Who thinks the ACLU sucks? Like always, if you don't think they do, get a life. :3pow:
Printable View
Who thinks the ACLU sucks? Like always, if you don't think they do, get a life. :3pow:
Dont even know what the aclu is.
Now, where did I leave my life.
Hmmm... I dont. They fight for all peoples basic rights. They dont care if you are gay, black, white, indian or if you are rich or poor. They are even more important in today's times, when our government would love to take away all our rights in the name of "Fighting Terrorism." Without groups like the ACLU, we would of had a 1984 sort of government years ago.Quote:
Originally posted here by clintonsucks
Who thinks the ACLU sucks? Like always, if you don't think they do, get a life. :3pow:
Figures a rightwinnger is in favor of no personal freedom, and letteing the state decide his entire life. Sorry but I for one will keep my freedom, the ACLU helps me protect that (you do relise that they have defended the KKK and neonazi groups right to asembal and speak?). Go to isrial or Iran if you want to live in a facist theocracy leave my country out of your insanity.
Mr Clintonsucks
I shall tell you one more time...........that was Monica Lewinsky. Gravity is a myth...the Earth sucks.....and when are you going to give us Limeys a clue as to what you are saying?.....hey WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf War I, Gulf WarII...............we might actually be "allies"
Definition of "allies"......................."two thieves with their hands so deeply in eachother's pockets, that they cannot independently plunder a third"
Seriously though, Clinton.................we are an International forum....all these initials and stuff you guys use? ....cut us some slack and at least give a link to what you want us to see..........if you were any good at politics, you would realise that if I Google.......I might find the oppositions viewpoint??????????????????
Please think about it (remember, my senior field operative is close to you)
Cheers
nihil,
The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, a big problem for the US and not so much for England. If you want to se all the bogus crap that they are doing, look here:
www.aclu.org
But in a nut shell, they are the ones suing to ban the pledge of allegance in schools because it contains the word God. They are planning to sue because they don't want partial birth abortions to be banned. They have sued the state of Ohio because they don't like capital punnishment. See a patern? They are the fascists, who want everyone to agree with them or else get a lawyer.
On the plus side, they have helped out our economy. Because of them, the sales of red-colored tape has increased dramatically :p
On the same token they have sued AND defended the Boy Scouts. They sued and a KKK chapter was allowed to adopt a highway and get credit for it.
They are there, sometimes they do good, sometimes they do bad and sometimes you have to scratch your head and try to figure it out.
Republican, with a government that has foisted Patriot Act 1 and 2 on us, I'm kind of glad that they'll be there to fight PA #3.
:flip: ACLU
We would be better off without those people.
fourdc said:
True, but the bad that they do far outweighs the good in my opinion. Just look at their site, and you'll see how ridiculous they can get. I agree with their stance on the patriot act, but that is about as far as my support goes.Quote:
They are there, sometimes they do good, sometimes they do bad and sometimes you have to scratch your head and try to figure it out.
I would argue that nothing they do makes one scratch their head, they fight to keep the goverment out of my proivet life, they fight to keep goverment from useing religion as a tool of opresion, they fight for anyones freedom of speach, all of their lawsuits are about the propagation of freedom....I guess that is why republicans hate them so much.Quote:
Originally posted here by fourdc
On the same token they have sued AND defended the Boy Scouts. They sued and a KKK chapter was allowed to adopt a highway and get credit for it.
They are there, sometimes they do good, sometimes they do bad and sometimes you have to scratch your head and try to figure it out.
Republican, with a government that has foisted Patriot Act 1 and 2 on us, I'm kind of glad that they'll be there to fight PA #3.
I have one :)Quote:
I would argue that nothing they do makes one scratch their head,
I work on some consulting jobs, like a lot of us. One happened to be a 911 system I managed. Now for those systems I like to know that my people are coming to work and not popping a couple of hallucinogenic Narcotics. I can see the headlines now... local manager arrested after 911 failed to respond to Ms. Smiths baby because his IT staff was stoned out of their minds and fell asleep while the server went down and no one could call and get help. So call it "piece of mind" that I know at some degree that risk is limited through drug testing. Sure if you want to get some recreation out on your own time and in your own worlds, fine - but you make a promise to me when hired that you will be drug free. So I scratch my head when the ACLU wants employers to stop drug testing.
There are about 20 other related reports on the subject... are they biased on that issue” Hell yes" I am not bashing the ACLU; they do a lot of good. But I scratch my head sometimes... drug testing has no legitimate business purpose? How many examples of "impaired workers" causing great tragedies did they need to come to that assumption? I can think of oil tankers, train wrecks, bus wrecks, liability cases etc. off the top of my head. That is agenda based thinking in my opinion. But to answer the question, does the ACLU suck. Nope.Quote:
According to the ACLU's report, the drug testing industry's promotion of "junk science," based on unsubstantiated claims and phantom research, has fueled the growth of employee drug testing since the mid-1980's. But respected scientific institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences have looked at the record and found little support for most of the drug testing industry's claims.
"We have always believed drug testing of unimpaired workers stands the presumption of innocence on its head and violates the most fundamental privacy rights," said ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. "Now we know that sacrificing these rights serves no legitimate business purpose either."
RoadClosed: I think you are missing the point on the drug testing issue, its very inacurate, but drug testing companies calim otherwise and hold up those claims with faulty survays, this leads to a lot of false positives nad lost jobs for no reason.
Yes I have read those arguments on false positives, also arguments that say false positives are rare. Don't forget about false postives in a negative way as well, meaning people who are beating the system. I made my comments bases on generalities that all drug testing should be eliminated and the ACLU seeks to do that because employees are considered quilty until proven inocent. Wich of course is a direct violation of our constitution. I argue that in 2003 drug testing methods are pretty damn accurate from what I can find. Maybe back in the 80s and late 90s I could see the arguments - but at that time it really wasn't in wide use. I also am aware of common over the counter medicines producing a false positive. It's getting increasingly harder to find employment for any amount of decent money that doesn't involve drug testing.
I could call myself a hipcrite on the issue, I have always been against drug tesing, it makes you feel uncomfortable and violated. It causes extreme stress, esspecially if some substance was recently smoked and that seems to be a direct invasion of privacy. I hate being on the "pee" end and I see that point,. But when placed in a position of absolute responsibility for the wellfare and operation of a unit, it suddenly became viable. I could go for a notion that it be limited to certain areas, such as public safety. Much like the polygraph is used now. I even could bet that if we didn't live in such a libel tendancy culture, they wouldn't be used at all. Libel meaning we sue over everything. Having an employee that is under any kind of influence in a negative way opens the doors for lawyer sharks and their gleam for riches.
It would be hard to eliminate drug testing especially since the goverment has adobted it and other methods, I would think that a law forcing multiple tests would be more in tune with my thinking on the issue. But this should also be a private business issue. If you own a business you should be able to screen employees anyway you want that is not in violation of discrimination laws.? I know I have turned them down in the past just out of spite and gone somewhere else.
The fact of the matter is that they are using the current crappy state of the United States justice system to push their own agenda, which is not right whether or not the cause is just. The ends don't justify the means.
in the 1st place wt this aclu means
American Civil Liberties Union
They promote the individual right to privacy and attempt to stem abuse by government (tends, IMHO, to be very altruistic)
MM they are only altruistic if you want freedom, privacy and protection of indavidual rights, this is why the neocon's hate them, they interfeer with the cretion of a facist state.
Yeah, they and their army of lawyers are just out to make the world a better place :rolleyes: . Don't kid yourself, they have a (not-so-)hidden agenda and are pushing it with their ridiculous lawsuits. I, for one, support the right for someone to mention the deity's name in a government building, I like saying the Pledge of Allegence in school every morning, I support the right of an unborn child to have a chance at life, and people who support my opinion shouldn't have to go to court because others don't.
So , ACLU, :kissass:
Altruistic is probably the last word I would use to describe the ACLU. If they were altruistic then they wouldn't of single handedly taken away religion from public schools. Plus, they are notorious for defending scumbags and far left radicals.Quote:
tends, IMHO, to be very altruistic
I fully support being able t say ones dyaties name in court, I do not support that court (a representitive of the goverment) pushing a deity chosen by the goverment on me, neither dose the aclu thats what they fight. I support being allowed to say the origional pledge of allegance, I do not support adding religious refrences to the pledge in an attempt to better controll the populace ("under god" was added in the 50's as an attempt to controll the populace, and its a clear violation of church and state.) I also support the right of an unborn child to have a chance at life, but I relise that people who don't share my opinion shouldn't have thir rights ignored.Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
Yeah, they and their army of lawyers are just out to make the world a better place :rolleyes: . Don't kid yourself, they have a (not-so-)hidden agenda and are pushing it with their ridiculous lawsuits. I, for one, support the right for someone to mention the deity's name in a government building, I like saying the Pledge of Allegence in school every morning, I support the right of an unborn child to have a chance at life, and people who support my opinion shouldn't have to go to court because others don't.
So , ACLU, :kissass:
the yalso defend scumbag far right radicals, see they fell that every one has a right ot voice their opinion...wow freedom of speach waht an unamerican concept...So paulie you want the federal goveremnt decideing what religion your children fallow, because thats what placeing religion in public schools means.Quote:
Originally posted here by paulie walnuts
Altruistic is probably the last word I would use to describe the ACLU. If they were altruistic then they wouldn't of single handedly taken away religion from public schools. Plus, they are notorious for defending scumbags and far left radicals.
Where to begin...Quote:
I fully support being able t say ones dyaties name in court, I do not support that court (a representitive of the goverment) pushing a deity chosen by the goverment on me, neither dose the aclu thats what they fight. I support being allowed to say the origional pledge of allegance, I do not support adding religious refrences to the pledge in an attempt to better controll the populace ("under god" was added in the 50's as an attempt to controll the populace, and its a clear violation of church and state.) I also support the right of an unborn child to have a chance at life, but I relise that people who don't share my opinion shouldn't have thir rights ignored.
I assume that you are referring to Alabama's Judge Roy Moore, who displayed the Ten Commandments in his court. If you are, then you are being ridiculous. Just because they were displayed there doesn't mean he was pushing his religion on people. Judge Moore was just expressing his own beliefs, he didn't hand out Bibles at the front door and sprinkle everyone with Holy Water! Would you have me kicked out if I wore a "Jesus Rules!" T-Shirt to school? I sure hope not! Besides, the founding fathers did not wish for us to become a secularist state, they just didn't want us going around lynching Jews or Budhists or Muslims or Christians!
The Pledge of Allegence is not meant to be a tool for control. It is just a way for Americans to express their Patriotism. Again, no one is forcing anything here. You don't have to say it if you don't want to; you won't get in trouble if you don't either.Quote:
Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia (Query 17, “Religion”):
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. . . .”
So, you allow a woman to have a right to take away an unborn child's rights? Yet, killing a child who is already out of the oven is completely wrong? Sorry to be graphic, but what's the difference between sucking the brains out of a unborn child vs. sucking the brains out of a 6 month old? None, they are both morally unacceptable.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
the term "under god" was added to the original pledge of allegiance in the 50's as an anti soviet union statement. taking it out is not un-american but one thing i don’t see mentioned anywhere is that this country promises freedom "of" religion not freedom "from" religion.
the aclu has outlived its usefulness. they can do things like keep prayer out of schools and bibles out of the hands of vicious court clerks but they cant stop drug testing. did you know employees of payless shoes are forced to take drug tests....to sell cheap shoes. they fight for ridicules things like the child abuser that demanded to wear her muslim veil in her driver’s license photo. they present an arena for new lawyers to practice their bullshit that all.
Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
Where to begin...
I assume that you are referring to Alabama's Judge Roy Moore, who displayed the Ten Commandments in his court. If you are, then you are being ridiculous. Just because they were displayed there doesn't mean he was pushing his religion on people. Judge Moore was just expressing his own beliefs, he didn't hand out Bibles at the front door and sprinkle everyone with Holy Water! Would you have me kicked out if I wore a "Jesus Rules!" T-Shirt to school? I sure hope not! Besides, the founding fathers did not wish for us to become a secularist state, they just didn't want us going around lynching Jews or Budhists or Muslims or Christians!
He was a repesentitve of the state goverment, as such any statement by him in his role as judge is a statement by the state, posting the ten comanments at court is a vialation of churchand state, and it is alabama endorsing which ever version of christianity his commandments where from (there are numerous versions of the commandments.) If you wore a jesus shirt t oschool it would be a compleatly difrent issue (assumeing that you where not a teacher or a member of the administration) as a private indavidual you could wear whatever you wanted (assumeing it wasn't obsean...but obsenity laws bother me) if it was a public school (a private school could make up whatever rules they wanted on dress code). If the school made you take it off you could sue them for violations of your civil rights and probably get the aclu to handle your case.
[/quote]Quote:
So, you allow a woman to have a right to take away an unborn child's rights? Yet, killing a child who is already out of the oven is completely wrong? Sorry to be graphic, but what's the difference between sucking the brains out of a unborn child vs. sucking the brains out of a 6 month old? None, they are both morally unacceptable.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
This is a sticky issue for me, I am personaly agenst abortion and would counsle anyone I knew not to get one. But untill the chiled could live outside of the mothers womb Ido not see it as a distinct indavidual and the rights of the mother would superceed its rights.
First a point on your prayer FUD. You can pray at school, any student that wants t o(assumeing a public school) can pray when ever tehy want and as long as they are not being detramental to the learning enviroment(ie distracting the other students) the school administration/teachers must allow it to happen. If you or your child tries to pray and the school stops you this is a violation of your civil rights and as such you can get the aclu to handle your case. The drug testing isn't something that the ACLU should deal with unless its the goverment randomely testing the populice, a pivate company can do whatever tests they want (as long as they are not legaly discriminatory) to decide employment.Quote:
Originally posted here by Tedob1
the aclu has outlived its usefulness. they can do things like keep prayer out of schools and bibles out of the hands of vicious court clerks but they cant stop drug testing. did you know employees of payless shoes are forced to take drug tests....to sell cheap shoes. they fight for ridicules things like the child abuser that demanded to wear her muslim veil in her driver’s license photo. they present an arena for new lawyers to practice their bullshit that all.
School does restrict what you where, nearly every school has somthing called a "code of conduct" where a dress code is usually defined, whether that be school uniforms or what "inappropriate dress" is. Yes, the ACLU does defend cases like this. One kid in Wyoming or somewhere wore a "Bush: International Terrorist" shirt, which the school told him to take off. He sued with the ACLU's help. Other than that, I've seen no other instance of the ACLU defending someone who was the victim of an unfair dress code, but I do see kids taken to the principals office every day at school for "inappropriate dress". See a slight bias?Quote:
If the school made you take it off you could sue them for violations of your civil rights and probably get the aclu to handle your case.
No one should have the right to end a life, with the possible exception of there own was in danger. If a mother does not want the child, she should give birth and put it up for adoption, which I believe is a more humane way of handling things.Quote:
I am personaly agenst abortion and would counsle anyone I knew not to get one. But untill the chiled could live outside of the mothers womb Ido not see it as a distinct indavidual and the rights of the mother would superceed its rights.
The ACLU, is really no different from the Nazi's or the KKK. There is really no difference.
I agree!!! Err, heh heh, no I don't. Lets throw some more unwanted children into the system. Yeah that's the ticket. I love hearing people make this argument. Have you ever been in a group home? How about a foster home, ever been placed in one? Had any friends placed in any? It's not fun, even if your Foster parents are kewl. The argument you make says, lets make people have babies that are going to be started off on the wrong foot to begin with, IMO. How many babies are there in the world that are orphans now? Why the heck would you want to demand that people add to them?Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
No one should have the right to end a life, with the possible exception of there own was in danger. If a mother does not want the child, she should give birth and put it up for adoption, which I believe is a more humane way of handling things.
