Why does the left view themselves as idealistic eliteist

Well, as far as the ACLU goes, I guess the difference between you and I Andy is that I would be willing to let an extremely small group of bad apples get away with some pretty shady activities, to protect civil liberties that, once gone, don't usually come back. We just have a different tolerance for curtailed civil liberties, I guess.

 

He would have been much more interesting. I also think he would have been WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more fiscally responsible than Bush.

 

Moen is correct about the ACLU they went to court on behalf of my church.

 

The ACLU has also defended the North American Man-Boy Love Association after two convicted pedophiles accessed information on NAMBLA's website on how to seduce and sodomize young boys. The ACLU supported NAMBLA's "right" to post this information, which the two men used to seduce, rape and murder an innocent 10-year-old boy.

They are so idealistic isn't great to have such an elite leftist force watching over us and telling us when we are wrong to protect the good and not to go after the bad.

The ACLU is also a big time defender of terrorists and terrrorist groups that are here in the USA plotting to kill us but that would make a good thread in itself

 

The righties say the ACLU are against religion but they defended the right of the Catholic Newman club to have a table in a public area at our community college. They did this for NO FEE. The ACLU are NOTHING like what the righties say. DON'T BELIEVE THEY HYPE!

 

I worry less about the creeps in society and more about a government with too much power. Which one do you think is going to do more harm to you personally?

 

The government is not grabbing kids off the streets. The government is not seducing kids in the schools. The government is made up of mainly average joes and janes doing a job. The below is not hype it is what the ACLU is all about. This case stands out in my mind, which was why I looked it up to post as an example, but is one of hundreds of cases where the ACLU is bent on destorying the morality of this nation.

"Associated Press
06:00 AM Aug. 31, 2000 PT
BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union will represent a group that advocates sex between men and boys in a lawsuit brought by the family of a slain 10-year-old.
The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge said the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its website incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1, 1997.
One of two men convicted in the killing, Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group's website shortly before the killing, and also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.
"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."
The ACLU also will act as a surrogate for NAMBLA, allowing its members to defend themselves in court while remaining anonymous.
According to the Globe, NAMBLA officials in the past have said their main goal is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape".


look up the lawsuit yourself and you will see that the ACLU was defending the right for a group to have a website that stated it was ok to have sex with boys and how to kidnapp boys without being caught. But the ACLU thought that was a First Amendment right, yea sure. They just doing what the left does and that is to lie and use the system in an attempt to destory it.

 

just to make this clear we arnt talking about the namble="the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes" are we.

yeah i think this is where mob rule and vigilante justuce should be accepted.im all the are doing is free social work right?

oh and just pulled this off of there website.


"The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights"

 

As awful and unconscienable as that sounds, we can't blanket condemn an entire organization on a bad decision or exception to the rule. The policies that the ACLU espouses for the most part help those that would not normally be able to afford or receive quality legal assistance. Taking your example a step further......

a. "Arthur Anderson, Inc." knowing and willingly assisted "Enron, Inc." in advising, hiding and shredding documents delibrately demonstrating illegal activities. Does that mean that Arthur Anderson, Inc. was wrong.. yes. Does it mean their whole corporation is bad?... no.

b. Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. knowingly and willingly agreed to trade arms for political leverage to the Nicaraguan Contras which was blatantly against the laws of the U.S. at the time. See example above... was it wrong.. yes, was the Reagan administration as a whole one giant bad apple.. hardly..

c. etc. etc. etc.

GlacierMI

 

So supporters of the left have no problem with the ACLU defending child porn, child molestors not only in the courts but as a right to exisit and practice thier first amendment rights.

Rambo: NAMBA is a activitist group of child molestors that the ACLU defends. Look it up.

The ACLU started out as an anti-american group and they still function as one.
Did anyone read my posts on how the founders of the ACLU communists whose objective was to destroy America by using the the american system against itself.

 

All right Moen, let's say your right. Now can you tell me "one" thing that this "power" that the government is supposed to have, that has "harmed" you?

 

In both of your cases (a & b) they should have ask the ACLU to defend them, and they would have got off, scot-free!(Thanks to the bunch of political hacks we have as judges in places like California)

 

If so, they've been doing a pretty lousy job, wouldn't you say?

I'm not quite sure what it was or who influenced your opinion of the ACLU, (I know it's always been the rightwing whipping boy) but you obviously have nothing but contempt and scorn for them. It goes without saying, that it is your right to feel any way you wish for whatever reason you choose. I have little interest in changing your mind on the subject but more generally, is any organization really ALL bad or ALL good? That type of thinking, in my opinion, is an extremist viewpoint and I don't tent to think of you as an extremist.

I find rightwing Christians groups pretty objectionable. I think they are polarizing people, destroying the separation of church and state, and heavily influencing the political system of this country in quest of their own individual religious beliefs. Yet of the individuals I know personally, I get along with and mostly like them. Point being, that you can't lump an entire diverse organization into one stereotype and vilify everyone in it. It just doesn't stand up to any amount of scrutiny before you are forced to back-peddle.

 

No Andy, you're wrong... Supporters of the left, like myself, may have big problems with the ACLU getting involved in this sort of case. Unfortunately, they are an organization designed to protect constitutional rights - even when those rights are used in the most distasteful format. That's the general idea, it is not a constitution of whimsy. From time to time it may need to close up some loopholes, but that needs to be written out and applied to everyone - otherwise it opens to door to influencial people setting the stage for special interest privelage, which our nation has a long and unfortunate history of.

So it may be very easy for the "moderate rightwing moral highgroundists" to haphazardly say 'this person is entitled to this right', or 'that person doesn't get any, except these two, because we don't like them', but I don't agree with that. If that makes me an idealistic eliteist in your opinion, I don't know if that says as much about me as it does about you.

And when you say that the ACLU was designed to destroy the nation, I say it was designed to bring to light the obvious hypocracies and force people to accept that our constitution protects people who we don't like, in the exact same way it protects people we do - and if that's enough to destroy the system, we have a pretty weak system indeed.

 

The Arthur Anderson case was reversed on appeal and Reagan wasn't convicted of anything, that he could recall anyway.

 

The ACLU was established to be a legal attack dog against this nation.
It was founded by communists and was funded by the Soviet Union.

The ACLU was founded in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin.
Roger Baldwin, the first director of the ACLU, was also a communist.
He explains in his book, Liberty Under the Soviets, "I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted…”

Several other founding crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party:
Earl Browder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party. Baldwin also stated “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.”

Now they are not card carrying communists now but the leftist intent to still destory this county is still the main purpose of this group.

Note: Show me in the Consitution where child porn is cool and having websites teaching how to rape boys was advocated. This is not free speech but criminal intent.

 

So? that's common communist rhetoric - even marxist fashion terminology. So what?

Because their founders are utopian communists, that somehow makes their organization bad?

 

The great thing about this country is that you CAN say anything you want to say. It is only when you cross that line into the act of doing what you say that should be illegal, and oh yeah, it IS illegal. I don't care what some idiot says as long as that same idiot doesn't trample someone else's rights by carrying out an illegal act. Now if you can make the illogical leap into me supporting those illegal acts, I simply can't argue with you logically any longer. Do you know what I'm saying here?

 

Well, we differ there - I do care. I do think it's filth and should be destroyed.

But the method needs to be applied appropriately... we have rules of the game, and they apply to everyone - even people you don't like.

 

yeah freedom of speech has gotten out of hand. like the right to bear arms dosnt mean the right to machine guns and rocket launchers(sorry to all of you out there with them) and the right to say whats on your mind has taken the place of the right of commen sense and good taste(which everyone has a right to use and very well should).

nambla does have the freedom to say that they are pervs, and i have the freedom to say that they are pervs too.
next youll hear about the rights of prison rape rapist.


oh and the marlon brando look alike thing was from southpark. sorry for not sourcing it.