• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aclu

What do you think of the ACLU?

  • The ACLU is awesome

    Votes: 19 43.2%

  • The ACLU sucks

    Votes: 12 27.3%

  • I'm indifferent

    Votes: 5 11.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 8 18.2%
  • Total voters
    44
 
Redress said:
Rathi beat me to it. The case drew national attention,something it had not had beforehand. You have presented a grand total of zero evidence to back your case. Sherlock would be laughing at your case.
Click to expand...
Sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be. That cross is probably in some ACLU execs office right now.

What exactly does this have to do with anything? I have not condemned the theft nor made a plea for it's return either. Am I now a suspect?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Does a cross in the middle of the desert commemorating WWI vets offend you?


Logic, it's a good thing to use before you post.
Click to expand...
Cross in desert for 70 years ---> ACLU wants it gone ---> Now the cross is gone. What exactly is the failure in my logic?
 
Blaming the ACLU for what happened to the Mojave Cross makes less sense than blaming Pastor Jones for **** going on in Afghanistan. At least in the latter case a causal relationship has been established.
 
X Factor said:
Sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be. That cross is probably in some ACLU execs office right now.

I don't know. Does a cross in the middle of the desert commemorating WWI vets offend you?


Cross in desert for 70 years ---> ACLU wants it gone ---> Now the cross is gone. What exactly is the failure in my logic?
Click to expand...

Let's see. Cross is desert for 70 years. Then cross gets national exposure(hint: this is a change in circumstances). Some one takes the cross. Who to blame? Well, if you don't care to think about it, you simply blame those who filed suit against it. However, if you do think about it, you realize that this is a stupid assumption because of the ACLU was going to do things like this, there would be a long history of it, which there is not.

I realize you have a need to disparage any liberal group, but making charges that even those who have investigated it are not making simply because you want it to be true is not just poor debate tactic, it is the extremely low tactic of trying to smear your opponent. I understand, you are unable to actually argue against the ACLU on it's merits, so you have to go the cheap route, but it is not working.
 
I have some problems with the ACLU: they're pretty much silent on gun rights, overzealous with nativity scenes, and that whole Mojave Cross thing kind of pissed me off, but overall, I think that they have done a great job of defending most civil liberties, particularly freedom of speech and criminal rights. They recognize that this is a country based on laws, not simple voting majorities, and they work to defend the rights of people who are unpopular and need the protection of the rule of law. I think that this outweighs their shortcomings.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Blaming the ACLU for what happened to the Mojave Cross makes less sense than blaming Pastor Jones for **** going on in Afghanistan. At least in the latter case a causal relationship has been established.
Click to expand...
If the ACLU hadn't filed it's bullsht lawsuit, the cross would likely still be there. Even Redress has to admit this much.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I have some problems with the ACLU: they're pretty much silent on gun rights, overzealous with nativity scenes, and that whole Mojave Cross thing kind of pissed me off, but overall, I think that they have done a great job of defending most civil liberties, particularly freedom of speech and criminal rights. They recognize that this is a country based on laws, not simple voting majorities, and they work to defend the rights of people who are unpopular and need the protection of the rule of law. I think that this outweighs their shortcomings.
Click to expand...

I assume this is because the extent to which "civil liberties" exist is pretty subjective. Some definitions are nebulous and vague on issues like gun rights, etc.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Just because they condemn both right and left wing does not make them communist..
Click to expand...

its that a strong majority of their members claim to be far left does make them close

that's why more than a few prosecutors and conservatives call the ACLU the "American Communist Lawyers Union" or Aethist communist Lobbying Union or "American Criminals Love Us"
 
TurtleDude said:
its that a strong majority of their members claim to be far left does make them close

that's why more than a few prosecutors and conservatives call the ACLU the "American Communist Lawyers Union" or Aethist communist Lobbying Union or "American Criminals Love Us"
Click to expand...

More than a few conservatives have called CNN "Communist News Network."
 
StillBallin75 said:
I assume this is because the extent to which "civil liberties" exist is pretty subjective. Some definitions are nebulous and vague on issues like gun rights, etc.
Click to expand...

Gun rights are explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and yes I do find some of their church and state cases to be excessive and missing the point.
 
The thing about rights is they are the most important when they are hard. The right to freedom of religion is easy, right up until Muslims want to put in a mosque next door. The right to free speech is easy, until people are protesting outside dead servicemember's funerals. The right to bear arms is easy, right up until some one goes into a school and shoots a bunch of kids. The right to a jury trial is easy, right up till OJ walks out a free man.