I agree with Tedob about the ACLU, could be a much better organization.
~edited cause I fux0r3d tedob's nick
Hmmm... very different on the ACLU site. Search for dress code and you will find the same results:Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
Yes, the ACLU does defend cases like this. One kid in Wyoming or somewhere wore a "Bush: International Terrorist" shirt, which the school told him to take off. He sued with the ACLU's help. Other than that, I've seen no other instance of the ACLU defending someone who was the victim of an unfair dress code, but I do see kids taken to the principals office every day at school for "inappropriate dress". See a slight bias?
Case 1: ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty...?ID=7876&c=139
Case 2: ACLU Defend Texas Student Who Protested Rights Crackdown After Colorado Shooting
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/S...?ID=8626&c=159
Case 3: ACLU Asks Court to Halt Mississippi School's "Gang Symbol" Ban on Star of David Necklace
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/S...?ID=8659&c=162
Case 4: ACLU Assists RI High School Student Barred From Mentoring Children Because of Her Hair Color http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/S...ID=11450&c=156
Nice to see such an objective forum for spreading ideas...
First of all this forum is completelt dominated by obviously patriotic US citizens. It is impossible to discuss anything of merit anymore in here without being labelled a nazi, radical left winger, commie bastard or 'god' save us a liberal.
There are plenty of us who are not patriotic or think very poorly of the US government. Less than the patriotic americans though.Quote:
Originally posted here by TheAntiChrist
Nice to see such an objective forum for spreading ideas...
First of all this forum is completelt dominated by obviously patriotic US citizens. It is impossible to discuss anything of merit anymore in here without being labelled a nazi, radical left winger, commie bastard or 'god' save us a liberal.
I would like to say that only a few users are doing the name calling, and I think it will die down eventually.
Also, why dont you start a topic about some other world problem besides the USA? I am sure there are plenty of people from around the world who will spark a debate.
Thats a great idea, read your post in Site Suggestions and I agree, so maybe we could get some discussion going get an international flavour if ya like ;)Quote:
Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
Also, why dont you start a topic about some other world problem besides the USA? I am sure there are plenty of people from around the world who will spark a debate.
As Ennis has said , ' that is a great idea', unfortunately a great deal of the world problems at present, in terms of unrest in various countries, actually stems from US foreign policy. The UK being a perfect example, with ongoing debate about the legallity or otherwise regarding 'the war' in Iraq, our relationship with USA/ Bush, etc, anti Bush demonstarations. Apart from local news, these topics take up much of the media's time and spaceQuote:
Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
Also, why dont you start a topic about some other world problem besides the USA? I am sure there are plenty of people from around the world who will spark a debate.
Quite true! America has done more than its share to stir up the world lately. I was mainly just wanting to say that we dont need to talk about American politics.Quote:
Originally posted here by jm459
As Ennis has said , ' that is a great idea', unfortunately a great deal of the world problems at present, in terms of unrest in various countries, actually stems from US foreign policy. The UK being a perfect example, with ongoing debate about the legallity or otherwise regarding 'the war' in Iraq, our relationship with USA/ Bush, etc, anti Bush demonstarations. Apart from local news, these topics take up much of the media's time and space
Well maybe more of a focus on US foreign policy rather than domestic politics though what ever you want to talk about though I like a bit of variety me!
;)
I vote we focus on... BEER. I have a Monty Python's Holy Grail Ale I am waiting to try with a firend. :D
ME+GUINNESS+TONIGHT=SOON
MMMM I have some Guiness and Harp which equels Black and Tan.
Juck, Guiness looks like coffee and tastes like crap IMHO, drink Duvel :), I also like Stella but I'm not sure whether that's available in the US/Ireland/whatevercountry or not...
Duvel and Stella both kick ass and can be bought just about anywhere in the USA> Love it.
Black and Tans are good! (And get you f'd up after a bunch of them) ;)Quote:
no hangover either. Worst beer hangover? Red Stripe :cry: