Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Oh the Horrors!
Unnecessary searches and delays before getting on planes in order to prevent attacks. I appreciate that the ACLU is principled, even if I disagree with them.
Unnecessary searches and delays before getting on planes in order to prevent attacks. I appreciate that the ACLU is principled, even if I disagree with them.
Comments:
<< Home
They're not principled, though. They've been skating by on this reputation of principled, ideological purity for years, and it just doesn't match their record. In reality, they're simply a liberal interest group pursuing their politically correct (and frequently contradictory) agenda through the courts.
They've worked to protect the speech of pornographers while working to silence teachers in California who would tell students that they should err on the side of safety by not putting too much trust in condoms.
They fought the recall election in California while pressing for incessant recounts in Florida. They said the machines used to elect Gray Davis weren't reliable enough to determine if he should stay in office.
They actively work against the First Amendment rights of Christian students who wish to pray at commencement ceremonies, while supporting Islamic women who want to wear veils in their drivers' licence photos.
They claim to be "pro-choice" but oppose school vouchers.
They've opposed terror "watch-lists" while accepting millions in government money contingient on their promise that they won't hire anyone on such a watch list.
I could go on and on and on. "Principled" my butt.
They've worked to protect the speech of pornographers while working to silence teachers in California who would tell students that they should err on the side of safety by not putting too much trust in condoms.
They fought the recall election in California while pressing for incessant recounts in Florida. They said the machines used to elect Gray Davis weren't reliable enough to determine if he should stay in office.
They actively work against the First Amendment rights of Christian students who wish to pray at commencement ceremonies, while supporting Islamic women who want to wear veils in their drivers' licence photos.
They claim to be "pro-choice" but oppose school vouchers.
They've opposed terror "watch-lists" while accepting millions in government money contingient on their promise that they won't hire anyone on such a watch list.
I could go on and on and on. "Principled" my butt.
You didn't honestly just equate being pro-choice with school vouchers. Oh man, you did. Geoff, who is this guy? I love him! He intentionally misdefines common usages of terms into a strict interpretive definition and then compares that definintion to something completely unrelated in order to make an organization seem inconsistent in their beliefs! That's awesome!
Hwang
Hwang
# posted by 
: 3:57 PM
: 3:57 PM
Oh, and to be fair to the ACLU, they have supported the white supremecists, which I know your party loves, and actually only dislike students praying in school when they do it on a podium where other students have to watch them (e.g. graduation ceremonies). But I'm sure you'd have the exact same opinion if a Muslim valedictorian lead an Islamic prayer in front of a Christian crowd. The thing where they support people wearing the head-gear stuff in driver's license photos... well, okay, that's just idiocy on the ACLU's part there. Can't really say defend them there. Just don't get the fucking license, then, I say.
Hwang
Hwang
# posted by : 4:01 PM
: 4:01 PM
I disagree with a lot of their positions, but they as Hwang mentioned support white supremeists, who they obviously don't like. They supported Limbaugh against the invasion of his privacy, even though they disliked Limbaugh. I do think they are inconsistent. And I do think they have severely misinterpret the establishment clause of the First Amendement. But that makes them wrong in some areas, not unprincipled. As far as I can tell, they aren't against just Christian forms of expression but religious forms of expression in general. And I disagree with them to great extent, but not all the time.
My Good Friend Hwang (no offense!),
"Choice" is a pretty simple word. It's actually you folks who have equivocated on it, making it synonymous with "abortion." "Choice" means having options--precisely the thing that the ACLU doesn't want you to have when it comes to schooling.
Frankly, they don't actually want anyone to have "choice" in abortion, either. In New York, the ACLU actually tried to shut down a number of Crisis Pregnancy Centers that were counseling women on abortion alternatives a couple of years ago. On what Constitutional principle did they do that? I'd love to know--I've been asking them for two years without an answer.
P.S. I think this place is restricted, Hwang, so don't tell them you're Jewish. Okay? Okay!
Geoff,
You're falling for their schtick. The ACLU picks occasional token cases (Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell) to make the claim that they "represent everyone" in a non-partisan fashion. These are always high-profile cases. But just go to their website and begin to look at their actual involvement. Literally 99 out of 100 cases are pure liberal politics, without regard to consistency. Not 50 out of a hundred, not even 75 out of a hundred. Just look through the cases.
It grieves me to know that their strategy is working, even with normally-discerning people. For every "conservative" case they've supported, I can show you 99 they've opposed. They're not principled. They are a liberal group working (successfully) to implement an agenda that could never be implemented democratically.
