ACLU Hasn't A-C-L-U-E by Dennis Miller
 

<hr>
ACLU Hasn't A-C-L-U-E

Saturday, November 01, 2003
By Dennis Miller

Hey, get this...I want to talk about the ACLU which, quite frankly, doesn’t have an A-C-L-U-E anymore.

The ACLU worked to postpone the California Recall, is fighting to get rid of public displays of the Ten Commandments, fighting against the Boy Scouts and for NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Working to defend their rights! In short, on the wrong side of almost every issue. The American Civil Liberties Union is imploding and the wide array of life options it endorses seems to no longer include a belief in the traditional American way.

They have no use for common sense; they think it’s common. The big ACLU push during the holidays now is to get rid of public depictions of the Nativity Scene during Christmas. Yeah, that’s what’s wrong with the country, plastic depictions of Christ's birth. The ACLU has now degenerated to the point where they’ll fight against your right to erect a Nativity Scene but they’ll fight for the right of the local freak who stumbles into the scene and fondles one of the sheep.

Not that they’re always wrong. The ACLU is now helping to overturn a Mississippi state law that prohibits homosexual couples in that state from adopting children and I believe that is a fair-minded cause. But you know folks, while I’m not an expert on the subject, if you’re gay and you’ve chosen to set up shop in Mississippi, well even I’m reasonably sure that you’re not equipped to adopt children.

ACLU lawyers love to lounge around in the self-righteous ether until the 'atrocity alarm' goes off and then it’s down the fire pole, into their Bass Weejuns and right out the door to provide immediate succor and aid to the worst humanity has to offer, gallingly, all in the name of humanity.

And they always bring up our forefathers and say they were civil libertarians. C’mon, our forefathers would have never tolerated any of this current-day crap. For God’s sake, they were blowin’ guys' heads off because they put a tax on their breakfast beverage! And it wasn’t even coffee! Imagine how nuts they would have been on a 4-shot espresso.

Let me get this straight. We don’t hate people who prey on children anymore? Did I miss a meeting? Well, if we’re not gonna go sling blade on predators just tell me cause if that’s the case I’m gonna go live in Alec Baldwinia.

Got that?
<hr>
LINK

Miller is really disappointing, he used to sound intelligent, now he just sounds like Ann Coulter.

In any event, this issue has already been beaten to death here:

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....highlight=aclu

I see no need to rehash it.

I enjoy his rants...they do have "some" truth to them.
But of course, they ideas are taken to an extreme to make comedy.
So like an intelligent person...I take them with a grain of salt.

However, the ACLU although having some good uses in the nation,
like ANY entity has some extreme components that have gone overboard.

The key is like ANY entity they have to monitor themselves,
and others have to monitor them...and call them on their mistakes.

Such is life, it's ALWAYS messy...never clear-cut.
While Miller is funny...his solutions aren't reality.
He's a comedian...a fool.
Let's take care of the fools in the govt. and lobbying groups first.

I agree with rogue on this one. Miller is a comedian (albeit a funny one) he is out for material to make a funny. However, he does make you think, and possibly get interested in the topic and you end up researching the truth. Do I think he sounds like Ann Coulter? No, because he's joking. *I think I'll stop here before I cross the line from debate to childish insult*

That's very peaceful of you.

At first glance, I would love to be part of an organization that "safeguard(s) the American values of freedom and personal liberty embodied in the Constitution". (source: http://www.aclu.org). Reading their charter, it sounds like a politically neutral organization that values political freedom ahead of self serving interests. A quick scan of the topics they list, however, reveals their radical political slant. Apparently there is no organization who's basic tenets include safeguarding American values of freedom and personal liberty ebodied in the Constitution that doesn't first try to forward their own political agenda and personal interpretation of the Constitution.

Any organisation that defends NAMBLA, is a piece of shit. I dont care what they did in the past.

FEL, thank you for providing a great example of what we do NOT want on this board. I made a statement that contrasted an organizations charter with their actions. You followed up by comparing them to "a piece of shit". While I agree with your sentiments, I think you are intelligent enough to be more articulate. Please don't insult this board again with comments designed to inflame rather than debate.

I think the NAMBLA argument is silly. The government restricts rights by starting with the most despicable people (the Klan, NAMBLA, child molestors, drug abusers, terrorists), then moves on from there. For example, property confiscation laws once meant for drug dealers are now abused for profit. The PATRIOT acts provisions, once meant for terrorists only, are being used for non-terrorism purposes.

So, I find the NAMBLA argument unconvincing. I don't want to re-hash that whole ACLU thread.

Peetster, you might want to check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

http://www.eff.org/

Although they are, obviously, a technical group, they have a more "pure" agenda of defending freedom and personal rights than a lot of groups out there.

Rabbit, you make a good point. If I understand correctly, you contend that to find the political limits of effectiveness, the ACLU needs to start with issues that lean towards absurd, then work in from there. I can't fault your logic.

I suppose they are doing the Constitution justice by attempting to protect the rights of the "despised". Those folks are no less deserving of Constitutional protection than any other citizen. It's just my knee-jerk reaction to focus on what some of these groups represent rather than focus on their right to Constitututional protection.

Check out the Cato Institute. They are supposedly right-leaning, but are far from partisan. A quote from their site:

Hay, a free speech thread. Is it time for this poem yet?


First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

I wonder if the ACLU will ever back the NRA.

My bet is no.

