Anybody seen the ACLU lately ?....

[Dee]

The ACLU of Texas joined with the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA to fight local prosecutors who are defying a law aimed at protecting law-abiding Texans from being arrested for having guns in their cars. Not many people know about it because the story was never printed on a Wal-Mart name tag


http://reason.com/blog/2007/04/06/the-aclu-defends-gun-rights

This article is really funny. The "Texas Chapter" of the ACLU was the one involved, and the article goes on to state that the NATIONAL ACLU does not support the 2nd Amendment, nor does it believe it is wrong for the GOVERNMENT to disregard the 2nd Amendment.
THANKS CRUSTAFARIAN, FOR MAKING EVERYONES POINT CONCERNING THE ACLU. Their a bunch of lawyer trash.
As far as the ISSUE IN THE ARTICLE, the State Legislature solved the issue, buy passing a law, that any non-felon could carry a concealed handgun in the car, whether they were travelling or not.

[guzzijohn]

The other liberal on this board speaks:
I will just say that IMHO the ACLU has done much to protect our individual rights given to us in the constitution. Without them I believe there would have been much more governmental abuse of the constitution.
GuzziJohn

[ironglow]

  In reply #23, when Jimster suggested the disgusting man-boy thing, Ytail said he is more interested in crime and drug related thins. I don't know where Ytail gets his moral compass from, but the whole man-boy thing IS a crime and should be treated as such.

  One thing the ACLU pushes which is LOGICALLY wrong, is the idea that a wom,an contemplating killing her baby should NOT be informed about that baby..it's size, sex, health and all the other things which she can now be informed of. What in blazes is the advantage of a woman remaining IGNORANT..unless it is to better fit in with other ACLU sympathizers?

   Now, before Ytail and crusty wax to overly eloquent concerning ACLU's love of the second amendment..have a look as to what the ACLU itself says about our second amendment rights:

 
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

   I would be more inclined to believe that the very rare cases where the ACLU insisted upon return of seized guns...it was simply to pursue a grudge against law enforcement or used these incidents to further a related case. Then too, they may have thrown a couple bones...so their friends such as Crusty and Yellowtail could crow about the 1 in 100,000.
 

[yellowtail3]

  In reply #23, when Jimster suggested the disgusting man-boy thing, Ytail said he is more interested in crime and drug related thins. I don't know where Ytail gets his moral compass from, but the whole man-boy thing IS a crime and should be treated as such.

I get my moral compass from - I'm guessing you're asking? - from scripture, reason, experience, and tradition (not always in that order)

One thing the ACLU pushes which is LOGICALLY wrong, is the idea that a wom,an contemplating killing her baby should NOT be informed about that baby..it's size, sex, health and all the other things which she can now be informed of. What in blazes is the advantage of a woman remaining IGNORANT..unless it is to better fit in with other ACLU sympathizers?

I'm not familiar with particulars here, but my guess would be... ACLU opposition as you mention, is a reaction to the anti-abortions laws designed to discourage a woman from having an abortion, by telling her about the baby to undermine her determination to have an abortion.

Anyhow... Good Morning. I'm not all that eloquent, and have to avoid to much eloquence so as not to get banned.

[gypsyman]

After reading what ironglow posted on the aclu's stance on the second amd., it's clear that they are just lawyers, nothing more, nothing less. And, that basically means their going to interpet a law, to what ever they feel fit. It's clear, that the second amd. is an indivudual right, all you have to do is a little reasearch. The founding fathers set it up this way.
But, true to typical fashion, todays lawyers are still trying to define what the definition of ''is'' is. gypsyman

[powderman]

I'm not familiar with particulars here, but my guess would be... ACLU opposition as you mention, is a reaction to the anti-abortions laws designed to discourage a woman from having an abortion, by telling her about the baby to undermine her determination to have an abortion.



