A.C.L.U. screws Boy Scouts

http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/parc.../boyscouts.jpg
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/u...1n9scouts.html

Quote:

---

The city of San Diego has agreed to cancel its lease in Balboa Park with the Boy Scouts, hoping to end the city's role in a 3½-year legal battle with the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Boy Scouts, however, vowed to continue fighting for its 18-acre headquarters even without city support, because it believes its constitutional liberties are at stake. Last month, the group received a letter of support from the U.S. Justice Department, stating the group's predicament raised "substantial concerns" that the group's rights were being violated.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit against the city and the Boy Scouts in August 2000, two months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts could refuse to admit gay troop members or troop leaders. The lawsuit said the city showed favoritism toward a religious organization by leasing the Scouts land for $1 a year.

The city's settlement was announced yesterday, though the City Council made the decision Dec. 9 in a closed session. As part of the deal, the city agreed to pay $790,000 of the ACLU's legal fees and $160,000 in court costs.

---

Yep. They've done it again. One small step for Soddom and Gamorra, one giant leap for Socialism and industrial scale murder.

Only in America. What a country. Yeah, I know. If you don't like it get out.

Fuck the Boy Scouts. They deserve it.

Constitutional liberties, my ass.

Either they stop sitting outside of the grocery store asking for my fucking money for overpriced candy or they can deny fags the role of scoutmaster. They have to pick one and right now they want both. I say shut 'em down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/parc.../boyscouts.jpg

---

They should make a badge out of that.

Well them being leased land for $1 a year was bullshit. If they want to claim to be a private religious institution then they should not be getting government support like that. Boo fucking hoo... get back to me when there's actually a story here.

This is plainly a constitutional violation.

By leasing the land to the Boy Scouts for $1/year, the city evinced favoritism toward a nonsecular organization, in obvious violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

They can still use the land, though, just like anybody else. They just don't get to use it essentially for free.

Quote:

---

One small step for Soddom and Gamorra, one giant leap for Socialism and industrial scale murder.

---

"Industrial scale murder?" LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

"Industrial scale murder?" LOL

---

Careful, you're this close to getting called a Commie. :)

Fuck the boyscouts? Great idea!! What good have they ever done anyway? Young kids, especially boys, have all sorts of great opportunities these days, and role models aplenty!! If only they they didn't foster a nonsectarian belief in God, like 95% of Americans already maintain! Outrageous!!! Absolutely a violation of the Establishment Clause, like EVERY CONGRESSIONAL SESSION FOR THE LAST TWO HUNDRED YEARS THAT CONCLUDES WITH AN INVOCATION OF GOD. That ACLU is just nails!!

Here's a question:

Were any of you ever in the Boy Scouts?

Here's another:

Do you have any kids?

You gotta love the ACLU...

... wait, no you dont. I hate them.

And to think, a few months prior I was thinking about joining them.

I was never in the Boy Scouts, and I don't want my kids (when I have them) to join their bigoted organization.

Quote:

---

... wait, no you dont. I hate them.

---

Yeah, effective non-partisan organizations that defend the constitutional rights of all Americans really suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Well them being leased land for $1 a year was bullshit. If they want to claim to be a private religious institution then they should not be getting government support like that. Boo fucking hoo... get back to me when there's actually a story here.

---

Exactly. And anybody who thinks that the ACLU is some liberal partisan tool with any other agenda than the unilateral protection of civil liberties is an ignorant cunt. They also protect religious people whose rights to practice their beleifs are being violated too. It's not about majority or minority or secular or religious. It's about rights. And you're only guarunteed your rights if everyone is.

The ACLU is incredibly important, and every American should be glad that they're there for all of us when the constitution is on our side.

I was a Boy Scout for two years.

And they can pay the same price as anyone else if they want to lease land. It has nothing to do with their views on gays or anything else... it's totally their right. And making them pay the same price as everyone else isn't somehow taking this right away from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

Yeah, effective non-partisan organizations that defend the constitutional rights of all Americans really suck.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Just remember the 8:00 show is completely different than the 7:00 show. Let's have a hand for the hillarious comedy of sleeveboy!

Fuck the ACLU.

Eating the Boy Scouts alive doesn't protect shit. They are a group that does little for the every man and lots for groups that are merely trying to "rock the boat". This country is starting to be run by the minority that have no cocial fibre or morals and don't know right from wrong because its "wrong to label or judge".

Fuck the ACLU.

And guess what else, I am an atheist and was a Boy Scout. They didn't demean me or treat me any differently. Anybody that is "offended" by having to believe in "Nature" is an asshole. God forbid.

PS: Yes I get the irony of saying "God Forbid"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

I was never in the Boy Scouts, and I don't want my kids (when I have them) to join their bigoted organization.

---

They may be bigoted but they do a hell of a lot for the community and never teach hate. They never talk about the "evils of homosexuality" or do anything to foreward an agenda. It is a group for straight males that have some sense (even a weak one) of spirituality. If your son is a straight male who is spiritual, you would deny him entrance into an organization that does such good and teaches so much?

You sound like the father of a gay parent stopping his gay son from joining a teen gay-pride group that does community service because you don't have the same beliefs that being gay is OK.

Opposite side of the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Fuck the ACLU.

Eating the Boy Scouts alive doesn't protect shit. They are a group that does little for the every man and lots for groups that are merely trying to "rock the boat". This country is starting to be run by the minority that have no cocial fibre or morals and don't know right from wrong because its "wrong to label or judge".

Fuck the ACLU.

And guess what else, I am an atheist and was a Boy Scout. They didn't demean me or treat me any differently. Anybody that is "offended" by having to believe in "Nature" is an asshole. God forbid.

PS: Yes I get the irony of saying "God Forbid"

---

Eating them alive?

What the fuck?

THEY WERE RENTING GOVERNMENT LAND FOR $1 A YEAR!!!!!

That's just bullshit for any private group. Plain and simple.

Are you trying to say that's not state sponsoring of a religious group?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Exactly. And anybody who thinks that the ACLU is some liberal partisan tool with any other agenda than the unilateral protection of civil liberties is an ignorant cunt. They also protect religious people whose rights to practice their beleifs are being violated too. It's not about majority or minority or secular or religious. It's about rights. And you're only guarunteed your rights if everyone is.

The ACLU is incredibly important, and every American should be glad that they're there for all of us when the constitution is on our side.

---

Im not glad for an organization which defends an organization whose main goals include the legalization of sex between adult males and 12 year old boys.

Especially while it goes after the Boy Scouts, jeez.

I was in Cubs, and Scouts, and I have to say it was a great organisation. But I'm honestly conflicted on the whole gay issue. I have no real opinion on it.

As for the religious nature, the only reference to god we had was during the opening pledge. I could have done without it, but it was easy enough just not to speak that part of the pledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince Planet

Fuck the boyscouts? Great idea!! What good have they ever done anyway? Young kids, especially boys, have all sorts of great opportunities these days, and role models aplenty!! If only they they didn't foster a nonsectarian belief in God, like 95% of Americans already maintain! Outrageous!!! Absolutely a violation of the Establishment Clause, like EVERY CONGRESSIONAL SESSION FOR THE LAST TWO HUNDRED YEARS THAT CONCLUDES WITH AN INVOCATION OF GOD. That ACLU is just nails!!

---

About time we got some cutting legal analysis in here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

And anybody who thinks that the ACLU is some liberal partisan tool with any other agenda than the unilateral protection of civil liberties is an ignorant cunt.

---

Irony. What is this based on? Certainly not the the lawsuits it has filed in California over the last few years, an area about which I feel fairly well informed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

THEY WERE RENTING GOVERNMENT LAND FOR $1 A YEAR!!!!!

---

Everyone seems to keep ignoring this fact and talking about other shit. I don't give a fuck what your stance is on Boy Scouts or the ACLU... you have to see there being something wrong with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

I was never in the Boy Scouts, and I don't want my kids (when I have them) to join their bigoted organization.



Yeah, effective non-partisan organizations that defend the constitutional rights of all Americans really suck.

---

not particularly comfortable with agreeing with yoshi, but calling them bigoted is just fully asenine. the fact that they have an ethical code and stand by it does not make them bigots, would you call members of a synagogue bigots if they would not eat at a place that only used non-kosher ingredients? You are always quick to judge,and slow to try to understand the opposing view.
(and for the records, i was not a scout, but if i were to have kids, i would gladly put them in.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

You are always quick to judge,and slow to try to understand the opposing view.

---

Which would explain why he's a lawyer.

I agree with bbobb in the land leasing, if the situation was different my opinion would be different. If you take government funding you have to play by their rules, that's all there is to it. However the government has no right to intervene in a private organization and change their rules, if it was a group only for gays I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem if they didn't let straights in. The concerns of parents were also legitimate as SOME homosexuals have been known to abuse and molest younger children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Which would explain why he's a lawyer.

---

heh, no, to be a lawyer its usually, you want to wield disproportionate amounts of power over the general populice, despite the fact that you are not an elected official, and you will use this power to push your bigoted definitions of broadly phrased laws, not for the betterment of humanity, but to force your own narrow minded views down other people's throats, you will also make far too much money for your contribution to society,and will be a total jackass to everyone else around you who you view as beneath you. you will then marry a really hot woman and then cheat on her with a 16 year old. you will then con innocent peopel into filing some idiotic tort with the false promise of money, then you will rip them off of almost all of it, and then you will laugh...evilly

(edit, this is not actually in refernece to sleev,e who to my knowlege would never do any of this outside of the forcing views thing, but i really hate lawyers, they are like child rapists and slave traders, but with less redeeming social value)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Everyone seems to keep ignoring this fact and talking about other shit. I don't give a fuck what your stance is on Boy Scouts or the ACLU... you have to see there being something wrong with that.

---

Really. I have no problem with the Boy Scouts at all. The bottom line is that if they are a religious organization they have no business getting such ridiculous government freebies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

The concerns of parents were also legitimate as SOME homosexuals have been known to abuse and molest younger children.

---

And so have a ton of heterosexuals. Your point is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burgundy

Really. I have no problem with the Boy Scouts at all. The bottom line is that if they are a religious organization they have no business getting such ridiculous government freebies.

---

That's pretty much what my thoughts are. I have no problem with the Boy Scouts are the ACLU. Although I don't even delegate it to religious organizations... I have a problem with any private group/corporation getting such outrageous deals like that. I mean there's government assistant... but $1 a year land leasing is out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

Yep. They've done it again. One small step for Soddom and Gamorra, one giant leap for Socialism and industrial scale murder.

Only in America. What a country. Yeah, I know. If you don't like it get out.

---

Do you even care what happened to the Scouts? No, you just wanted some fuel for your anti-liberial rhetoric. What the hell does this have anything to do with Soddom and Gamorra? Or 'industrial scale murder'?

Please, if you want to post something you think deserves attention, leave out the right-wing fundamentalist zealotry and let the story do the talking. 'Kay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Do you even care what happened to the Scouts? No, you just wanted some fuel for your anti-liberial rhetoric. What the hell does this have anything to do with Soddom and Gamorra? Or 'industrial scale murder'?

Please, if you want to post something you think deserves attention, leave out the right-wing fundamentalist zealotry and let the story do the talking. 'Kay?

---

g0zen, if you apply to Parcher directly then the terrorists have won.

Yes, the Boy Scouts is a religious organization, that's why many hold meetings at local churches. However, it's made of of many religions now, so it's not as narrow minded as you people think. It's an awesome organization, and one that I'm happy to have been a part of. I think the whole gay issue is infact horse shit as far as the BSA is concerned and I also agree that the city should not be showing favortism of that degree - I mean a fucking dollar people! - we still had to pay fair rent for the space that we used in a church, that came from our dues, can drives, and so on. Like many other times in the past I don't agree with the ACLU on this wholly on the same reasons, but I do agree that someone should have called the city on this one and I'm glad they did.

My cousin was in the scouts...

now he's a Socialist leader in Australia.

I really don't care if they got the land lease for a buck. It's just stupid kids. I'd 10 times rather them be on that 1$ leased land painting rocks to look like indians than in someones home or apartment near me and bothering me. I'd also a 100 times rather them be doing that, than not be in the boyscouts and out jacking cars and doing smack. Damn kids and their smack.

Maybe when they're done with this, the ACLU can go after the YMCA, YWCA, and Jerry's Kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schlep

Maybe when they're done with this, the ACLU can go after the YMCA, YWCA, and Jerry's Kids.

---

Nah, it's gonna be the Girl Scouts and their fucking cookies! It's like they assume that everyone in this country likes cookies! Well, I for one don't and I certainly won't allow anyone else in this nation the choice since they're opressing the non-cookie eaters of America by making us look cheap for not buying cookies we can't eat cus we hate them. oh, the GSA's days are numbered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Just remember the 8:00 show is completely different than the 7:00 show. Let's have a hand for the hillarious comedy of sleeveboy!

---

Yeah, because defending the Klan is really on the liberal agenda.

If you want to be an ignorant tool, fine, just don't be so proud of it. Shit. If you think the ACLU is there to oppose the right, then you must thing the right is in opposition of our constitutional freedoms (which might be the case with the fundamentalist religious "right", but those people aren't real conservatives anyway). Wanting to protect the document this country is founded on isn't just a crusade of the left wing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Im not glad for an organization which defends an organization whose main goals include the legalization of sex between adult males and 12 year old boys.

---

Free speech is only free when it applies to everyone. Even NAMBLA, even Neo Nazis. Everyone. If it's subject to a moral conditional, it isn't free. It's censored and restricted.

The desire for freedom neccessitates the concession that people should be allowed to do and say things that you might not agree with. That's out first amendment. It's the backbone of our country.

In the words of Voltaire: "'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cigsthecat

And so have a ton of heterosexuals. Your point is?

---

Well this whole issue was brought up by some case of abuse against a homosexual in the Scouts, some parents over-react I guess, but when it could be a threat to your kids a lot of people would. I'm really indifferent on the matter however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

Well this whole issue was brought up by some case of abuse against a homosexual in the Scouts, some parents over-react I guess, but when it could be a threat to your kids a lot of people would. I'm really indifferent on the matter however.

---

Are you gonna not let homosexuals teach in shcools then because teachers have abused their students then? I'm sure alot of people would want that too, but it's not fair and its not right.

It's also not relevant. The point here is that the city was renting them land basically for free and they had no business doing that any more than they have donating tax money to the church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Free speech is only free when it applies to everyone. Even NAMBLA, even Neo Nazis. Everyone. If it's subject to a moral conditional, it isn't free. It's censored and restricted.

The desire for freedom neccessitates the concession that people should be allowed to do and say things that you might not agree with. That's out first amendment. It's the backbone of our country.

In the words of Voltaire: "'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

---

I just wanted to stop and applaud this. Frogacuda said it better then I ever could have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

I just wanted to stop and applaud this. Frogacuda said it better then I ever could have.

---

Give it up, Bbobb. Like all liberal fanatics you are for free speech as much as Stalin was. You want a firm hand, and you believe that success is a measure of a person's avarice.

But I digress. Just had to point out that you are lying. Good responses, folks. Glad to see that at least a few people recognize how asinine some of the fanatics are who think that the friggin Boy Scouts is a bunch of "biggots".

Yeah . . . maybe there's a swastika or a burning cross hidden somewhere in the patterns on the uniforms that they wear.

Remember . . . I simply used a word that another poster used. He called a liberal's comment about the Boy Scouts being biggots "asinine". And it is. Extremely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

Remember . . . I simply used a word that another poster used. He called a liberal's comment about the Boy Scouts being biggots "asinine". And it is. Extremely.

---

Don't you have some witches to burn?

(from dictionary.com)

Quote:

---

big·ot n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

---

I for one think it is a group that IS bigoted. Though, they aren't violent or hateful and they do more good than most groups combined. I support the boy scouts and think they have a right to exist and the ACLU should be looking out for their rights, not the other way around. The ACLU would never defend the Boy Scouts, because they promote beliefs that the general populace (or a good portion of it) agree with. ACLU only likes to defend the little guy, and for some reason sees the boy scouts as "the man".

Bigots? Yes.

Bad? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

ACLU only likes to defend the little guy

---

The big guy doesn't need to be defended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince Planet

Fuck the boyscouts? Great idea!! What good have they ever done anyway? Young kids, especially boys, have all sorts of great opportunities these days, and role models aplenty!! If only they they didn't foster a nonsectarian belief in God, like 95% of Americans already maintain! Outrageous!!! Absolutely a violation of the Establishment Clause, like EVERY CONGRESSIONAL SESSION FOR THE LAST TWO HUNDRED YEARS THAT CONCLUDES WITH AN INVOCATION OF GOD. That ACLU is just nails!!

---

Ha! This is very simple: Role models should be parents. If parents can't be around to be role models, they shouldn't have the fucking kids. If they did have the kids and they want role models, the character building should not come from a private, religious organization. Parents should teach religion to their kids, nobody else.

Quote:

---

Here's a question:

Were any of you ever in the Boy Scouts?

---

No, proudly. My buddy who was in the Boy Scouts completed his Eagle Scout project before finishing high school and went on to the illustrious careers of Auto Parts Deliverer and Drug Pusher. Hey, you know what else? He really doesn't like gay people for some reason.

Quote:

---

Here's another:

Do you have any kids?

---

I don't plan on having any, but if I did you could bet I wouldn't force them to join if they didn't want to. (Though, I wouldn't prevent them from joining if it was their wish.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

Yeah, effective non-partisan organizations that defend the constitutional rights of all Americans really suck.

---

If they stopped defending Klansmen, I'd like the ACLU more. I understand the whole free speech thing, but that doesn't lower how incensed I get at Klansmen rallies and racist stuff, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

And they can pay the same price as anyone else if they want to lease land. It has nothing to do with their views on gays or anything else... it's totally their right. And making them pay the same price as everyone else isn't somehow taking this right away from them.

---

How true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

g0zen, if you apply to Parcher directly then the terrorists have won.

---

Also true. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

Give it up, Bbobb. Like all liberal fanatics you are for free speech as much as Stalin was. You want a firm hand, and you believe that success is a measure of a person's avarice.

But I digress. Just had to point out that you are lying. Good responses, folks. Glad to see that at least a few people recognize how asinine some of the fanatics are who think that the friggin Boy Scouts is a bunch of "biggots".

Yeah . . . maybe there's a swastika or a burning cross hidden somewhere in the patterns on the uniforms that they wear.

Remember . . . I simply used a word that another poster used. He called a liberal's comment about the Boy Scouts being biggots "asinine". And it is. Extremely.

---

Listen, maybe from my comments you could say what you said about bbobb about me, but you're out in left field here. He said nothing about free speech or anything. All he pointed out was the price of the land and agreed with frogacuda. I know you two have a history of fighting, but stop encouraging it. It's not funny anymore.

The Boy Scouts are using an overblown generalization and "religious evidence" as justification for excluding people from their membership ranks. Any private organization is allowed to do this, as per free association, so there isn't any real problem there. If I created a private club and called it, "The No Joe Club", and denied membership to anyone named Joe, too bad for Joe! But only if I stay private.

However, the Boy Scouts use public land either for free or at a price which is rediculously low. In addition to that, they solicit the public for money. If they intend to be a private organization, they ought to keep the hell out of the public's face. If they weren't such a blatantly visible organization, nobody would have problems with them. Yet, they advertise out loud and then deny membership to homosexuals. Deny all you want, but stop touting the group as role models and stop asking for money and stop using public property. Let the parents and the scoutmasters fund it and let them find places to do crap.

I had the same feelings about the Augusta National thing. They hold the Masters Golf Tournament there, it's televised. The course is fucking public! Enough already!

Quote:

---

No, proudly. My buddy who was in the Boy Scouts completed his Eagle Scout project before finishing high school and went on to the illustrious careers of Auto Parts Deliverer and Drug Pusher. Hey, you know what else? He really doesn't like gay people for some reason.

---

It's not the Boy Scout's fault that your friend's a scumbag. Get a clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

Give it up, Bbobb. Like all liberal fanatics you are for free speech as much as Stalin was. You want a firm hand, and you believe that success is a measure of a person's avarice.

But I digress. Just had to point out that you are lying. Good responses, folks. Glad to see that at least a few people recognize how asinine some of the fanatics are who think that the friggin Boy Scouts is a bunch of "biggots".

Yeah . . . maybe there's a swastika or a burning cross hidden somewhere in the patterns on the uniforms that they wear.

Remember . . . I simply used a word that another poster used. He called a liberal's comment about the Boy Scouts being biggots "asinine". And it is. Extremely.

---

No one cares if they're bigots, you illererate fuck. The ACLU defends lots of bigots all the time. In this country you have the right to be as bigotted as you damned please. The point is that they reserve certain rights as a religious organization, but they don't want to abide by the rules that apply to such organizations, like not taking government handouts, which is bullshit. And I was in the scouts, btw, and I have nothing against them. This chapter should still not be getting a handout from the state. They should hold their meetings in Churches or homes or pay fair rent like they do in every other chapter.

If you're worried about the liberal commies taking your freedoms in any real way, then call the ACLU instead of bitching about them. They might just help you out. They're there for all of us whose civil rights are being violated, regardless of affiliation.

You really sound like a lunatic though with all the communist/facist remarks, when you haven't named one way that they work against free speech of any kind... Put up a real argument or shut up, ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

It's not the Boy Scout's fault that your friend's a scumbag. Get a clue.

---

But... but... they're role models!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

If they stopped defending Klansmen, I'd like the ACLU more.

---

And I'd like them a whole lot less. The whole point of the ACLU would be undermined if they stopped defending people or orginizations because they were distasteful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

No one cares if they're bigots, you illererate fuck. The ACLU defends lots of bigots all the time. In this country you have the right to be as bigotted as you damned please. The point is that they reserve certain rights as a religious organization, but they don't want to abide by the rules that apply to such organizations, like not taking government handouts, which is bullshit. And I was in the scouts, btw, and I have nothing against them. This chapter should still not be getting a handout from the state. They should hold their meetings in Churches or homes or pay fair rent like they do in every other chapter.

If you're worried about the liberal commies taking your freedoms in any real way, then call the ACLU instead of bitching about them. They might just help you out. They're there for all of us whose civil rights are being violated, regardless of affiliation.

You really sound like a lunatic though with all the communist/facist remarks, when you haven't named one way that they work against free speech of any kind... Put up a real argument or shut up, ok?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

if you apply to Parcher directly then the terrorists have won.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

Give it up, Bbobb. Like all liberal fanatics you are for free speech as much as Stalin was. You want a firm hand, and you believe that success is a measure of a person's avarice.

---

I'm really sick of your libel bullshit. You need to start pointing to some sources of my own comments which back up this crap or shut the fuck up.

I want direct quotes that imply I hate free speech and give a rats fuck about success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint of Killers

And I'd like them a whole lot less. The whole point of the ACLU would be undermined if they stopped defending people or orginizations because they were distasteful.

---

AMEN! If your ideas had to be popular to be deserving of protection then what good is the first amendment anyway?

I love how the ACLU will defend the athiest kid who's forced to pray in school, and the religious kid who's forbidden from praying privately in school. They really are a non-partisan organization despite what certain ignorant propogandists would have you think, and I think that sends an important message about just what it means to say we have certain unilateral freedoms that cannot be compromised.

If your rights of expression go away when what you say is unpopular then you have no rights at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint of Killers

And I'd like them a whole lot less. The whole point of the ACLU would be undermined if they stopped defending people or orginizations because they were distasteful.

---

I know, I know.

I just wish I could be like, "Stop!" and a Klansman would be like, "Holy crap, I've been wrong all this time!" and suddenly become a normal person. Like, magic.

Oh come on now. Look, do you guys think the ACLU is defending every single person whose rights are being trampled upon? Somebody within the organization saw the NAMBLA case and said, hey, its a good idea if we defend a group of pedophiles!

They could have just as easily picked someone else to defend. When they supported NAMBLA they were probably denying support to someone or some group which doesnt support and encourage pedophilia?

Why did they pick NAMBLA? To make a case? To show how open they were? To get publicity? I dunno. But I doubt the majority of dues-paying ACLU members supported that decision.

Bottom line, a person or a group is judged by their actions, and supporting NAMBLA didnt win them any points with this American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Why did they pick NAMBLA?

---

Because their civil rights were under fire. Come on, man, they obviously didn't do it for PR reasons like you seem to think.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'd say there was at least some publicity involved. Yeah they took it to make a case, but no publicity is bad publicity as they say, and they had to know that case would get attention.

What's the real deal with NAMBLA, anyway? I thought it was a joke created by South Park.

Calliander, no... check the official site.

It is an organization which supports and promotes sex between man and boy.

Yeah, Mr. Show did some jokes about them years ago as well. Quite disturbing.

If it's whatever age man and boy above 18, whatever.

If it's whatever age man and boy under 18, how could that be?

I mean, under free speech it's legal to say you hate niggers, but we have laws to prohibit sex with minors, don't we? How is it possible to have an organization that promotes something illegal? How could that organization have rights?

NORML

You can promote whatever the fuck you want, wether it's legal or illegal.

Hehe. Good point.

Although, really, if you think about it, there's this:

Having sex with a minor is beyond discussion. We know it's wrong for some dude to pound a kid. I think the weed thing is still very much in discussion. As of right now, though, it's still illegal. NORML has rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint of Killers

NORML

You can promote whatever the fuck you want, wether it's legal or illegal.

---

But it's illegal for a reason, usually. Like, people can argue that marijuana has medical uses and all of that stuff.

How can you argue that having sex with a 12 year-old boy is good?

How can you argue that lynching black people is good?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

AMEN! If your ideas had to be popular to be deserving of protection then what good is the first amendment anyway?
...
If your rights of expression go away when what you say is unpopular then you have no rights at all.

---

Somebody needs to tell Parcher that Liberals arn't Communists for one, and that he makes himself look like an idiot for everyone of his flames.

I for one do not agree with much of the Liberal ideology but everybody is entitled to their opinions, it doesn't mean they mean harm or should be burned under your "red scare".

Anyways...yeah Parcher, Liberals are far from Communists, much of the hard-core ones are more anarchists then Communists.

Nowhere in the definition of "popular" does it say "good," though. The opinion that older men should screw young boys is neither popular nor unpopular - it's not RIGHT. The same thing with lynching black people or killing Jews.

I'm not saying that I hate the ACLU, I think they do good things. I'm only saying there's a difference between weed and underage sex/murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gohron

Liberals are far from Communists, much of the hard-core ones are more anarchists then Communists.

---

Great give him another idiotic belief to latch on to. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Great give him another idiotic belief to latch on to. :mad:

---

It'll be a refreshing change to the constant "COMMUNIST!" call-outs:P

A few years ago the fraternity Zeta Psi at Dartmouth got busted for handing out pamphlets on date rape - like, "how to date rape a chick" pamphlets. The University caught them and eliminted the fraternity from its premises. Did that infringe on the fraternity's civil rights? Probably.

Does Zeta Psi have a right to distribute the pamphlets? Probably. If Zeta Psi does, and someone in the fraternity rapes a chick using the exact procedure described in the pamphlet, does the guy who wrote the pamphlet have some responsibility for the crime? No.

But, if the ACLU took up the case and defended Zeta Psi's right to tell people how to rape women, would you see the problem in that?

Because that is similar to what happened in the NAMBLA case, from what I know. Except, while Zeta Psi did nothing (as is right, Im sure the National chapter didnt want those assholes part of its fraternity anymore, either), NAMBLA decided to fight and the ACLU got involved.

The big problem I have with the ACLU, you see, is stepping up and defending NAMBLA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

Nowhere in the definition of "popular" does it say "good," though. The opinion that older men should screw young boys is neither popular nor unpopular - it's not RIGHT. The same thing with lynching black people or killing Jews.

---

Right and wrong are actually based on the concept of popular and good. Need I remind you that in the not overly distant past slavery was considered right in this country?

Now I'm not saying I think their opinion is right... but if they want to have that opinion... well fine... they can masturbate to their dreams all they want, but if they attempt to act on their opinion... then I have a problem and so does our society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Right and wrong are actually based on the concept of popular and good. Need I remind you that in the not overly distant past slavery was considered right in this country?

---

Right, and we got past that because it's a human rights issue.

I don't see us ever making it legal to diddle a young boy or girl.

That's my thing.

Quote:

---

Now I'm not saying I think their opinion is right... but if they want to have that opinion... well fine... they can masturbate to their dreams all they want, but if they attempt to act on their opinion... then I have a problem and so does our society.

---

Same here. I just don't think making a club to promote the opinion is a good idea. You really oughtn't draw attention to the whole, "I love to shove my cock into some little boy's asshole!" thing. That's really something you should keep quiet.

Okay, I did some research on the NAMBLA Case that the ACLU defended.

A few years ago, 1997, I think, two men kidnapped and killed a 10-year old.

They later uncovered the diaries of one of the guys who did it, and it turns out he was absolutely obsessed with this boy and had been planning things for months. He became a member of NAMBLA and supposedly posted on message boards and shit. I think he turned to the NAMBLA organization for "comfort". And he had NAMBLA literature, which an Ohio court showed (in another child rape case) "preparation and purpose" for the rape. I very much doubt they call it rape, but likely, you know, members of NAMBLA said, its your right to have sex with the kid, etc.

So after the murder, the family sued NAMBLA in a federal court, asking for damages. And the ACLU defended them. That's pretty much what there is to it. Hmm...

I still dont see why the ACLU defended NAMBLA. NAMBLA of course has the right to defend itself, but why the fuck is the ACLU defending them? People like this... sink or swim. There are plenty of other cases of civil rights abuses that doesnt involve an organization that has members drooling over the prospect of fucking boys.

The ACLU can choose whichever cases it wants, it shouldnt have chose this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

I'm really sick of your libel bullshit. You need to start pointing to some sources of my own comments which back up this crap or shut the fuck up.

I want direct quotes that imply I hate free speech and give a rats fuck about success.

---

Fair enough, and in appreciation for you not derailing this thread and letting people talk about an at least somewhat interesting issue . . . I appologise. I don't like to insult people with fiction. I find this silly.

Yes, you have a valid point. Fuck right wing rhetoric. Let's be logical.

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

No one cares if they're bigots, you illererate fuck. The ACLU defends lots of bigots all the time. In this country you have the right to be as bigotted as you damned please. The point is that they reserve certain rights as a religious organization, but they don't want to abide by the rules that apply to such organizations, like not taking government handouts, which is bullshit. And I was in the scouts, btw, and I have nothing against them. This chapter should still not be getting a handout from the state. They should hold their meetings in Churches or homes or pay fair rent like they do in every other chapter.

If you're worried about the liberal commies taking your freedoms in any real way, then call the ACLU instead of bitching about them. They might just help you out. They're there for all of us whose civil rights are being violated, regardless of affiliation.

You really sound like a lunatic though with all the communist/facist remarks, when you haven't named one way that they work against free speech of any kind... Put up a real argument or shut up, ok?

---

Sorry if it seems that way, but if you do your homework you will discover that in Germany and other places in Europe where they are very Socialist they do not have freedom of speech. I'm not just trying to be an asshole here. I'm not using the first ammendment as some kind of dodge.

If I have to have black friends, I will do it. If I have to be somewhat conservative (even sexually) I will do it. If I have to let the A.T.F. inspect my house with a phony warrant I guess I'll do it so I don't end up like David Koresh . . . dead. I really have nothing to hide and I have never molested a kid like he supposedly did.

The point is that I'm doing everything I can to be accomidating. If that's not good enough for you, you must present your grievance in a logical consistant manner. You must have valid points.

Otherwise I will give you the same advice you just gave me. Put up a real argumen or shut up, ok?

Peace, dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

Sorry if it seems that way, but if you do your homework you will discover that in Germany and other places in Europe where they are very Socialist they do not have freedom of speech. I'm not just trying to be an asshole here. I'm not using the first ammendment as some kind of dodge.

---

So if you opposed the organization that has devoted themselves to upholding our constitutional freedoms (the ACLU) then wouldn't that make you the one who had something in common with the communists and nazis?

Quote:

---

If I have to have black friends, I will do it. If I have to be somewhat conservative (even sexually) I will do it. If I have to let the A.T.F. inspect my house with a phony warrant I guess I'll do it so I don't end up like David Koresh . . . dead. I really have nothing to hide and I have never molested a kid like he supposedly did.

---

:confused: Woah... someone just beamed up to the mothership... I really hope for your sake you meant that to sound crazy because otherwise you might have some serious issues that need addressing :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

The big problem I have with the ACLU, you see, is stepping up and defending NAMBLA.

---

And I would have a big problem with them if they didn't. The ACLU defended the Nazi Party back in Skokie in the 60s/70s, and as much as I don't like man/boy buttsex, I think killing 12 million people is a bit worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

I for one think it is a group that IS bigoted. Though, they aren't violent or hateful and they do more good than most groups combined. I support the boy scouts and think they have a right to exist and the ACLU should be looking out for their rights, not the other way around. The ACLU would never defend the Boy Scouts, because they promote beliefs that the general populace (or a good portion of it) agree with. ACLU only likes to defend the little guy, and for some reason sees the boy scouts as "the man".

Bigots? Yes.

Bad? No.

---

You can't be serious. If the Boy Scouts were having their First Amendment rights trampled upon, the ACLU would be the first in line to defend them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burgundy

And I would have a big problem with them if they didn't. The ACLU defended the Nazi Party back in Skokie in the 60s/70s, and as much as I don't like man/boy buttsex, I think killing 12 million people is a bit worse.

---

Come on. It's not like the ACLU defends everybody who may or may not be getting their civil rights infringed, they easily could have defended someone else. A lawyer chooses their own cases, and NAMBLA could have gotten someone else to work for them if the ACLU decided not to defend them.

But, you can stay satisfied with them, my opinion is unchanged.

Dude, you insinuated that the ACLU decided to defend NAMBLA for political gain. Pedophiles are this country's least popular group outside of 9/11 terrorists. Defending NAMBLA did nothing to further the image of the ACLU in the eyes of most American non-pedophiles, so there had to be another reason for it.

The ACLU simply does not have to the time and the manpower to go to work on every First Amendment claim that comes their way. They pick and choose the ones they 1) believe they can win and 2) believe will set strong precedent. Because if NAMBLA and the Nazi Party are free to express their beliefs in legally permissible ways, so is everyone else.

No, I insinuated nothing.

My mistake. I read a reply to one of your posts and associated it with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Come on. It's not like the ACLU defends everybody who may or may not be getting their civil rights infringed.

---

You'd be surprised how willing they are to take a case. Alot of people don't bother to reach out to them, but there aren't alot of serious cases that the ACLU will turn down altogether. I know at the very least they can help give you legal advising.

I know I was having trouble with my school back in high school and I called them up and right there over the phone they said I had a good case and they gave me all kinds of cases and precedent to show and said they'd back me if push came to shove. It was a big help, and gave me some bargaining ground with the school, and it was just a phone call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burgundy

My mistake. I read a reply to one of your posts and associated it with you.

---

Cant be making mistakes like that in the courtroom burgundy.

And when I'm getting $200 an hour, I'll be a lot more careful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

So if you opposed the organization that has devoted themselves to upholding our constitutional freedoms (the ACLU) then wouldn't that make you the one who had something in common with the communists and nazis?

---

I support the ACLU on SOME issues. Just as I think that some people deserve to be called, "traitors". Some people are "evil" and should be punished by vigorous prosecution. I just don't think that success is a measure of avarice like many liberals do. America rebelled because King George was a tyrant, and a tyrant typically calls anyone who tries to rise in teh ranks of society and not bow and scrape to the dictator a "traitor".

I'm saying that the ACLU goes too far and I disagree with them on many issues. They abuse the right to persue punishment for people they decide are "evil".

Quote:

---

:confused: Woah... someone just beamed up to the mothership... I really hope for your sake you meant that to sound crazy because otherwise you might have some serious issues that need addressing :|

---

No, I believe that what happened at Waco was wrong. I realize anyone who disagrees with what the ATF did is often put in the same category as conspiracy theorists who think that we never landed on the moon.

However, I've seen documentarys about the actual investigation of the ATF agents. The investigation was not conducted by conspiracy theorists, but by respectable internal affairs officers with a lot of convincing evidence.

I also believe that Koresh should have allowed the agents into his building. It may not be right for ATF agents to search your house, but it is pointless to resist.

The whole thing was handled badly by both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Okay, I did some research on the NAMBLA Case that the ACLU defended.

A few years ago, 1997, I think, two men kidnapped and killed a 10-year old.

They later uncovered the diaries of one of the guys who did it, and it turns out he was absolutely obsessed with this boy and had been planning things for months. He became a member of NAMBLA and supposedly posted on message boards and shit. I think he turned to the NAMBLA organization for "comfort". And he had NAMBLA literature, which an Ohio court showed (in another child rape case) "preparation and purpose" for the rape. I very much doubt they call it rape, but likely, you know, members of NAMBLA said, its your right to have sex with the kid, etc.

So after the murder, the family sued NAMBLA in a federal court, asking for damages. And the ACLU defended them. That's pretty much what there is to it. Hmm...

I still dont see why the ACLU defended NAMBLA. NAMBLA of course has the right to defend itself, but why the fuck is the ACLU defending them? People like this... sink or swim. There are plenty of other cases of civil rights abuses that doesnt involve an organization that has members drooling over the prospect of fucking boys.

The ACLU can choose whichever cases it wants, it shouldnt have chose this.

---

Ever heard the expression "bad cases make bad law?"

Perfect example. If this suit had turned out the other way, there would be precedent for all kinds of negligence suits against unpopular organizations for money damages.

So we would have more lawsuits (something I know you dislike), more liability, fewer free speech rights.

I find it ironic that, while the anti-ACLU people in this thread accuse it of being a partisan organization, they also object to all the fringe left- and right-wing groups it defends. Make up your mind, folks.

Incidentally, you guys have heard about the ACLU's role in the Rush Limbaugh medical records case, right?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

completely off topic somewhat:

I was a girl scout back in the day. then I said screw it. we made floating candles out of walnut shells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

America rebelled because King George was a tyrant, and a tyrant typically calls anyone who tries to rise in teh ranks of society and not bow and scrape to the dictator a "traitor".

---

Not true... as much as I love this country, it has to be admitted that the main reason for the rebellion was that a few well off colonists were whiny little bitches and were able to get people to follow them. King George was not a tyrant... he tried to raise taxes for the colonists, because they weren't paying enough to fund their own colonies (and also Englands ongoing wars) and it was causing serious monetary problems for England. Note that the colonists paid little in taxes to the King, and even with the raised taxes they would still pay less then people living in England. But this upset a few of the well off who would hate to give up a bit of their money for the common good (hmmm... doesn't that sound familiar) and the battle over taxes escalated over the years into much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

I'm saying that the ACLU goes too far and I disagree with them on many issues. They abuse the right to persue punishment for people they decide are "evil".

---

They pursue no punishment and they don't decide between good and evil. The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights... plain and simple. Without all the good things that the ACLU has done for us, we'd be a hell of a lot closer to a totalitarian government today. The cases and precedent they set protect us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

I support the ACLU on SOME issues. Just as I think that some people deserve to be called, "traitors". Some people are "evil" and should be punished by vigorous prosecution. I just don't think that success is a measure of avarice like many liberals do. America rebelled because King George was a tyrant, and a tyrant typically calls anyone who tries to rise in teh ranks of society and not bow and scrape to the dictator a "traitor".

---

But you haven't said how they're traitorous in any way. Every time I ask you to you go way off topic.

Quote:

---

I'm saying that the ACLU goes too far and I disagree with them on many issues. They abuse the right to persue punishment for people they decide are "evil".

---

If you do your homework, this is really, really untrue. You might want to learn more about the ACLU and stop reading newsmax or whatever. The ACLU are staunchly non-partisan, and they don't judge the people they defend or prosecute on anything but the law. You might see a case like this and interpret it as them "picking on" the boy scouts because they won't allow gay scoutmasters, but then you see them defending the Nazis, so this bias against perceived bigotry is illusory. They're not really like that, it's just the paper trying to put a bad spin on it, and the public being too ignorant to know better.

Quote:

---

No, I believe that what happened at Waco was wrong. I realize anyone who disagrees with what the ATF did is often put in the same category as conspiracy theorists who think that we never landed on the moon.

However, I've seen documentarys about the actual investigation of the ATF agents. The investigation was not conducted by conspiracy theorists, but by respectable internal affairs officers with a lot of convincing evidence.

I also believe that Koresh should have allowed the agents into his building. It may not be right for ATF agents to search your house, but it is pointless to resist.

The whole thing was handled badly by both sides.

---

The problem is that like none of this stuff connects to what I said. That's why I was freaked out by your last post. You started talking about wether or not you had black freinds and people investigating you and David Koresh out of NOWHERE. That's like the kind of shit the homeless alcies say to me on the bus. You were clearly continuing a part of the conversation you never had with me, and it sounded crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Not true... as much as I love this country, it has to be admitted that the main reason for the rebellion was that a few well off colonists were whiny little bitches and were able to get people to follow them. King George was not a tyrant... he tried to raise taxes for the colonists, because they weren't paying enough to fund their own colonies (and also Englands ongoing wars) and it was causing serious monetary problems for England. Note that the colonists paid little in taxes to the King, and even with the raised taxes they would still pay less then people living in England. But this upset a few of the well off who would hate to give up a bit of their money for the common good (hmmm... doesn't that sound familiar) and the battle over taxes escalated over the years into much more.

---

Sorry, dude. Torturing and imprisoning people makes you a tyrant. I can see how a true believer (liberal) can easily disagree, believing in the same doctrine (Blank Slate) that totalitarian socialist dictators did. (Remember, I didn't just call you a commie. I said you have teh tendencies because you seem to believe in the doctrine of the Blank Slate.) I remain unconvinced. We do not need a monarch, dictator, etc. We do seem to need a Theodore Roosevelt and we should resurect the Bull Moose Party. We need strong leaders whos platform is based on logic and reason. Not visciousness and corruption.

Quote:

---

They pursue no punishment and they don't decide between good and evil.

---

Technichally neither does the Southern Poverty Law Center. They still sue the hell out of people. They still tried to censor, "The Turner Diaries" . . . keep it out of book stores.

I find this wrong. I even disagree with much of what the book talks about and I still think it's wrong. That's pretty much what the publisher (who is part Jewish) says in the beginning part of the book.

Quote:

---

That's like the kind of shit the homeless alcies say to me on the bus. You were clearly continuing a part of the conversation you never had with me, and it sounded crazy

---

I only do it when I type. I was trying to squeeze too much in. I get bored with the process of waiting for the typical response and then answering what I knew would be asked.

All I am saying is that I am more or less of a fence sitter, not an extremist. Therefore I object to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the A.C.L.U. because of their effect on our society. This does not mean that I want to try and kill them all.

I may attempt some kind of protest, and I believe that what happened at the Davidian compound is close to the apropriate response to an opressive government. Predominantly non violent and usefull - it gets the public's attention.

Non-violent civil disobedience is the goal.

What do I find wrong with the A.C.L.U.? Liberalism can be dangerous. It's that simple. The belief in the doctrine of the Blank Slate, the employment of massive social engineering, etc. has led to some of the worst atrocities in history.

I believe in logic and reason, not dogma. I protest people who stubbornly insist that it is more "moral" to believe that the Earth is flat. It's that simple . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

Sorry, dude. Torturing and imprisoning people makes you a tyrant. I can see how a true believer (liberal) can easily disagree, believing in the same doctrine (Blank Slate) that totalitarian socialist dictators did. (Remember, I didn't just call you a commie. I said you have teh tendencies because you seem to believe in the doctrine of the Blank Slate.) I remain unconvinced. We do not need a monarch, dictator, etc. We do seem to need a Theodore Roosevelt and we should resurect the Bull Moose Party. We need strong leaders whos platform is based on logic and reason. Not visciousness and corruption.

---

I DON'T FUCKING BELIEVE IN BLANK SLATE... WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET THAT IDEA?

I thought we covered this a little bit ago, I said I've fucking had it with your libel bullshit... so either get some fucking quotes and back it up that I have so called blank slate "tendencies" or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

And I never fucking said we needed a monarch or a dictator or any of that such... I was only pointing out the historical inconsistancy of your comment. Try taking a class in history and learning a thing or two.

And does the illegal imprisonment of the thousands of "suspected" terrorists make Bush a Tyrant then? I'd bet you good money that at least some of them have been tortured.

bbobb, don't argue with him, take it up with the devil in his glove compartment.

I mean this in all seriousness, from his last few posts, it's clear that Parcher has some serious mental problems, and it's probably best not to try to argue with him. He's having paranoid delusions at the very least.

TABULA RASA

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...oto/t1921a.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

I DON'T FUCKING BELIEVE IN BLANK SLATE... WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET THAT IDEA?

I thought we covered this a little bit ago, I said I've fucking had it with your libel bullshit... so either get some fucking quotes and back it up that I have so called blank slate "tendencies" or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

---

You are being defensive in order to troll or you are paranoid. Having tendencies does not mean you believe wholeheartedly in the Blank Slate any more than having homosexual tendencies makes you a homosexual. There is no use in digging up quotes because you will stretch the truth and continue to be defensive, beliving that I am accusing you of being a commie. It doesn't matter what I say. I could say, "Bbobb, you're my hero! Can I be just like you?" and you would still hear accusations. You are one crazy foker. You just want to get this thread moved to Fight Club. And you probably will.

Quote:

---

And I never fucking said we needed a monarch or a dictator or any of that such... I was only pointing out the historical inconsistancy of your comment. Try taking a class in history and learning a thing or two.

---

You said that King George was not a tyrant. Again, you are distorting the truth and the logical course of our conversation in order to troll. You believe you are "justified" in this action because I am "evil". This is why I state that you have certain tendencies that cloud your judgement. It is not illogical for me to assume that you think that a monarchy is not that bad if you do not think that King George was a tyrant, and the entire premise for the American Revolution was wrong. Even though you did not state it directly, that is the direction you indicated.

Quote:

---

And does the illegal imprisonment of the thousands of "suspected" terrorists make Bush a Tyrant then? I'd bet you good money that at least some of them have been tortured.

