• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Liberal" ACLU Helping defend Rush Limbaugh

Yes , I agree with Your point in re Anti-rights protesters seems to be less balanced, but that is based on court findings with the considerations of legal minutia, that we can not address properly ( as were not Lawyers) I think therefore the redress is left to the courts that found in favor rather then in the espoused position of the ACLU in those arguments.

Ultimately we must recognize that in matters of law the abater is the standing authority ( Judges) and not the fact that anyone can sue for any reason.

"First we kill all the lawyers" Henry VI, Part II,Shakespeare.
Which was based on a real quote from IIRC James 1st
 
This is not praising Mussolini for getting the trains to run on time! On this board and on right wing media you will often find that the ACLU is some sort demonic power for the left. So I was pointing out that that may be a false representation.

(Sorry LukeT and Godwin, it was Mussolini who got the trains to run on time.)
 
David it is subject to the vagaries of the political point of view. People love the organization when it represents their point of view and damn them when the argument is oppositional.

To All go and see for Yourselves. The problem is they will represent positions on all sides , and if you are nothing then a hand puppet proclaiming your allegiance to the first amendment ..........don't bother.
 
Luke T. said:
If an organization does more harm than good, then we are better off without them. Praising the ACLU for defending Rush is like saying Hitler got the trains running on time.

1) It was Mussolini, not Hitler.
2) Mussolini did not get the trains running on time.
3) The ACLU does more good than harm. I'm sorry if you think that citizens of the USA should bend over backward to submit to the government (if you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?), Luke, but I disagree and think that we have a Constitution for a reason. I also think we need to defend the Constitution - including the Bill of Rights - and I am glad the ACLU is there to help do it.
 
Fade said:
This is a good example as to why I respect the ACLU.

Freedom and equality should be extended to everyone, not just those who you or I may happen to agree with.

When I can afford to contribute, my number one political charity is the ACLU. The point is civil liberties, not liberal or conservative.

No I don't think they are always right. But they are right in the right way often enough, particularly when it comes to the rights of defendants.

The ACLU gets a lot of criticism from the religious right for their stand on separation of church and state, which I support.

They also get a lot of criticism from the same circles for their opposition to the death penalty. That is where I part company with the ACLU, but I still support them in general.

That there is an ACLU is a good thing. Did you know that Clarence Darrow was one of their founders?
 
LFTKBS said:
It was Mussolini, not Hitler.

Mussolini really did make the trains run on time, but he did it by changing the printed schedules to reflect reality and then some. Trains would sit outside the stations for half an hour or more, then pull in at the scheduled time.

I experienced this in Spain under Mussolini's erstwhile comrade in the early 1970s. Yes that guy is still dead.

You didn't get where you were going any faster, but you could rely on the printed schedules.

Viva Mussolini! :p
 
LFTKBS said:
I also think we need to defend the Constitution - including the Bill of Rights - and I am glad the ACLU is there to help do it.
Well, parts of it anyway. ;)
 
RandFan said:
Well, parts of it anyway. ;)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I like all of the first ten amendments, including the second. So.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Most people don't realize how organizations like this function. The ACLU ( of which I am a member ) is in the business of protection of EVERYONE'S civil rights of free speech and other constitutional freedoms. I.E.

The case of Nazis marching in a suburb of Chicago that was heavily peopled by survivors of the concentration camps.( 1978)


I remember Skokie very well, and I don't consider the ACLU's defense of the Nazis in that case as a good thing. The case was mooted anyway when the city of Chicago allowed them to march in the parks there again. That's what started the whole thing. Once Chicago let them back in, they cancelled their Skokie march.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:

Like PBS radio on" All things considered" when feedback is read on the air , when the first letter is a scathing indictment of their espousing of Conservative politics , followed by another letter disavowing their embrace of the heathen self serving left...... When all complain I think that's a good indicater of fairness.

Bill O'Reilly gets the same mail on *gasp* Fox News!
 
LFTKBS said:
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I like all of the first ten amendments, including the second. So.
I don't think the ACLU has ever defended the second amendment. So I don't think it can be said that they are there to protect it.
 
RandFan said:
I don't think the ACLU has ever defended the second amendment. So I don't think it can be said that they are there to protect it.

That could be because, as far as I know, no one has ever tried to disarm the national guard. If they did, I suspect the ACLU would be right there.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
That could be because, as far as I know, no one has ever tried to disarm the national guard. If they did, I suspect the ACLU would be right there.
Uh oh....here we go again. It's been awhile hasn't it?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Sorry, people is the people. The word people is deliberate. Had the framers intended to give the right to the state it would have said the state. It didn't. It said "people". The word "people" has a specific and important meaning as it is used in the Bill of Rights. But let's debate it. I'm on solid ground by saying that the people actually means the people and not just the National Guard.

What is sad is that those who make this argument have never read the writtings of the framers during that time. The meaning of "people" is not really a matter of debate. But that is fine. We can make it one if you want to.
 
Poor Rush, attacked by 'activist judges' and the only ones that are on his side is the ACLU.

this proves the rapture will occur any time now.



Virgil
 
RandFan said:


What is sad is that those who make this argument have never read the writtings of the framers during that time. The meaning of "people" is not really a matter of debate. But that is fine. We can make it one if you want to.



Try debating it in this thread, which I just bumped for easy access.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33258

Towards the end I point out the legal status of the debate, as well as reference the other threads where the debate has come up.
 
Luke T. said:


I remember Skokie very well, and I don't consider the ACLU's defense of the Nazis in that case as a good thing. The case was mooted anyway when the city of Chicago allowed them to march in the parks there again. That's what started the whole thing. Once Chicago let them back in, they cancelled their Skokie march.
Elwood: Illinois Nazis.
Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.

Best. Movie. Ever.
(or one of the best, anyway)
 
Upchurch said:

Elwood: Illinois Nazis.
Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.

Best. Movie. Ever.
(or one of the best, anyway)

Exactly. It's one of my top ten. The Blues Brothers handled the Illinois Nazis exactly the way they should be handled. They made them targets of ridicule.

"I have always loved you."

I believe the guy who was leading the Nazis in their attempt to march in Skokie was shortly thereafter arrested as a pedophile.
 

Back
Top Bottom