Your point is what? You claim your moral compass is from scripture??? What scripture??? What scripture could you possibly read that would encourage a woman to murder her child??? What possible reason could there be NOT to discourage a woman from sinning and killing her child??? Aside from her NOT committing the sin of murder, and allowing the baby to live I see no problem. In this case the aclu encourages murder. They encourage homosexuality and other sins. Moral compass from scripture??? I think not. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

After reading what ironglow posted on the aclu's stance on the second amd., it's clear that they are just lawyers, nothing more, nothing less.

That is one group of people I have a prob with, esp. those in 'family law' - if I've ever dictator, they're in a world of hurt. The business of the law is to make more business for the law, justice be damned.

Your point is what?

No 'point', really, other than to speculate as to ACLU reasoning on something someone else mentioned.

You claim your moral compass is from scripture??? What scripture???

Christian, emphasis on New Testament and words of Jesus. Imperfectly, of course, being that I'm one of those sinners.

blah blah blah blah blah... Moral compass from scripture??? I think not. POWDERMAN.  

I don't expect you to think much, Powderman, but if I'm wrong on that, we'd have a discussion - but I don't think discussion for you is much more than recitation of talking points, so I'm not gonna spend a lot of time casting pearls before swine.

[beerbelly]

The guy that started the ACLU was a communist, that is all I need to know. Their goal is to help destroy the USA.
                                        Beerbelly

[powderman]

yt. Again I ask, what is wrong with discouraging a woman from committing murder and giving life to a child??? I typed real slow so you could understand it. Like tm you are very adept at dodging questions and changing subjects. POWDERMAN. 

[jimster]

I think I metioned earlier what the ACLU is about, and also they will defend who they want when they want according to where the funding comes from.

There are many things currently going on right now that would be an easy win for the ACLU that they will not enage in. Just one example would be coming to the aid of Arizona with an easy one....article 4 section 4...The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

Easy as pie...written in the constitution. They won't touch it. That's just one easy one out of many.  Instead they seem to try to twist the constitution into complex matters defending things that are not in there, causing us to crumble from within.  That's on purpose.  If anyone here could tell me exactly when the ACLU decided NOT to be engaged in a communistic path as the founder has openly intended...I would be glad to listen. But usually, when a communistic movement is started it will not stop no matter how many years go by.  The members on the board do not have the constitution at the top of their list, they have their twisted version, and where their money comes from decides how twisted it can get.

Hell, if the ACLU was worth their salt you would not have any of the legislation written in the last 30 years stand up in court. The only thing they are good for is conversation and politics and sometimes the news.  There is not one thing I would not have now if they never would have existed.  I won't be needing them.

[ironglow]

  Before YT and Crusty wax too eloquent about how the ACLU is out to defend our individual 2nd amendment rights, perhaps they should have contacted the ACLU..here's their position:

 http://www.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

[ironglow]

  ...And on another ACLU website...their byline says "90 years protecting your liberties"..which only proves they are a bunch of liar lawyers.
  They of all people should know the Bill of Rights was instituted to preserve the PEOPLE'S Rights from an obtrusive government..and NOT to protect the government from the people!!!

  http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

   No sensible, Biblically oriented Christian could ever endorse the actions of the ACLU. They have fought for years to continue the abortion holocaust!
   Again, I ask the two ACLU sycophants;   What is wrong with a woman being well informed concerning the life she is planning to terminate ??

   Looks like the "enlightened" ACLU would like to keep others "unenlightened"...

[yellowtail3]

No sensible, Biblically oriented Christian could ever endorse the actions of the ACLU. They have fought for years to continue the abortion holocaust!
   Again, I ask the two ACLU sycophants;   What is wrong with a woman being well informed concerning the life she is planning to terminate ??

If by sycophant you mean me... you need to go back to school and learn what a sycophant is.

[ironglow]

     

       syc'-o-phant   =  A person who uses flattery to win favor from individuals wielding influence: a toady

    ...And you were saying..