However, it's those times when these freedoms, these rights, are hard that is when they are most important. Because once you start to make exceptions, you start to limit every one's rights.

I do not like guns. I don't want to be around them, I don't want to own one. However, I understand that the NRA is an important organization because they do look out for the rights of those who do like guns and want to own them. I may not agree with every case they argue, but then again, I don't agree with every case the ACLU argues. This does not change the fact that both groups are important defenders of the rights of US citizens.
 
TurtleDude said:
its that a strong majority of their members claim to be far left does make them close

that's why more than a few prosecutors and conservatives call the ACLU the "American Communist Lawyers Union" or Aethist communist Lobbying Union or "American Criminals Love Us"
Click to expand...

If believing that civil liberties are important makes me a far left liberal, I accept the tag whole heartedly. Insulting people for standing up for personal liberty is hilarious.
 
Redress said:
Let's see. Cross is desert for 70 years. Then cross gets national exposure(hint: this is a change in circumstances). Some one takes the cross. Who to blame? Well, if you don't care to think about it, you simply blame those who filed suit against it. However, if you do think about it, you realize that this is a stupid assumption because of the ACLU was going to do things like this, there would be a long history of it, which there is not.

I realize you have a need to disparage any liberal group, but making charges that even those who have investigated it are not making simply because you want it to be true is not just poor debate tactic, it is the extremely low tactic of trying to smear your opponent. I understand, you are unable to actually argue against the ACLU on it's merits, so you have to go the cheap route, but it is not working.
Click to expand...

Ok, look, that part about it being in an ACLU execs office was a joke. Go back to my first post. I said they stole it or they inspired somebody to steal it. As you point out, that cross got national media coverage because the ACLU decided to go after it. That attention inspired some low life to take it. See? I'm not saying they're criminally responsible, just that the cross would still be there if the ACLU had left it alone.
 
Redress said:
If believing that civil liberties are important makes me a far left liberal, I accept the tag whole heartedly. Insulting people for standing up for personal liberty is hilarious.
Click to expand...

How did the Mojave cross violate your civil liberties? Yeah, good thing we have a group protecting us from such offensive things.
 
X Factor said:
Ok, look, that part about it being in an ACLU execs office was a joke. Go back to my first post. I said they stole it or they inspired somebody to steal it. As you point out, that cross got national media coverage because the ACLU decided to go after it. That attention inspired some low life to take it. See? I'm not saying they're criminally responsible, just that the cross would still be there if the ACLU had left it alone.
Click to expand...

Bush did not heed the warnings that AQ was planning an attack on the US. Therefore he is responsible for 9/11. That argument is pure bull****, just as your argument which makes the exact same premise is.
 
X Factor said:
Wow, what tepid "condemnation" that is. I call that 'lip service' (and not the good kind either...ahem...sorry, couldn't resist).
Click to expand...

We call this "moving the goalpost". You would not accept any statement by the ACLU against the cross stealing, but when called on the fact they did condemn it, you move the goalpost and think it is not good enough.
 
X Factor said:
How did the Mojave cross violate your civil liberties? Yeah, good thing we have a group protecting us from such offensive things.
Click to expand...

It's a first amendment question. It is a valid first amendment question.

Now, go back to the post I quoted. Did I refer to this case, or was I talking about the ACLU in total?
 
Redress said:
Bush did not heed the warnings that AQ was planning an attack on the US. Therefore he is responsible for 9/11. That argument is pure bull****, just as your argument which makes the exact same premise is.
Click to expand...
It's not the exact same premise at all. The same premise would be if someone was accusing Bush of spotlighting the world trade center and because of that spotlight, it was attacked...I can't say I've ever heard that argued.
 
X Factor said:
It's not the exact same premise at all. The same premise would be if someone was accusing Bush of spotlighting the world trade center and because of that spotlight, it was attacked...I can't say I've ever heard that argued.
Click to expand...

No, the premise is that both Bush and the ACLU are responsible for unforeseeable results.
 
The aclu is blatantly all liberal all the time, particularly dispicable is their campaign to abolish the boy scouts. They cost us a fortune in litigation costs attacking schools etc.
 
Redress said:
We call this "moving the goalpost". You would not accept any statement by the ACLU against the cross stealing, but when called on the fact they did condemn it, you move the goalpost and think it is not good enough.
Click to expand...
He said it was "not permissible", of course he has to admit that much, but that's an entirely different thing that stating flat out that it was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom