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 The point isn't about taking the confession but what is chosen to be done with the ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2017, 01:54 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,920
Thanks: 719
Thanked 1,413 Times in 960 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The point isn't about taking the confession but what is chosen to be done with the confession.
The priest sides with a person he knows has molested a child and keeps quiet about it.
You're grasping at straws trying to force an analogy that is, frankly, a ludicrous one. A priest doesn't "side' with them (that is, take their SIDE)--he takes confession and there is no evidence priests take the 'side' of those having sinned. In fact if you really knew anything about the way confession worked in the RCC you'd know they do the very OPPOSITE of "siding' with the person--they tell them what to do to make AMENDS, therefore the priest takes the position that what they did was WRONG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Christianity has a belief that all people are worthy of confessional and that the confessional should remain secret.
The law has a belief that all people are worthy of being defended under the law.
But the ACLU can CHOOSE who to take on as a client. And they did, which is really the issue.
A priest can't really do that.
It's just not a good analogy.
No one here has said anyone doesn't have freedom of speech. You're trying to make this into a freedom-of-speech issue when everyone already KNOWS that we have freedom of speech. (and who can blame you? After all, choosing NAMBLA as a client is NEVER going to bode well or look good.) EVERYONE already KNOWS that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The group CAN recoup expenses.
You're only operating on what 'can' be done and have provided nothing of evidence that anything like that even took place. As usual, everyone KNOWS what 'can' happen. That's not an argument.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 02-04-2017, 05:34 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,346
Thanks: 9,640
Thanked 14,664 Times in 8,862 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
You're grasping at straws trying to force an analogy that is, frankly, a ludicrous one. A priest doesn't "side' with them (that is, take their SIDE)--he takes confession and there is no evidence priests take the 'side' of those having sinned.
You keep ignoring what I'm saying.
I'm talking about FORGIVING the person and KEEPING THEIR SECRET instead of turning them over to the police.
THAT is the point you keep ignoring.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
But the ACLU can CHOOSE who to take on as a client. And they did, which is really the issue. A priest can't really do that.
Priests can do that as well.
You refuse to acknowledge they do have a choice in the matter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
No one here has said anyone doesn't have freedom of speech.
This isn't about freedom of speech (regarding the analogy).
Quit trying to derail the point with nonsense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
After all, choosing NAMBLA as a client is NEVER going to bode well or look good.) EVERYONE already KNOWS that.
I find it funny how you try to insist that "everyone" is on your side, even though multiple people have tried to point out your mistake on this to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
You're only operating on what 'can' be done and have provided nothing of evidence that anything like that even took place.
YOU are the one who made the claim that the ACLU did this for free.
You said: "The ACLU is a non-profit. It would be illegal for them to get paid for their work from the client, and if they did they would lose their non-profit status."
But of course, posts later you try to move the goalposts. Instead of YOU proving your claim, you try to pretend others need to provide evidence...
__________________
“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
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2017, 07:21 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,920
Thanks: 719
Thanked 1,413 Times in 960 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You keep ignoring what I'm saying.
What you're 'saying' is pointless. It's not worth giving time to, honestly, as it's a terrible analogy for the reasons I've shown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Priests can do that as well.
No ... priests are obligated to help EVERYONE that confesses to them. Sinners come to the priest; in the ACLU's case, THEY chose NAMBLA (a pedophile advocacy group).

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
This isn't about freedom of speech (regarding the analogy).
Dude ...
Stop being intentionally dishonest here.
You're the one who has taken the approach of trying turn this into a FoS issue, by arguing that point re. the ACLU in this case.
Not me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I find it funny how you try to insist that "everyone" is on your side
Again, a dishonest claim on your part; I said 'everyone already KNOWS that we have freedom of speech', because you were trying to make this into a FoS issue--a strawman on your part. I did not claim everyone is on my side. Stop lying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
YOU are the one who made the claim that the ACLU did this for free
You're basically reduced to semantics at this point. You're arguing over phraseology rather than the issues involved. You have no evidence the ACLU required them to reimburse them or that NAMBLA did so. But regardless, you're carrying on about something that doesn't matter that much.

The ACLU helped out NAMBLA--a pedophile advocacy group. There's no getting around it and there's no way to sugarcoat it.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2017, 08:12 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,346
Thanks: 9,640
Thanked 14,664 Times in 8,862 Posts
Post Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
What you're 'saying' is pointless. It's not worth giving time to, honestly, as it's a terrible analogy for the reasons I've shown.
Because you're ignoring the real point of the analogy.
It's like I'm presenting a barn. And you're arguing over the fact that it's red.
When the color is irrelevant and you don't want to acknowledge the relevant point of the barn.

The fact that you perpetually cut and paste around the relevant parts as you try to obfuscate the point only demonstrates your true fear of the facts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
No ... priests are obligated to help EVERYONE that confesses to them. Sinners come to the priest; in the ACLU's case, THEY chose NAMBLA (a pedophile advocacy group).
Again, you avoid the point.
It isn't that they hear the confession.
It's what they refuse to do afterwards. They refuse to turn that info over to the police.

And there are other options available as well. Like excommunication.
But they side with the child molestor and shield them from punishment for an act they did do.
But in the case you quoted, the group was innocent of what they were accused of.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Dude ...
Stop being intentionally dishonest here.
You're the one who has taken the approach of trying turn this into a FoS issue, by arguing that point re. the ACLU in this case.
Not me.
Not being dishonest. You are.
WHERE did I supposedly "turn this into a FoS issue, by arguing that point re. the ACLU in this case."
Quote me.

This is NOT about FoS.
Your misunderstanding. And I expect you'll blame me for your failure to comprehend...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Again, a dishonest claim on your part...
No. That's exactly what you said.
Joe Shoe:
After all, choosing NAMBLA as a client is NEVER going to bode well or look good.) EVERYONE already KNOWS that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
You're basically reduced to semantics at this point.
LOL!
And you aren't?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
You're arguing over phraseology rather than the issues involved. You have no evidence the ACLU required them to reimburse them or that NAMBLA did so.
That's irrelevant to me.
YOU are the one who made the claim.
YOU are the one required to PROVE your claim.
You can't do so and now you try to pretend I am obligated to prove something I never claimed.

What's even more stupid is you tried to lie about it.
Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you thought that "non-profit" meant they wouldn't get paid when that's NOT what "non-profit" means....

Instead of admitting your mistake, you lie endlessly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
The ACLU helped out NAMBLA--a pedophile advocacy group. There's no getting around it and there's no way to sugarcoat it.
Your approach is habitually about trying to look at the issue by squinting with one eye and closing the other.

You back the religious ideas on what everybody is supposedly entitled to but balk at our founding fathers ideals regarding legal representation.
You refuse to acknowledge NAMBLA WAS INNOCENT of the charges involved.
__________________
“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:
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2017, 08:42 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,920
Thanks: 719
Thanked 1,413 Times in 960 Posts
Default Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Because you're ignoring the real point of the analogy.
Why should I give it undue attention when the analogy is nothing more than an attempt on your part of dodge the shame of the side you're on here? I never SAID I approve of the way the RCC handled the cases. But you, on the other hand, don't seem to take the same outrage toward the ACLU taking this client, which your analogy tries to defend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Quote me.
You've obviously lost track of your own posts. You brought up freedom of speech in post #24. ("the US Supreme Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech .....")

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
This is NOT about FoS.
I agree. You're the one that brought that up in this thread, not me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
No. That's exactly what you said.
Joe Shoe:
After all, choosing NAMBLA as a client is NEVER going to bode well or look good.) EVERYONE already KNOWS that.
Because the point you were making, everyone DOES already know it. None of your comments gets you out of the fact you just lied here by claiming I said everyone is on my side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
What's even more stupid is you tried to lie about it. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you thought that "non-profit" meant they wouldn't get paid when that's NOT what "non-profit" means....

Instead of admitting your mistake, you lie....
Your trivial quibbling over the definition of "profit" (just so you can try to use the "lie" accusation in an argument so you can feel you one-upped another poster) is downright sad given the grave seriousness of the group (NAMBLA) you're giving tacit defense toward in this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You back the religious ideas on what everybody is supposedly entitled to but balk at our founding fathers ideals regarding legal representation. You refuse to acknowledge NAMBLA WAS INNOCENT of the charges involved.
Again, you're missing the point. It's absolutely amazing how much you play up the splinter to avoid the plank. Your approach is like saying Hitler was innocent of one single thing, while pretending that is was not completely overshadowed by the reality of what he ultimately was--that the one little thing he was accused of basically doesn't matter in that case because its so overshadowed by what he was, by comparison. Gee ... so Hitler was accused of some little thing he didn't do ... boo hoo.
(And for once, a Hitler comparison is halfway reasonable here, since we ARE talking about an organization that advocates pedophilia.)
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Last edited by Joe Shoe; 02-05-2017 at 08:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2017, 10:48 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,346
Thanks: 9,640
Thanked 14,664 Times in 8,862 Posts
Post Re: ACLU racks up $24.1 million in donations over weekend

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Why should I give it undue attention when the analogy is nothing more than an attempt on your part of dodge the shame of the side you're on here? I never SAID I approve of the way the RCC handled the cases. But you, on the other hand, don't seem to take the same outrage toward the ACLU taking this client, which your analogy tries to defend.
You "never said I approve". But the true parallel would be if you could actually condemn the RCC for such practices. Which you have also "never said".
And I think that's because you know it's NOT just the RCC that has the concept of priest confessional. And you feel free to bash others who you already don't like but you're reticent to criticize your own side even when it's warranted (by your belief system).

The difference is I understand and accept the RCC's approach. I never said I had a problem with it.
The point is that you refuse to be consistent about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
You've obviously lost track of your own posts. You brought up freedom of speech in post #24. ("the US Supreme Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech .....")
Again you dishonestly move the goal-posts. Again you cut and paste around the part of my challenge which would expose your dishonesty.
I said:
WHERE did I supposedly "turn this into a FoS issue, by arguing that point re. the ACLU in this case."
Quote me.
But true to your dishonest nature, you only quoted the second part.

Post #24 was a demonstration NAMBLA was innocent of the charge before them.
That was NOT about the ACLU, which was what the challenge was against you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
I agree. You're the one that brought that up in this thread, not me.
OMG! You are freakin' hilarious.
YOU BROUGHT UP THAT CASE in your post #16. YOU did that.
And now you want to lie and pretend I was the one who raised that?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Because the point you were making, everyone DOES already know it. None of your comments gets you out of the fact you just lied here by claiming I said everyone is on my side.
First off, it's really amazing how you can be busted in a bald-faced lie like that and then you turn around and pretend it didn't happen. I quoted exactly where you said exactly what I said you said, and you still pretend it didn't happen.

Secondly, you really shouldn't make claims regarding what everyone supposedly knows. It's not something that is "known" like a fact.
It's an opinion as to how people view the situation.
And they don't all agree with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Your trivial quibbling over the definition of "profit" (just so you can try to use the "lie" accusation in an argument so you can feel you one-upped another poster) is downright sad given the grave seriousness of the group (NAMBLA) you're giving tacit defense toward in this discussion.
It's not "quibbling".
YOU tried to denigrate the ACLU regarding them not taking money from NAMBLA.
I pointed out you had no info on that. And that you assumed that to be the case because you didn't understand what "non-profit" was.
Me pointing out your argument is b.s. is not "quibbling".
You do not know if NAMBLA paid the ACLU. The fact that they are non-profit DOES NOT mean that the ACLU doesn't get paid.

It directly repudiates that stupid criticism attempt of yours, but you want to pretend it's "quibbling".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Again, you're missing the point.
Again, it's not "missing the point".
I am making a point that NAMBLA WAS INNOCENT of the allegation against them.
You don't think that's relevant.
You saying that the point is not relevant is not me "missing the point".

It's a point you don't find merit in, which really just goes to demonstrate you don't understand civil rights are being protected.
You seem to think they should only be protected when it's somebody you approve of being protected. But civil rights do not really need protecting for the popular kids.

You refusing to acknowledge the importance of that is not me "missing a point".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Your approach is like saying Hitler was innocent of one single thing, while pretending that is was not completely overshadowed by the reality of what he ultimately was--that the one little thing he was accused of basically doesn't matter in that case because its so overshadowed by what he was, by comparison.

First off, I feel Godwin's law applies. You trying to stoop to a Hitler reference only demonstrates how desperate you are...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Secondly, NOBODY is talking about anything "completely overshadowing" anything.
I have REPEATEDLY said that I hope NAMBLA members get nailed to the wall for everything they are guilty of regarding children.

Do you understand what that means?
It means your allegation right there is a stupid lie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Gee ... so Hitler was accused of some little thing he didn't do ... boo hoo.
Gawd you just refuse to listen and understand, don't you.
NOBODY is doing this for the sake of NAMBLA.

What's really stupid about this whole thing is how you fail to even bother to appreciate the potential precedent which could have been set if this lawsuit had been successful. It would have ramifications for other areas that have nothing to do with pedophilia. Gun laws are one area that come to mind. If NAMBLA could have been successfully prosecuted for pushing somebody to do something that they obviously did not do (from the evidence available), then the same could be said for anybody who uses a gun in an illegal manner and visits websites with questionable taste.
YOU fixate on the defendant and whether or not you like them.
The ACLU is looking at the actual standard involved because that is what they are protecting.
THAT is what this was about. Ensuring the civil rights standards are adhered to for all.

On another note, you would make a really sucky jury person...

But you don't give a damn about that. Likely because your own standards are so wishy-washy with regards to refusing to hold up your own side to them...
__________________
“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:
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 09:00 AM.


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

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0