---

If they begin liquidating people without a trial in Quantinamo Bay, Cuba where they are building a death camp I will be forced to agree. I object to industrial scale murder. I believe it is immoral.

Quote:

---

bbobb, don't argue with him, take it up with the devil in his glove compartment.

I mean this in all seriousness, from his last few posts, it's clear that Parcher has some serious mental problems, and it's probably best not to try to argue with him. He's having paranoid delusions at the very least.

---

In all seriousness, since your and Bbobbs intention is clearly to get this thread moved to FC, you should just start cussing, pretending to be female, and your other Jerry Springer tactics you reserve for the "intollerant". People who disagree with you, in other words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

In all seriousness, since your and Bbobbs intention is clearly to get this thread moved to FC, you should just start cussing, pretending to be female, and your other Jerry Springer tactics you reserve for the "intollerant". People who disagree with you, in other words.

---

OMG, TEH SEXIST!

I thought it was MacArthur and J Edgar Hoover's job to pretend being female.

Ok, that's it... Parcher is going on permanent ignore, so don't even fucking bother trying to reply to me, because I'm never again going to see any bullshit you say. You might notice we were having good conversation before you started in on your idiocy.

Don't we have total ignore anymore? I don't even want to see the fact that he posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Don't we have total ignore anymore? I don't even want to see the fact that he posted.

---

Join MVS and I in the good fight for total ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

In all seriousness, since your and Bbobbs intention is clearly to get this thread moved to FC, you should just start cussing, pretending to be female, and your other Jerry Springer tactics you reserve for the "intollerant". People who disagree with you, in other words.

---

I'm really not trying to get you riled up. You should seek help. I'm not trying to be mean, but something's not right. You really sound like you're having an argument with someone who isn't there; like you're reading the posts and hearing something completely different. It's not right, it's not characteristic of a sane thinker.

Go read post #69 and tell me if that's something a sane person would say in response to my post. It's not, it had nothing to do with what I said. And alot of this stuff you're saying to bbobb doesn't make sense either. The reason everyone else seems illogical is because you aren't thinking right. You might need some meds or something.

In all seriousness he might be scrizophrenic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

Nowhere in the definition of "popular" does it say "good," though. The opinion that older men should screw young boys is neither popular nor unpopular - it's not RIGHT. The same thing with lynching black people or killing Jews.

I'm not saying that I hate the ACLU, I think they do good things. I'm only saying there's a difference between weed and underage sex/murder.

---

I don't quite understand what your point is. You said, in essence, "How is it legal to support something that is illegal?" And I responded by saying it's legal to support anything you want. I never tried to argue that I thought pedophilia was a good thing or that NAMBLA was a bunch of fine upstanding citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

A few years ago the fraternity Zeta Psi at Dartmouth got busted for handing out pamphlets on date rape - like, "how to date rape a chick" pamphlets. The University caught them and eliminted the fraternity from its premises. Did that infringe on the fraternity's civil rights? Probably.

---

I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything, but I don't remember the Ammendment about the right to fraternities. There was no criminal or civil action brought against them, so I don't think it infringed on their civil rights.

And now that I think about it, you may be liable if you give a detailed description of how to commit a crime and someone acts on it. I also don't think NAMBLA is distributing "How to Rape Little Boys" literature.

So... there is nothing about rights of a fraternal organization, but there is about rights to pedophile organizations? Come on.

And like I noted above an Ohio court showed that NAMBLA literature includes things which could be construed as 'preparation and purpose'. In all seriousness here there have been lots of cases of child rape and shit around the country in which the criminals were members of NAMBLA, I dont know why the Feds or anything havent done an investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

So... there is nothing about rights of a fraternal organization, but there is about rights to pedophile organizations? Come on.

And like I noted above an Ohio court showed that NAMBLA literature includes things which could be construed as 'preparation and purpose'. In all seriousness here there have been lots of cases of child rape and shit around the country in which the criminals were members of NAMBLA, I dont know why the Feds or anything havent done an investigation.

---

Shit, I thought South Park made that up for shits and giggles... scary...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

So... there is nothing about rights of a fraternal organization, but there is about rights to pedophile organizations? Come on.

---

You're confusing the issue. Nobody tried to sue the frat. The university dissolved it as a recognized fraternity on campus. I assume Dartmouth has plenty of rules in place that allows them to do such things. If the guys in the frat decided to reform off campus without being recognized by Dartmouth no one could stop them.

Quote:

---

And like I noted above an Ohio court showed that NAMBLA literature includes things which could be construed as 'preparation and purpose'.

---

I haven't read any NAMBLA literature, so it's kinda hard for me to say. Courts have been wrong before, though.

From what I understand about the case, alot of it hinged on people on NAMBLA's message board giving advice on how to gain the confidence of children. I told someone on here once how to cook with pot. Is TNL responsible if someone gets caught with pot brownies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

In all seriousness here there have been lots of cases of child rape and shit around the country in which the criminals were members of NAMBLA, I dont know why the Feds or anything havent done an investigation.

---

Logically, members of a group that advocates fucking little boys probably fuck little boys. That doesn't make it illegal to be in a group that advocates fucking little boys. You can't arrest people for something they might do.

Heh. I guess it's a backlash towards them for not accepting TEH GAYZ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint of Killers

You can't arrest people for something they might do.

---

Tell that to John Anderton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

I'm really not trying to get you riled up. You should seek help. I'm not trying to be mean, but something's not right. You really sound like you're having an argument with someone who isn't there; like you're reading the posts and hearing something completely different. It's not right, it's not characteristic of a sane thinker.

Go read post #69 and tell me if that's something a sane person would say in response to my post. It's not, it had nothing to do with what I said. And alot of this stuff you're saying to bbobb doesn't make sense either. The reason everyone else seems illogical is because you aren't thinking right. You might need some meds or something.

---

I was answering several people who all started semi-flaming at once. Let's not let one post become our straw man, shall we?

I just tried to lump my response to the nonsense together insead of doing this:

Quote:

---

I hate you! All conservatives are racists!!!!

---

Perhaps my calling all liberals commies will show you how silly you are being. I still have not stooped to your level since I am only saying that some people have Blank Slate worshiping tendencies that clouds their judgement.

Quote:

---

You're crazy!!!! I don't understand how smeone can be conservative and hate liberals because they are against freedom. All conservatives hate freedom because they are nazis!!!

---

No. Some conservatives are isolationists, but they are not National Socialists, since SOCIALISM is not Capitalism. National Socialists are SOCIALISTS . . . that's why they have the word "Socialist" in their name. Nazis are Socialists.

Etc., etc. et al. True, there are slight variances in those last two quotes, but they are also very similar. Technichally, answering them together is wrong.

But if viewed logically, it is obvious that they are nothing but the start of a flame war.