.

Connect the dots, anyone?


Let's see, the ACLU isn't the government, and guns haven't been banned, and I don't see where religion has been banned either.

Connect the dots Delta? ;) :p

[Delta784]

Let's see, the ACLU isn't the government,

They know they'll never control the Executive or Legislative branches, so they're going for their only alternative.....Judicial. If they can pack that branch with their people, they will be the government. That's their agenda.

and guns haven't been banned,

If the ACLU had their way, they sure as hell would be.

and I don't see where religion has been banned either.

For reasons I can't explain, it's only Christianity that the ACLU has a problem with.

Connect the dots Delta?

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth. Communism is the goal" - Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU.

Connect the dots, indeed.

[Mraughh]

Perhaps they are neutral because they don't interpret the 2nd amendment the way you do. :) Perhaps they feel as most of the appeallete courts have already ruled, that the second amendmen doesn't grant you any right to own or possess firearms.

How do they have a communist agenda?

The SCOTUS has never really ruled on that aspect of the 2nd amendment. :)

I found the following after I posted this message, so I am adding it now for your information.

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

You are correct they do not see the second amendment as I do. My belief is that the founding fathers established the right to bear arms to protect the citizens of this fledgling country from tyranny of an oppresive government. After all, when no citizen has the ability to own a weapon in a country, it severely curtails the ability for a revolt against an unjust government. In addition, it provides an armed milita that the government can use when our home soil is invaded.

Try to place your mindset back then. The colonies were ruled by a despotic king at the time, with the greatest military force at the time under his control. Revolts under monarchies were always severely punished. The founding fathers were trying to protect the future of our country by inhibiting the establishemnt of a despotic or tyrannical rule at a later time in the future. The best protection a republic could have are its armed citizens. Look what happened to Rome around 50 B.C. Caesar, Pompey, Gaius Marius, Sulla all established for the future of the Emperors that the military dictated who would be in power, over the established laws set by the senate. Rome didnt even have an established police force or garrison controlled by the Senate. Had they, then The above generals may not have been able to occupy Rome and effectively take control of power, paving the way for Octavius to declare himself Emperor.

In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles.

Hmm, I believe that the terrorists in Iraq would beg to differ over this particular point.

[One4Justice]

Where can I find an unedited version????

[kaohimaunu]

I just placed a bumper sticker on my truck.."The ACLU: We Don't Hate Religion. Just Christianity!"

Larry

[JediNord]

yeah... poor religious right... so maligned and misunderstood... :rolleyes:

[mobrien316]

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth. Communism is the goal" - Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU.
Every time I see this quote it seems to be cited to imply that since the thoughts of the person who led the ACLU nearly a hundred years ago were clearly pro-communist, then the people who support the ACLU today must be pro-communist. Am I making the correct inference from the implication?

Using the same logic, since Woodrow Wilson led the USA at roughly the same time, then current citizens of this country must share his ideals, yes?

I would hope not, since Wilson was a hard-core racist and white supremacist. He segregated the federal government and tried to pass legislation curtailing the civil rights of African-Americans. Through his efforts, the Democratic party was essentially closed to African-Americans for an additional two decades, and parts of the federal government were segregated through the 1950's. With Wilson's blatant racism in the White House, the Ku Klux Klan experienced a tremendous resurgence, antiblack race riots swept the country, and lynchings of African-Americans spread as far north as Duluth, Minnesota.

Wilson's prejudices also extended to other ethnic groups, which he referred to as "hyphenated Americans." He insisted, "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready."

It would hardly be fair or accurate to use that quote to describe present-day Americans. I would also say it is just as unfair to use the Baldwin quote to describe present-day members of the ACLU.

If you disagree with the ACLU you certainly have the right to express your opinion. I don't personally agree with all of their activities either. But perhaps we could present a better argument than, "They're commies! I'll prove it with this quote!"

Just my opinion...

[mrkoje]

Did you know that seven of the nine founding fathers did not support organized religion?

