Quote:
After reading those transcripts, i fail to see how the ACULU ever defended the NRA. I see a panel discusion, much like Bill Maher's Politcally Incorrect. Does that mean eveyone on his panel defended each other?
A join panel discussion does not mean that the ACLU ever defended the NRA
The second was a bunch of groups calling on Bill Clinton's abuse of power.
The funny thing is how Harmless Rabbit says I take things out of context and then he has the nerve to say that BOCO was wrong.
|
Point 1: The original poster said <b> I wonder if the ACLU will ever back the NRA.</b>
Point 2: I posted a press release showing that they did just that, in the context of the Ruby Ridge incident.
Point 3: I posted a joint transcript, which, unlike the characterization that FEL gave, was a joint conference where they supported each other, including this quote from the ACLU representative.
<i>LWMURPHY: The ACLU and the NRA have very different agendas , but we agree on several important issues having to do with greater accountability for federal law enforcement procedures. I think that our organizations both agree that no new powers should be given to federal law enfocement agencies (of which there are over 100) until we can be sure that procedures are in place that safeguard the constitutional rights of all.</i>
How can you read that, and the press release, and not conclude that the ACLU and NRA backed each other in this case?
Analysis: when someone puts forward the position that a particular thing will "never happen" and good evidence is presented that such a thing DID happen, then the proper course of action would be for those holding the "never happen" position to say "oh, you're right, I was wrong, sorry."
I have admitted several times on this board that I was wrong, including, most notably, an interesting Michael Moore discussion with Lebell on the old board. I think it's a good sign of maturity that you can admit your mistakes. I've noticed with some members of the politics board that they will NEVER admit their mistakes no matter how much evidence is presented against their position, and instead try to change the context of the discussion. Personally, I think that is extremely closed minded.
So, the original claim was that ACLU will never back the NRA. I showed that they had already done so in the past. Instead of admitting a mistake, at least two people now have instead tried to either redirect the argument or deny my conclusions. Personally, I think that's a sign of a closed mind.
If your mind is totally closed to new ideas, or even a simple discussion of facts, it seems rather pointless to participate in a <b>discussion</b> forum.