"Choice" is a pretty simple word. It's actually you folks who have equivocated on it, making it synonymous with "abortion." "Choice" means having options--precisely the thing that the ACLU doesn't want you to have when it comes to schooling.
Frankly, they don't actually want anyone to have "choice" in abortion, either. In New York, the ACLU actually tried to shut down a number of Crisis Pregnancy Centers that were counseling women on abortion alternatives a couple of years ago. On what Constitutional principle did they do that? I'd love to know--I've been asking them for two years without an answer.
P.S. I think this place is restricted, Hwang, so don't tell them you're Jewish. Okay? Okay!
Geoff,
You're falling for their schtick. The ACLU picks occasional token cases (Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell) to make the claim that they "represent everyone" in a non-partisan fashion. These are always high-profile cases. But just go to their website and begin to look at their actual involvement. Literally 99 out of 100 cases are pure liberal politics, without regard to consistency. Not 50 out of a hundred, not even 75 out of a hundred. Just look through the cases.
It grieves me to know that their strategy is working, even with normally-discerning people. For every "conservative" case they've supported, I can show you 99 they've opposed. They're not principled. They are a liberal group working (successfully) to implement an agenda that could never be implemented democratically.
Well, I can't disagree that the ACLU throws out token cases to make themselves look less liberal.
Geoff, as for your comment... are you insane? Seriously? Yes, the word "choice" has several different definitions and connotations. Regardless of who made it this way, the words "Pro choice" in that combination in that order are now meant to refer only to the issue of abortion. This guy John took the term "Pro choice," which is in our country universally accepted to refer to only the topic of abortion, and then decided to juxtapose it against a broader definition of the just the word "choice" when it is standalone.
By your argument, what should I think of people who call themselves "Pro Life?" How can you be "Pro Life" if you advocate war, or advocate the death penalty? That is an argument ridiculously brought up every now and then by the liberals. It's ridiculous because obviously the term "Pro Life" is meant only in the context of the fetus. It is not meant to imply that someone who is "Pro Life" is always in favor of every living thing always living no matter what.
In the same regard, when someone says they're "Pro choice," is should be as painfully obvious as a chlamydic urination that this refers only to the topic of chosing what to do about a fetus. It does not mean that person believes in all choices all the time about every issue. The fact that you and John would even attempt to argue from that point of view makes me think that I'm no longer concerned, I'm genuinely afraid of you.
Hwang
Geoff, as for your comment... are you insane? Seriously? Yes, the word "choice" has several different definitions and connotations. Regardless of who made it this way, the words "Pro choice" in that combination in that order are now meant to refer only to the issue of abortion. This guy John took the term "Pro choice," which is in our country universally accepted to refer to only the topic of abortion, and then decided to juxtapose it against a broader definition of the just the word "choice" when it is standalone.
By your argument, what should I think of people who call themselves "Pro Life?" How can you be "Pro Life" if you advocate war, or advocate the death penalty? That is an argument ridiculously brought up every now and then by the liberals. It's ridiculous because obviously the term "Pro Life" is meant only in the context of the fetus. It is not meant to imply that someone who is "Pro Life" is always in favor of every living thing always living no matter what.
In the same regard, when someone says they're "Pro choice," is should be as painfully obvious as a chlamydic urination that this refers only to the topic of chosing what to do about a fetus. It does not mean that person believes in all choices all the time about every issue. The fact that you and John would even attempt to argue from that point of view makes me think that I'm no longer concerned, I'm genuinely afraid of you.
Hwang
# posted by : 4:20 PM
: 4:20 PM
Hwuang,
With all due respect, that's just stupid.
My entire point is that liberals' idiotic "choice" chant is hypocritical--a point you've hammered out of the park for me. Their concept of choice only extends to abortion, and even there they're not pro "choice," they're pro-abortion. If they were pro-choice, they wouldn't work so hard to silence abortion alternatives.
You've illustrated my point beautifully. To you and yours, "choice" only means "death." When someone uses the word in its real sense and you scream bloody murder, it only proves how blatantly you are equivocating and euphemizing with it.
Post a Comment
With all due respect, that's just stupid.
My entire point is that liberals' idiotic "choice" chant is hypocritical--a point you've hammered out of the park for me. Their concept of choice only extends to abortion, and even there they're not pro "choice," they're pro-abortion. If they were pro-choice, they wouldn't work so hard to silence abortion alternatives.
You've illustrated my point beautifully. To you and yours, "choice" only means "death." When someone uses the word in its real sense and you scream bloody murder, it only proves how blatantly you are equivocating and euphemizing with it.
<< Home