[djack16]

For reasons I can't explain, it's only Christianity that the ACLU has a problem with.
Christianity is the most invasive and influencial religions around us in the United States. Obviously. There are Christians who are insisting that grounded, scientific facts are not facts because they don't fit into their religious worldview and shouldn't be taught in school. Do you want your children being taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old or do you want them being taught scientific facts?

The ACLU is the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union...not the Middle Eastern Civil Liberties Union. I'm sure if they were, they would have their hands full with all of the religious extremism that is over there.

The ACLU also assisted Christians in Nevada when large casinos were trying to prevent them from proselytizing on the city streets. They fought and won for their religious rights. I still think those evangelists are annoying but I stand by their freedoms afforded to them by our constitution.

[savage4presiden]

The ACLU is very communist. They have essentially subverted the authority of the congress and the senate numerous times. Ruth Bader Ginsberg (supreme court justice) is a former ACLU lawyer. She is personally personally responsible for many of the courst ill founded decisions.

[retired]

The ACLU is very She is personally personally responsible for many of the courst ill founded decisions.

Ill founded in your opinion and others. However, I'm sure there are many who agree with her decisions. Personally I disagree with most of her opinions, but that doesn't mean they are ill founded.

[Delta784]

If you disagree with the ACLU you certainly have the right to express your opinion. I don't personally agree with all of their activities either. But perhaps we could present a better argument than, "They're commies! I'll prove it with this quote!"

The ACLU was founded by a Communist. There is no disputing that.

Have they changed much since then? That's something we can debate. I personally think they are the most dangerous, subversive organization out there.

[mobrien316]

The ACLU was founded by a Communist. There is no disputing that.

Have they changed much since then? That's something we can debate. I personally think they are the most dangerous, subversive organization out there.
I was offering my opinion more on the mode of argument than on the qualities of the ACLU. For someone to write that the ACLU is no good because its founder was a Communist is rather disingenuous. The argumentum ad hominem is almost never a persuasive way of stating your opinion. This country's government was founded by misogynistic, racist slave-owners; that fact does not invalidate everything the government does in the present day.

I think it is more persuasive to argue that the ACLU

[Josh]

Check this one out:

http://angrypatrioticbastard.com/images/politics/protesting.jpg

[mobrien316]

With all due respect, do you even know where that came from? It's a parody of WWII-era American posters and it's based on George Orwell's novel "1984." Are you actually supporting a Big Brother-type of totalitarian fascist regime?

There's another poster of the same sort which reads: "I promise to never question authority. I promise to never bring up my rights."

Is that the kind of thinking you support? Is that how you think yourself?

As far as your poster goes - I'm a cop and I have nothing against protesters. Why is it un-American to protest? The only thing that makes it un-American is that most Americans are too apathetic and lazy to actually get off the couch and protest something they don't agree with.

Disagreeing with the ACLU is fine. But surely you can come up with a better argument than, "Judging by this poster, they aren't in line with Big Brother's wishes, so they must be bad."

[Josh]

With all due respect, do you even know where that came from? It's a parody of WWII-era American posters and it's based on George Orwell's novel "1984." Are you actually supporting a Big Brother-type of totalitarian fascist regime?

There's another poster of the same sort which reads: "I promise to never question authority. I promise to never bring up my rights."

Is that the kind of thinking you support? Is that how you think yourself?

As far as your poster goes - I'm a cop and I have nothing against protesters. Why is it un-American to protest? The only thing that makes it un-American is that most Americans are too apathetic and lazy to actually get off the couch and protest something they don't agree with.

Disagreeing with the ACLU is fine. But surely you can come up with a better argument than, "Judging by this poster, they aren't in line with Big Brother's wishes, so they must be bad."

It was just meant to be humorous, no one wants a totalitarian regime.

[djack16]

I personally think they are the most dangerous, subversive organization out there.
:rolleyes:

[hermit]

Without two extremes there would be any middle.

Both extreme sides have a number of undesirable characteristics and some very desirable ones, so they balanced each other out.

[tony.o]

Perhaps they are neutral because they don't interpret the 2nd amendment the way you do. :) Perhaps they feel as most of the appeallete courts have already ruled, that the second amendmen doesn't grant you any right to own or possess firearms.

How do they have a communist agenda?

The SCOTUS has never really ruled on that aspect of the 2nd amendment. :)

I found the following after I posted this message, so I am adding it now for your information.

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.This comes from the one who describes himself as a libertarian.

[retired]

This comes from the one who describes himself as a libertarian.

And what's your point? I posted what is at the ACLU web site. As to my being a Libertarian, that is correct, and a change from my conservative postion before. :eek:

[tony.o]

And what's your point? I posted what is at the ACLU web site. As to my being a Libertarian, that is correct, and a change from my conservative postion before. :eek:Just sounds like your defending/promoting them on this issue. If you are, an individual right to arms is one issue that defines a Libertarian. Why quote them when their position is wrong on amendment 2, which it is, if they want to be honest about it. Honesty is their problem, why not say, we don't like that right and we want to change it. A whole amedment, and all they have to say about it is a couple of paragraphs, when thay make up constitutional rights that do not exist. Besides, I'd like to know what, to them, would be an unreasonable regulation of gun ownership, why can't they tell us that, because they are not being honest. I'm sure they're pushing for the right of felons to vote and it would be intresting to see if they would fight to restore reasonable gun rights along with voting rights, of course they wouldn't, but I would like to hear how they would try to explain that.

[retired]

Just sounds like your defending/promoting them on this issue. If you are, an individual right to arms is one issue that defines a Libertarian. Why quote them when their position is wrong on amendment 2, which it is, if they want to be honest about it. Honesty is their problem, why not say, we don't like that right and we want to change it. A whole amedment, and all they have to say about it is a couple of paragraphs, when thay make up constitutional rights that do not exist. Besides, I'd like to know what, to them, would be an unreasonable regulation of gun ownership, why can't they tell us that, because they are not being honest. I'm sure they're pushing for the right of felons to vote and it would be intresting to see if they would fight to restore reasonable gun rights along with voting rights, of course they wouldn't, but I would like to hear how they would try to explain that.

I don't speak for them nor do I establish their policies. I merely posted that they interpret the 2nd differently than some do. I'm sure that we can take any one or all of the amendments and find differing opinions. That doesn't make those differing from you or me communist.

Who is to say they are constitutionally wrong with their interpretation of the 2nd? We may disagree, but until the SCOTUS steps up to ther plate and issues a ruling, most of our opinions and theirs are just that, opinions :) .

I suggest if you want to hear how they feel on an issue, write them, they will probably respond.

[tony.o]

I don't trust the SC. They are suppossed to enforce the constitution, by looking at original intent, not give their personal opinion on what they desire it to mean. The only authorized way to change it is to amend it.

[retired]

I don't trust the SC. They are suppossed to enforce the constitution, by looking at original intent, not give their personal opinion on what they desire it to mean. The only authorized way to change it is to amend it.

The SC doesn't enforce the constitution per se, they rule on challenges to the constitution and establish case law. I would spectulate that any and all justices are somewhat subjective to a degree in their interpretations, as well as we are. That doesn't mean they will apply their personal bias to every case they hear.

So where would you start with amending the constitution?

[Migraman]

Christianity is the most invasive and influencial religions around us in the United States. Obviously. There are Christians who are insisting that grounded, scientific facts are not facts because they don't fit into their religious worldview and shouldn't be taught in school. Do you want your children being taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old or do you want them being taught scientific facts?

I wholeheartedly agree. Those nut job right wing Christians are a scourge on our society. You had better agree with what they believe or they might behead you or blow you up or do some other nasty thing to you. Come on!

Christianity is influencial because most of our laws as well as our society were founded on Judeo-Christian values (History 101). Don't believe me read a history book, I mean a real book, not some watered down textbook.

Invasive? Please elaborate. Of which grounded scientific facts are you referring? Most have been scientifically debunked or cannot be proven.

[tony.o]

The SC doesn't enforce the constitution per se, they rule on challenges to the constitution and establish case law. I would spectulate that any and all justices are somewhat subjective to a degree in their interpretations, as well as we are. That doesn't mean they will apply their personal bias to every case they hear.

So where would you start with amending the constitution?You know, the lawyer class is destroying this country. People dress up, go into a c rt room and argue the most rediculous crap.I's not even about the truth, it's about who you can fool today. Nothing means what is says and the slickest presentation wins. Think about it , we have a whole class of people who produce and contribute nothing to this economy. I dont know what else to say about it, you won't even give me an inch on my arguement, but you consider what the ACLU has to say. I don't want to amend it, I'm just saying that thats the proper way to change it, not to reinterpret it. Though I could think of several amendements to be added that I'm sure you wouldn't approve of.

[retired]

You know, the lawyer class is destroying this country. People dress up, go into a c rt room and argue the most rediculous crap.I's not even about the truth, it's about who you can fool today. Nothing means what is says and the slickest presentation wins. Think about it , we have a whole class of people who produce and contribute nothing to this economy. I dont know what else to say about it, you won't even give me an inch on my arguement, but you consider what the ACLU has to say. I don't want to amend it, I'm just saying that thats the proper way to change it, not to reinterpret it. Though I could think of several amendements to be added that I'm sure you wouldn't approve of.

I'm sure you don't have the slighest idea of what amendment/s I might approve of, but it has been a pleasant discussion, and thanks for your comments. :)

[djack16]

I wholeheartedly agree. Those nut job right wing Christians are a scourge on our society. You had better agree with what they believe or they might behead you or blow you up or do some other nasty thing to you. Come on!

Yes. Thank goodness that Eric Rudolph was a Muslim. Freaking Allah...telling Deanna Laney and Andrea Yates to drown her kids! For shame!
Anyways...
Fundamentalists (and others) who believe in applying their "perfect morality" on everybody are a definite scourge. Prayer in schools, 10 commandments in all of our government buildings, outlawing the teaching of evolution, and in some proponents, criminalizing divorce. Yes...these laws are long since due :rolleyes: . Ann Coutler suggested we should invade the Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and covert everybody to Christianity. Conservativism has less to do with it then the religion itself and, yes, they ARE a scourge when this is their mantra.

Christianity is influencial because most of our laws as well as our society were founded on Judeo-Christian values (History 101). Don't believe me read a history book, I mean a real book, not some watered down textbook.

This has been visited and revisited and it is well established that "most of our laws" are NOT founded on Judeo-Christian values. Maybe you would like to substantiate that bold assertion about most of our laws? I would bet money that by "watered down textbook" you are referring to objective, fact filled textbooks.

Invasive? Please elaborate. Of which grounded scientific facts are you referring?
The bible essentially orders every follower to get the word out. Look at the evolution debate going on in Kansas right now for goodness sakes! These aren't a varied group of people and scientists all questioning the evidence of evolution objectively; these are fundamentalist Christians who perceive this science as being a threat to theirs and other people's faith. Every few months we have another person trying to get the ten commandments into places where it simply does not belong. Around where I live there are always little cards sticking up everywhere warning people that if they don't subscribe to Christianity, they will burn in hell and not get that big reward at the end. Need I even mention the whackos that harrass abortion clinics?

Most have been scientifically debunked or cannot be proven.

And I guess because you said it, that makes it true :rolleyes: . I don't even really know what you mean by this. Scientific facts that Christianity is invasive?

[djack16]

Though I could think of several amendements to be added that I'm sure you wouldn't approve of.
Prayer in schools, 10 commandments in all of our government buildings, outlawing the teaching of evolution, and in some proponents, criminalizing divorce.

LOL!
Oh I just love this bulletin board.