Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Would you make an effort to back your vitriol of the ACLU with some references that you believe are difficult to impeach?
|
Have you taken the same effort to back up your statements with "difficult to impeach" evicence? I just "impeached" the integrity of the ACLU article you used to back one of your opinions. I posted a transcript of an interview where one of the ACLU members himself told his story, and an article of the New York Times. One is the opinion of someone directly involved in the story, the other lists facts that there is no dispute of. This is in constrast to the many opinion-based links used to back up other opinions that may not synch with yours.
Quote:
So...the ACLU loses the small amount of credibility and worthiness that you,
(I am assuming) credited it with before "fair and balanced" O'Reiley covered this ACLU controversey on his show ? )
|
The ACLU has never had much credibility in my opinion. Also, O'Reiley is a self-promoting blowhard. His comments in the interview I posted are irrelevant. What was important was the member of the ACLU who was his guest an stating his point. However, are these people/organizations any more "fair and balanced"?
Micheal Moore
http://www.americanprogress.org
Bill Moyer
Justin A. Frank
Barbara Boxer
Tom Flocco
http://www.commondreams.org/
You seemed to have no difficulty in citing them as evidence.
Quote:
|
Who do you want defending free speech, if you are of the opinion that the ACLU has a record of being inadequate to the task ?
|
An organization that actually practiced what they preached would be a good start.
Quote:
Are you more apt to believe accusations of wrongdoing aimed at the ACLU than you are when the accusations are aimed at Bush or his administration? Do you hold the entire Bush government culpable for the acts of some of it's cabinet or executives? When Paul O'neill and Richard Clarke wrote their "tell all" books containing criticism of Bush, was your reaction as negative as to cause you to "roll eyes", at the book's disclosures that an invasion of Iraq was high on Bush & Co.'s agenda well before 9/11, or that Clarke could not get his request for a high level meeting to discuss the Al Qaeda threat until 7 days before 9/11 ?
Doesn't the disparity between Bush's claim that the invasion of Iraq was actually to "spread freedom" and the information that ACLU foia suits uncovers, revealing a pattern of systemic torture and other abuse of Iraqis,
who presumedly were not yet found to be guilty of crime, by regular U.S. armed forces, give you cause to "roll eyes" ?
|
Paul O'neill had more credibility to me than Clarke. Clarke seemed more about covering for himself, and seemed a bit disgruntled over his dismissal. And what US soldiers are doing has really no bearing on what Bush claimed was the reason for the Iraqi invasion (unless you are saying Bush really invaded Iraq because he desired US soldiers to torture Iraqis, which I hope you could also see as being rediculous). And I personally think all these claims of "systemic torture and other abuse" are greatly exaggerated. I will admit I care little for the claims, maybe the threat of torture will stop some Iraqis from deciding to become "insurgents"
Quote:
|
Please explain how the ACLU fits your description of <b>"ACLU is one of the most destructive forces currently opperating in the country. They don't defend free speech, they defend speech that agrees ideologically with their agenda. If Falwell is trying to build up an organization to counteract the ACLU's heinous influence"</b>
|
I think the agenda they have is highly destructive to society. I generally have disagreed with them on every major case I have known of them to be involved in. They have done some good, but IMO have mostly been a negative force.
Quote:
|
alansmithee, is it your opinion that the ACLU foia suits of the U.S. Army areactivities consistant with your opinion of the ACLU? Do you think that the law students or the future graduates of Falwell's new law school will better represent the rights of the American people to the protections of the Bill of Rights or of holding the government to lawful compliance with the provisions of the FOIA? I consider your claims about the ACLU to be outrageously and inaccurately disparaging, especially as the events of the day leap out from the front pages of newspapers around the world with the story of the ACLU using the courts to enforce our right to know, even if we are too pathetically propagandized by our political and religious leaders to demand the accountability of our elected officials !
|
It is my opinion that the ACLU foia suits are helping undermine US activities in Iraq. It is my opinion that they are doing this knowing that they are undermining the military, and actually have that as a goal. I believe that if Falwell does organize a law school that his organization will better serve the intrests of the country and it's citizens. You try to say my claims are "outrageously and inaccurately disparaging" but you give no evidence. You have obviously decided you and anyone who agrees with you is correct, however without hard facts you cannot logically support your claim. If I had made the same statements but replaced ACLU with Fox news, the CURRENT government, any organized christian group, the GOP, or any other organization who you disagree with you would not have made a sound.