[Hooker]

sy·co·phant
noun \-fənt also -ˌfant\
Definition of SYCOPHANT
: a servile self-seeking flatterer
— sycophant adjective
Examples of SYCOPHANT

   1. <when her career was riding high, the self-deluded actress often mistook sycophants for true friends>

Origin of SYCOPHANT
Latin sycophanta slanderer, swindler, from Greek sykophantēs slanderer, from sykon fig + phainein to show — more at fancy
First Known Use: 1575
Related to SYCOPHANT
Synonyms: apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunkie), lickspittle, suck-up, toady
Related Words: yes-man; apparatchik, company man; hanger-on, leech, parasite, sponge, sponger; henchman, lackey, lapdog, minion, running dog, satellite, slave, stooge; admirer, cultist, devotee, enthusiast, fan, groveler, idolater (or idolator), worshipper (or worshiper), zealot; adherent, camp follower, convert, disciple, follower, me-tooer, partisan (also partizan), pupil, votary

• more[-]hide

See Synonym Discussion at parasite
Rhymes with SYCOPHANT
adamant, commandant, complaisant, confidant, confidante, cormorant, corposant, Corybant, covenant, dilettante, disenchant, gallivant, hierophant, interplant, pitcher plant, power plant, rubber plant, spider plant
[-]hide
adamant, commandant, complaisant, confidant, confidante, cormorant, corposant, Corybant, covenant, dilettante, disenchant, gallivant, hier.


 

[powderman]

yt. Again I ask, answer my question on post #39. What is wrong with that??? Or are you still playing dodgeball??? POWDERMAN.  

[yellowtail3]

     

       syc'-o-phant   =  A person who uses flattery to win favor from individuals wielding influence: a toady

    ...And you were saying..

Fill me in, ironglow - who am I trying to flatter or win favor with? Were I trying, I'd infer that so far, no success...

Geez... where's the sycophancy? I answered the question you posed in your first post, as to why we're not hearing from ACLU on some issues. Sycophancy???

[powderman]

yt3. HEH, ya dodged it again, ol tms teaching you real good. An apt student for sure. POWDERMAN. 

[billy_56081]

I'm kinda waitin for old yellow to start blaming everyting on the Jews. Then we will know for sure he is just another of old TM's screen names.

[ironglow]

     

       syc'-o-phant   =  A person who uses flattery to win favor from individuals wielding influence: a toady

    ...And you were saying..

Fill me in, ironglow - who am I trying to flatter or win favor with? Were I trying, I'd infer that so far, no success...

Geez... where's the sycophancy? I answered the question you posed in your first post, as to why we're not hearing from ACLU on some issues. Sycophancy???

   Perhaps not a perfect sycophant but a fine partial sycophant, neatly fulfilling the last two words of the description.."a toady". A typical sycophant will often simply flatter the object of their admiration without renumeration. I believe we have all witnessed this at one time or another in a workplace setting.
  You obviously admire the ACLU and have said as much. When, in spite of all the harm they have done to gun rights for instance, you still furnish excuses and apologetics for them, that (IMO) is clear sycophancy.

   BTW: Having read their own website which declares they are against individual 2nd amendment rights, will you keep offering excuses for them ?

[powderman]

IRONGLOW, BILLY. I get the distinct impression that yt3 is not going to answer my question asked in post # 39, this is not the first question he's ignored. Ol tms teaching him real good how to dance, deny, and change the subject. POWDERMAN. 

[ironglow]

IRONGLOW, BILLY. I get the distinct impression that yt3 is not going to answer my question asked in post # 39, this is not the first question he's ignored. Ol tms teaching him real good how to dance, deny, and change the subject. POWDERMAN.  

  PM;
  You will note I asked the same basic question twice (#33 & #42) of YT3 and Crusty..and still haven't received a reply.

  C'mon YT3..read (Proverbs 31:8&9) then tell us why a woman should not be informed concerning the boy or girl she is about to hire a killing for ?

[powderman]

Looking forward to his answer. Bet he'll do another dance. POWDERMAN. 

[powderman]

yt3. Wellllll, still waiting. POWDERMAN. 

[powderman]

OK yt3. I see that you figure you can't answer the question without totally making a fool of yourself so I guess I'll have to add it to the other questions you dodge and refuse to answer for  the same reasons. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

 C'mon YT3..read (Proverbs 31:8&9) then tell us why a woman should not be informed concerning the boy or girl she is about to hire a killing for ?

No need to read it, as it isn't relevant to my answer, which is... I can't tell you why a woman should not be informed about the baby she's contemplating aborting. I'm pro-life, generally speaking, and have supported Informed Consent laws... but I understand the reasoning of those who oppose them: they see the state inserting itself into an arena (the woman's choice) where the state has no bidness, from the pro-choice perspective.

[ironglow]

  However, the ACLU is dead set against a woman getting information or pictures of the little boy or girl she is about to liquidate..and you still say the ACLU is a decent outfit. How many thousands of children must die by consent from an ill informed woman before you will admit the ACLU is clearly wrong ?

[yellowtail3]

  However, the ACLU is dead set against a woman getting information or pictures of the little boy or girl she is about to liquidate..and you still say the ACLU is a decent outfit. How many thousands of children must die by consent from an ill informed woman before you will admit the ACLU is clearly wrong ?

I think the ACLU doesn't want a state law designed to undermine a woman's right to chose to have an abortion. Related - IMHO? - babies getting aborted is not the moral responsibility of the ACLU, but of the people who choose to abort them.

I don't need to admit anything. I'm done with team ideology.

[powderman]

yt3. You say you are pro life, uhhh sorta. Does that mean it depends on whose baby is being murdered? I'll ask AGAIN. Why is it bad for a woman to be discouraged from committing murder??? Another thing my sorta pro lifer, a woman does NOT have the right to murder her child because it is inconvenient. If you want to support the A nti  C hristian  L iars  U nion get your heros to fight for the life of the child about to be killed. But they wont, aclu is scum. POWDERMAN. 

[ironglow]

Susan Smith in SC "aborted" her two boys when they were 2 or 3 years out of the womb, ran they and her car into a pond..was there anything wrong with that ? Today's pracvtice of "partial birth abortion"..involves killing the little boy or girl after they have emerged from the womb..so where do you draw the line? How do you (or any other human) make these decisions which belong to God alone?
     I hope you realize that those who operate the very profitable abortion mills, along with almost the entire left of our political spectrum are demanding that such killings continue. Rubbing out millions of baby boys and girls is an integral part of their lynch pin to stay in power.
  Do you not see where that is playing to mankind's lower, baser motives? Real Christianity preaches self-denial, self control and sacrifice for others.
  The ACLU is bound and determined that abortion in all it's gruesome forms continue unhindered, why should any follower of Jesus Christ want to be in cahoots with the likes of them ?
 
      We are left with the rhetorical question WWJD...
             JUST IMAGINE: As with the woman at the well, another young woman approaches Jesus and explains her dilemma; "Rabbi; as the prodigal son,I have ventured into sin for some time now. I have acted carelessly and now carry an unexpected child, which will be very inconvenient for any future marriage and will greatly inhibit my career of selling silk in the market place. What shall I do Master"?

  Jesus could give only one of two answers;

A) Daughter, face your mistake, grow spiritually by it.. and allow this child to live and become a God honoring and decent citizen.

            OR:

B) Hey girl; just take the easy way out and kill your mistake.Then simply forget about it... (if you can)..


   ....Now the ball is in your court Yellowtail..ask yourself...WWJD ?

  As for this believer in Jesus, I will not associate with those who assist the holocaust on baby girls & boys..and I certainly will not call them "nice guys"...or even useful persons! 


  Proverbs 38:8&9.. does apply to the killers and any Bible believing Christian...but of course, that is only my opinion...