Former board members are said to be shocked by the proposals, which may be why they're
board members.
Why would an organization purportedly dedicated to protecting civil liberties seek to deny freedom of speech and expression to its own members? The money:
So the ACLU recognizes the need to present a unified face to the public in order to maintain their cash flow, and acknowledges that the restriction of some individual liberty is necessary to achieve that goal.
Why then does the ACLU not recognize the need for the US government to do similar things in order to preserve the lives of American citizens? Is it because the ACLU is more about maintaining the flow of dollars into its members' pockets than it is about any real concern for individual liberties?
For those who came in late, the US Constitution was doing a magnificent job of protecting individual liberty long before the lawyers of the ACLU came on the scene.
1
Oh, but the 1st amendment only applies to government! say the Leftards. That's why Leftards have no problems whatsoever acting out their totalitarian impulses privately.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 09:07 AM (8e/V4)
2
Are you six years old? Because that's what six-year-olds do: call people silly names. The stated mission of the ACLU is to protect us, the American people, against government incursion into our private affairs and civil rights. The Constitution is a great document, but it doesn't do anything by itself; the Constitution only accomplishes things through the efforts of those willing to defend it. If we pretend that the Constitution is capable of protecting liberty on its own then we will certainly have our rights stripped from us.
It's worth noting that the Constitution is primarily concerned with limiting the power of the government, which the founders strongly distrusted. To effectively fight government abuses of power, the ACLU needs unity of purpose (sound familiar? The Republican Party believes this too) and effective fund raising. To pretend otherwise is naive. See how I didn't call any names? That's because I actually have a point.
Posted by: Adam at May 24, 2006 12:40 PM (tlKJH)
3
>>>Are you six years old? Because that's what six-year-olds do: call people silly names.
Does Chimpy McBushitler qualify as a silly name? How bout "fascist" and "nazi".
I couldn't give two rat turds about the ACLU's "stated mission" and your Leftard talking points. I knew those talking points by heart since before you were pooping your diapers.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:07 PM (8e/V4)
4
You know, that sounded so grand and righteous, but it's a shame the ACLU sees a cross in a military cemetary as an infringement on our rights and civil liberties.
It's a shame that because the Boy Scouts will not remove God from their oath the ACLU finds it necessary to ensure that institutions like parks and schools do not allow them to camp free of charge or hold meetings - even though they consistently leave the place better than it was before they arrived.
It's a shame they could not take a case for a man who had a very strong case of discrimination against a Southern California School district by citing a "lack of funds". Unfortunately, during that time all their funds were directed toward protecting the rights of those who wanted to view pornography on public library computers in full view of families and children.
It's a shame the ACLU fights Meagan's laws designed to protect innocent people in every state in order to elevate the protection of convicted sex felons.
The ACLU has not waivered from the principles of its founder, Roger Baldwin, an avowed communist: "When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever."
The ACLU has lost its way.
Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 02:08 PM (nBOAO)
5
Oyster,
word. There's a huge difference between what the Left CLAIMS the ACLU does vs what it ACTUALLY does. Leftard talking points be damned.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:11 PM (8e/V4)
6
ACLU supported NAMBLA also. It appears to me the ACLU is part of a wide front attacking this country. Perhaps, the ACLU should be labeled a terror group. That would open the door to closing their doors for good.
Does lefturds not like my freedom of speech?
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 24, 2006 03:15 PM (D2g/j)
7
I look forward to some lefturd telling me what my
real Constitutional rights are just as I kick the props out from under them and watch them dance.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:06 PM (0yYS2)
8
"Oh, but the 1st amendment only applies to government! say the Leftards"
I think more people than 'leftards' say this. Like, the courts, and the constitution say this too.
Posted by: actus at May 24, 2006 04:50 PM (nnhSu)
9
Thanks, actus! Right on cue!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 05:14 PM (8e/V4)
10
"Thanks, actus! Right on cue!"
I missed this sort of common sense.
Posted by: actus at May 24, 2006 05:28 PM (nnhSu)
11
>>>I missed this sort of common sense.
Not to mention you lack any common sense. Don't feel bad. It goes with the territory on the Left. You're too busy using the courts to suppress other people's freedom of speech to worry about common sense.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 06:50 PM (8e/V4)
12
"Not to mention you lack any common sense."
A surprising and completely unexpected retort. Like I said. Things are quite common around here.
Posted by: actus at May 24, 2006 06:56 PM (nnhSu)
13
Gag the ACLU. Do they need any help?
Rectus, ACLU, Nambla wonder why they are mentioned in the same pargraph?
Adam, look up quick. There's a pie in the sky.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 08:22 PM (8MCDk)
14
Actus is busy tonight, kissing ass for the ACLU.
Is it fair to say that dissent is NOT the highest form of patriotism inside the ACLU?
Posted by: Robert Crawford at May 24, 2006 08:49 PM (Gn9tM)
15
The ACLU, through litigation, forces government institutions and those institutions that accept government funding to recognize the rights (contrived or otherwise) of its employees. You know, protecting the speech and actions of the employees of said institutions. The ACLU should hold itself to the same standards and if it wants to gag its members and curtail their rights, I demand that they stop accepting government funding and become a private entity funded soley through voluntary donations or start charging fees from their plaintiffs.
Posted by: Oyster at May 25, 2006 06:15 AM (YudAC)
16
Legion fights back against ACLU's 'secular cleansing'
"America's veterans memorials have become a casualty of litigation wars as atheists and special interest organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union pursue their fanatical secular cleansing agendas," said American Legion California Department Commander Wayne Parrish."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50366
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 25, 2006 07:46 AM (8e/V4)
17
Look at whats happening to the notorios ACLU they are as bad as any red suversives
Posted by: sandpiper at May 25, 2006 02:42 PM (760E/)
18
So, Rectus, you're saying the Bill of Rights only applies to the government? How very unexpected!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 28, 2006 08:20 AM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
