Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 Funny thing about civil rights. They belong to everybody and not just to those we like... ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 05:55 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,663
Thanks: 684
Thanked 1,289 Times in 883 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Funny thing about civil rights. They belong to everybody and not just to those we like...

The facts are always nice...
"The controversy that has suddenly arisen in a political campaign over father-daughter dances in Cranston is old news – the matter was amicably resolved with school officials over four months ago. And it was resolved for a simple reason: the school district recognized that in the 21st Century, public schools have no business fostering the notion that girls prefer to go to formal dances while boys prefer baseball games. This type of gender stereotyping only perpetuates outdated notions of 'girl' and 'boy' activities and is contrary to federal law.
"PTOs remain free to hold family dances and other events, but the time has long since passed for public school resources to encourage stereotyping from the days of Ozzie and Harriet. Not every girl today is interested in growing up to be Cinderella – not even in Cranston. In fact, one of them might make a great major league baseball player someday.
"We commend the school district for its resolution of the matter, and are sorry to see some people turning it into a political football – a game that they may think only boys should be interested in."
ACLU Issues Statement In Response to Father-Daughter Dance Controversy | News | The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island

Per the last article:
The Tennessee branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent a warning letter to 137 school superintendents regarding school Christmas celebrations. The letter suggested that celebrating Christmas while excluding winter holidays such as Kwanza, Bodhi Day, Hanukkah and Eid al Adha amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
THIS is the problem which some Christians can't seem to comprehend.
The only way we can have religious celebration is if all religions are eligible.
Those people that want THEIR cake but nobody else can eat it too? That's unconstitutional.



For some, civil rights are a popularity contest...
Funny how you ignored their support of NAMBLA.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 07:36 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,648
Thanks: 9,397
Thanked 14,320 Times in 8,646 Posts
Post Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Funny how you ignored their support of NAMBLA.

Funny how you couldn't comprehend that the first two sentences were directly talking about that...

And to claim that defending a civil right for somebody is the same as "supporting" somebody is exactly the problem I was talking about.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 07:43 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,663
Thanks: 684
Thanked 1,289 Times in 883 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

Funny how you couldn't comprehend that the first two sentences were directly talking about that...

And to claim that defending a civil right for somebody is the same as "supporting" somebody is exactly the problem I was talking about.
Pedophiles don't really need to have their movement 'defended' when their speech could lead to kids getting abused. There are actual other legitimate cases that need speech defended but this organization (the ACLU) chose to defend pedophiles instead in that case. Interesting that you think that's a good thing.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 07:51 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,648
Thanks: 9,397
Thanked 14,320 Times in 8,646 Posts
Post Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Pedophiles don't really need to have their movement 'defended'...
Did you even read the article.
There was nothing about "defending" a pedophile "movement".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
... when their speech could lead to kids getting abused.
If that were true, they deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Can you quote what exactly their "speech" was that was culpable?
No. Of course you can't. You've assumed guilt because you hate the accused.

You just want to ASSUME guilt because you hate them.
Despite the lawsuit's claims, the NAMBLA website displayed no erotica, nor conspiracies to rape or incitements to violence.[5] In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the US Supreme Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
....
The Curleys had only one witness prepared to testify that NAMBLA "somehow spurred" Jaynes to commit crimes, but a judge ruled the witness was not competent to testify. When the Curleys dropped the lawsuit in 2008, Robert Curley explained: "That was the only link we were counting on ... When they ruled that out, that was the end of the line."[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curley_v._NAMBLA


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
There are actual other legitimate cases that need speech defended but this organization (the ACLU) chose to defend pedophiles instead in that case. Interesting that you think that's a good thing.
False dilemma in pretending it's an "either / or" situation.

And I think it's a good thing to defend civil liberties.
People who are liked typically don't need their civil liberties defended.
Ignoring civil liberty violations for people who are NOT shown to be guilty is not a good thing.

I think NAMBLA are scum but that doesn't mean that we should ignore their civil rights. They shouldn't be prosecuted on trumped up charges just because hate.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 01-31-2017 at 07:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 08:16 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,663
Thanks: 684
Thanked 1,289 Times in 883 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Can you quote what exactly their "speech" was that was culpable?

"Despite the lawsuit's claims, the [B]NAMBLA website displayed no erotica, nor conspiracies to rape or incitements to violence"
Why would you be defending them????
It was a website dedicated to the cause of pedophilia, simply on the basis that it was NAMBLA's.
There's nothing you can do to polish this turd, Foundit.
If an axe murderer puts up a website about axe murdering, but has no pictures of the act or anything, it's still a website for the cause of axe murdering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
And I think it's a good thing to defend civil liberties. People who are liked typically don't need their civil liberties defended.
This isn't about whether people are "liked" or not, but that it's an organization for the purpose of abusing children. The ACLU was stupid to pick child abusers in particular to take a stand on. Just like someone would be stupid to defend the owners of a site for the cause of axe murdering. There's defending speech, but then there's stupidly defending speech. Doesn't mean said speech should be illegal, but if you're (the ACLU, not you as in F66) going to put effort into ensuring such services stay in place, then you should bear responsibility for the children abused as an outcome of such services, ultimately. You can praise the ACLU all you want, but in a thread like this I'm going to make sure the other side--the dark side of it--is shown too. People need to know they give their services to a group such as NAMBLA.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 08:26 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,648
Thanks: 9,397
Thanked 14,320 Times in 8,646 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Why would you be defending them????
I am demanding that the guilty be punished and those that cannot be shown to be guilty not be punished.
That is the standard I am employing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
It was a website dedicated to the cause of pedophilia, simply on the basis that it was NAMBLA's.
So you should have no problem coming up with proof then, right?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
If an axe murderer puts up a website about axe murdering, but has no pictures of the act or anything, it's still a website for the cause of axe murdering.
This would be called "begging the question"
Begging the question (fallacy) - Grammarist
You have assumed people in NAMBLA are guilty of child molestation. If that can be proven, they belong in jail.
Your analogy of "about axe murdering" is interesting as I can provide you web-sites that do exactly that.
10 Grisliest Ax Murderers - Listverse
What is this web-site guilty of?

If NAMBLA is guilty of something then they could have been shown guilty.
But the truth is you have no evidence. The parents had no evidence.
And that's why the lawsuit lost.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
This isn't about whether people are "liked" or not, but that it's an organization for the purpose of abusing children.
Please document this claim => "organization for the purpose of abusing children."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
The ACLU was stupid to pick child abusers in particular to take a stand on.
And we're back again to the thing you keep ignoring.
People who are liked typically don't need their civil liberties defended.
Ignoring civil liberty violations for people who are NOT shown to be guilty is not a good thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Just like someone would be stupid to defend the owners of a site for the cause of axe murdering. There's defending speech, but then there's stupidly defending speech.
The stupid thing about your rant is the judiciary recognized nothing illegal was done by NAMBLA in conjunction with the accusations of this lawsuit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Doesn't mean said speech should be illegal...
WTF?!?!?!

Then what the hell are you arguing for then?
Do you even understand what NAMBLA was accused of here?

Jesus.
If the accusation in the case were true, then that speech was definitively illegal.
But it wasn't true. Ergo, it wasn't illegal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
... but if you're (the ACLU, not you as in F66) going to put effort into ensuring such services stay in place, then you should bear responsibility for the children abused as an outcome of such services, ultimately.
Do you even have the foggiest freakin' clue what the lawsuit was about?
Cause you repeatedly make comments indicating you didn't even bother to read.

This case was exactly about saying that NAMBLA was culpable in the death of Curley.
And if that were true, then they belong in jail.
But it wasn't true.

And here you are claiming ACLU should "bear responsibility for the children abused as an outcome of such services"?!?!?
THIS CASE FAILED BECAUSE NAMBLA'S WEB-SITE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
You keep trying to assume your own conclusion and fail to recognize IT WAS THE COURT'S JOB to determine the validity of the claim. And after examining the evidence, the claim was rejected.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 01-31-2017 at 08:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 08:37 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,663
Thanks: 684
Thanked 1,289 Times in 883 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You have assumed people in NAMBLA are guilty of child molestation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
If [emphasis added by me] NAMBLA is guilty of something ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Please document this claim. [that NAMBLA is "an organization for the purpose of abusing children."]
Wow dude.
If you aren't even on board with the basic and well-accepted understanding that NAMBLA (and therefore a website they put up) is ultimately for the purpose of abuse of children, I don't know what to say.
There's really not much else we're going to be able to discuss because you're not even on the basic fundamental understanding of what this group is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
WTF?!?!?!

Then what the hell are you arguing for then?
Calm down.
I'm pointing out that the group you praise to high heaven represents groups like NAMBLA. Not to mention other stupid (but at least far less harmful causes) like the other examples I gave.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 08:46 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,648
Thanks: 9,397
Thanked 14,320 Times in 8,646 Posts
Post Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Wow dude.
If you aren't even on board with the basic and well-accepted understanding that NAMBLA (and therefore a website they put up) is ultimately for the purpose of abuse of children, I don't know what to say.
Don't play dumb.
We're talking about provable in a court of law.

That should have been clear from the context of talking about guilt in a court of law.
You refusing to document what you pretend you can is a bluff to ignore the fact that you have no such proof.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
I'm pointing out that ...

DO NOT try to move the goal-posts AGAIN.

I explicitly quoted you as saying "Doesn't mean said speech should be illegal..."
That is exactly the point in question here. Do NOT try to pretend that you didn't just help demonstrate my point. Cause you EXACTLY demonstrated my point.
You seem absolutely clueless to the fact that that is exactly the question before that court.

If they were guilty in that case, then that speech was illegal.
You are trying to put forth this idiotic presentation of trying to proclaim NAMBLA guilt, but then you blurt out that "Doesn't mean said speech should be illegal...".

You are trying to attack the ACLU for defending people innocent of the charge they were accused of.
THAT is what this boils down to.
And THAT is what you can't comprehend is wrong with your approach and criticism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Not to mention other stupid (but at least far less harmful causes) like the other examples I gave.
I've already repudiated your other attempts.
You dodged the points made.
And now you want to try to pretend that you had a point?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 08:48 PM
winston53660's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,648
Thanks: 1,773
Thanked 3,974 Times in 2,973 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Wow dude.
If you aren't even on board with the basic and well-accepted understanding that NAMBLA (and therefore a website they put up) is ultimately for the purpose of abuse of children, I don't know what to say.
There's really not much else we're going to be able to discuss because you're not even on the basic fundamental understanding of what this group is about.



Calm down.
I'm pointing out that the group you praise to high heaven represents groups like NAMBLA. Not to mention other stupid (but at least far less harmful causes) like the other examples I gave.
My goodness what kinda high heaven are you on? And BS seriousless you can propagate?
__________________
Originally Posted by TiredRetired View Post
Damn shame it couldn't have been a father / son event. IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 01-31-2017, 08:56 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,663
Thanks: 684
Thanked 1,289 Times in 883 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
We're talking about provable in a court of law.
I just gave you a link to cases where people in NAMBLA were arrested, and you still need proof this group is for the purpose of abusing children???

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
That is exactly the point in question here.
It's what YOU want to focus on, sure--but my purpose for pointing out this case has been from the get-go to show that the ACLU is a STUPID organization in that they defend a group like NAMBLA. I've said that was my reason, already. NAMBLA could have had to do what nearly ALL groups or people in this country do when faced with a lawsuit: hire their own counsel. But no ... the ACLU came in and defended NAMBLA. This is the sort of client that the ACLU has put those millions of dollars in the past toward helping.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
$241, aclu, donations, million, over, racks, weekend

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0