Been there, done that :) :)

http://archive.aclu.org/about/transcripts/nra-aclu.html
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/aclu.htm



Psst, BoCo: google is your friend, try it sometime :)

I agree with a lot of what the Cato Institute has to say, but they definitely have a political agenda. As you can see from this editiorial:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-02-03.html

I would call them pretty anti-democrat. Not that they love the republicans/conservatives, but they definitely have a right-leaning bias.

I guess you're never going to find a purist group dedicated to some sort of lofty ideal. Everyone has a bias.

A quote from that very editorial:

Harmless Rabbit, that happened 8 years ago. The ACLU is far more controlled by communist-backed organizations now than ever before.

Thats right, someone must defend the right of a full grown man to rape a child :crazy: Again, do any of you feel that Nambla needs to be defended? If I started an organisation dedicated to raping women would you defend my right for this? Would the ACLU?

How about my right to say Rape Muslims? Explain to me how NOT defending these organisations leads to a slippery slope of normal rights being eroded?

Oh please, are you joking or trolling? You asked if the ACLU had ever backed the NRA. They have. Accept that you made a mistake and move on.

As I said before, BoCo, it's nice to have you active in the politics forum again, but I wish you would listen to people a bit more and troll a bit less. You're obviously a smart guy and I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.

I don't troll.

The ACLU of today is not the ACLU of a decade ago. The same goes for every other left-leaning organization, such as N.O.W., The United Way and teacher's unions. Unless the ACLU can see that by defending a cause, they're skicking to their agenda of destroying America, then they won't defend it.

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.

If that was proof that the ACLU has ever defended the NRA, then man it was the poorest proof ever. Typing NRA ACLU in a search engine and getting two hits is not proof that the ACLU ever defened the NRA.


Remember, Micheal Moore and Dennis Miller were on a panel togehter, does that mean they defend eacher? Hardly.....


Poor try Harmless Rabbit.

Whoa! :eek: I got edited, didn't think that what I said was that out of line, but oh well, I guess it was. Sorry mods and ppl I might have offended, y'all still love me right? Right? heh, heh.... :D. Anyways, yeah, the ACLU has gotten out of line in recent years, it's gone too far, it needs a little moderation every now and then, just like everyone at one point.

Post Scriptum: After having read this I now understand, and am still quite sorry for lowering the level of debate in the Tilted Politics Thread.

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.

I like harmless rabbit, he just owned your logic. wham. :P

No Boco's question was will the ACLU ever defend the NRA? I still dont see the ACLU backing them in court. A panel discusion is not defending the the NRA. You are still using it out of proper context. Was the NRA being accused of anything? Or was the NRA and the ACLU accusing Clinton?

The NRA was not being challeneged in any way, shape, or form and thus the ACLU was not defending them.

Finally! Thank you for paying attention.

For the rest of you, "will" is referring to the future.

No, the question was "I wonder if the ACLU will ever <b>back</b> the NRA." How can you two debate the meaning of what you say when you can't even quote yourselves correctly. :)

You can play all the word games you want. Obviously, when making your statement you were unaware that the ACLU *did* back the NRA. You stand corrected. Frankly, BoCo, you sound like Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman."

And Food Eater Lad, according to Merriam Webster, "back", as a verb, is "to support by material or moral assistance." Obviously, the ACLU did back the NRA in this case.

I wonder if BoCo or Food Eater Lad will every admit to being the slightest bit wrong about anything?

:)

Anyway, I'm done in this thread. You two can continue to try to deny or change what you said for as long as you like. Carry on.

*catagorically denies everything*

Hehe, well played rabbit.

This issue does open for some interesting questions regarding free speech though. Sould even the NAMBLA be protected? I say yes, even though I would be glad to see NAMBLA outlawed. Free speech is the foundation of a working democracy, especcialy conserning such controversial groups.

That's actually a good topic for a whole new thread. I'll start one.

Why what a splendid idea. I like this new moderated version of the politics board.

Dude, there are so many contradictions in that sentence that my head just exploded trying to contemplate the fact that you don't understand you're a hypocrite.

Take it to the NAMBLA thread I just started, BoCo. :)

Also, if you could explain yourself a bit more, that would be helpful. All I got from your post is that you think eple is a hypocrite for some unexplained reason.

HarmlessRabbit, if you don't see it, then there's no use in explaining it to you.

If you aren't going to explain yourself, there's no use in you posting at all.

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=34182

Re: ACLU Hasn't A-C-L-U-E by Dennis Miller
 

Haha! That part just killed me because it hits the nail on the head. The ACLU has always been short a few bricks, but lately they've really gone off the deep end.

The ACLU has become a bunch of god hating Christophobes. They bitch that Christmas is a national holiday, but praise government for acknowledging Buddisht holidays. Now I have no problem with acknowledging Buddhist holidays, but why the hypocrisy?

Lets keep in mind that the ACLU is made up of it's members some of whom may be members of TFP.

So they hate guys who wrap buildings in colorful cotton sheets?
Wow an entire organization to persecute one artist.

FYI, redravin, I got your joke. :)

And no matter how you slice it, the ACLU still has not backed up nor defened the NRA. BOth of them going after Clinton's abuses doesnt mean that the NRA was defened. They both went after the same target. THat is not the same as the ACLU defending the NRA, not by a long shot. THey are too busy going after real crimials, schools putting on CHristmas plays. And HR says i take things out of context.