Oh Jeeez, Not The ACLU Again!

So,the a.c.l.u. now want to sue,New York,for bag searches,which may help save lives.What are they frightened about?Maybe finding the odd bomb here or there,maybe guns,They obviously don't understand what's going on around them.These jokers make me laugh!What about the people who enjoy their freedom and liberty,IN SAFETY.These jokers need to get a life. Carry on TSA and New York!!!!!

[edit on 29/07/2005 by britcitusa]


(edit: all caps title)

[edit on 8/4/2005 by Amorymeltzer]

Personal liberties. They value their freedoms very highly, and to force you to open your personal belongings for no reason is a huge breach of those rights in their opinion. It'd be wrong not to fight for it thinking the way they do.

Jeez, I dont know what ACLU is thinking! We need more random bag searches! In fact, the success of random bag checks should inspire the City to expand the idea of randomness to its other functions.

I can see the headlines now........

Starting next week, municipal randomness will be implemented as follows:

>The Fire Department will douse random houses according to a strict formula of one house per neighborhood per week. A spokesman said, "Since it will be random, we'll soak a real fire every so often. It's inevitable."

>The Sanitation Department will remove random property from people's homes. Commissioner Doherty said, "Sometimes, we'll take away your garbage. But other times, we might tow your car. All depends on the throw of the dice."

>City Hospitals will treat patients for random diseases. Medical authorities feel that such an approach will not, for instance, stigmatize stroke patients with stroke care.

>Mayor Bloomberg will invest NY City money in a random fashion. Said The Mayor: "I'll spin the wheel at Atlantic City to see what I should do with NY City money.


>The transportation department begins putting up random speed limit signs.


That'll work right?

Oh,i understand the aclu now................
People who kill,terrorise or cause injury to others,have rights to do that.So we must protect them.


Carry on TSA and New York and Madrid and Lomdon.Stay free in the Real World!

Originally posted by britcitusa
So,the a.c.l.u. now want to sue,New York,for bag searches,which may help save lives.What are they frightened about?Maybe finding the odd bomb here or there,maybe guns,They obviously don't understand what's going on around them.These jokers make me laugh!What about the people who enjoy their freedom and liberty,IN SAFETY.These jokers need to get a life.

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
-- Benjamin Franklin

ACLU supports NAMBLA, which is an organization for gay pedophiles...

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
-- Benjamin Franklin

A very significant and potent quote there, dreamlandmafia.

Allow me to provide two for you concerning the ACLU:

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal."---Roger Baldwin, ACLU founder, Harvard Reunion Book, 1935

"The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on."---William Z. Foster, ACLU co-founder and former chairman, Communist Party USA.

seekerof

Originally posted by NWguy83
ACLU supports NAMBLA, which is an organization for gay pedophiles...

Sigh. They no more support NAMBLA that they do the KKK or Rush Limbaugh. Test case clients for free speech and privacy. Nothing more.

And as you and Seekerof have inadvertently pointed out, your civil liberties have been the victim of one of the most successful smear campaigns in American history by transferring the fundamental principles of freedom to somehow being a "commie pedophile."

The economic philosophies of men involved in the ACLU nearly a century ago (when 'commie' was cool), are no more pertinent to their (and your) free speech and privacy than Rush Limbaugh being an opiate junkie. It's so irrelevant, it's actually the point. The ACLU fights for the rights of the worst of the worst so you don't have to fight for yours.

Just like all lawyers, you only hate them until you need one. Everyone's a pro-government, anti-individual authoritarian these days until they're the one that hits an unconstitutional roadblock, or metro cops looking for bombs find a marijuna seed in your gym bag, or the girl that approaches you on the Internet turns out to be a fed, or their daughter needs a private, safe abortion or she'll die!

I can't stress the importance of privacy enough. It's not like the ACLU wins every case; far from it. But they do slow down the tyranny quite a bit. If we didn't have the ACLU, we'd have to invent one. And dare I say conservatives would champion the cause.

NEW YORK, Aug. 19 (Xinhuanet) --A new poll released Friday finds that most New Yorkers are in favor of random bag searches by police in the city's mass transit system.

Of the 1,600 registered voters polled, 72 percent say they have no problems with the city's random bag checks of subway and bus passengers.

Along racial lines, the poll finds 78 percent of whites say the searches are a good thing, and 68 percent of blacks and 67 percent of Hispanics also agree with the measure.

Along party lines, 89 percent of Republicans support the searches, while only 67 percent of Democrats are in favor.

However, 55 percent of those polled say the added security measures should not violate basic civil liberties.

Broken down by party, 60 percent of Republicans say they are willing to give up some civil liberties, but 62 percent of Democrats say the government should take steps to prevent terrorism, but not if they violate people's civil liberties.

Article link


"What did the five fingers say to the face, slap!" - Rick James



[edit on 21-8-2005 by NWguy83]

The ACLU is right on a few things, wrong on plenty of others.

It's a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff. Times I say "Yeah, you go!" to them, and other times I wonder what they've been smoking.

Originally posted by makeitso
Jeez, I dont know what ACLU is thinking! We need more random bag searches! In fact, the success of random bag checks should inspire the City to expand the idea of randomness to its other functions.

I can see the headlines now........

Starting next week, municipal randomness will be implemented as follows:

>The Fire Department will douse random houses according to a strict formula of one house per neighborhood per week. A spokesman said, "Since it will be random, we'll soak a real fire every so often. It's inevitable."

>The Sanitation Department will remove random property from people's homes. Commissioner Doherty said, "Sometimes, we'll take away your garbage. But other times, we might tow your car. All depends on the throw of the dice."

>City Hospitals will treat patients for random diseases. Medical authorities feel that such an approach will not, for instance, stigmatize stroke patients with stroke care.

>Mayor Bloomberg will invest NY City money in a random fashion. Said The Mayor: "I'll spin the wheel at Atlantic City to see what I should do with NY City money.


>The transportation department begins putting up random speed limit signs.


That'll work right?

ha ha this is....funny? so its wrong to search for guns and bombs in airports?

Normally I think the ACLU can go do you-know-what to itself, but they are right on a few things.

Random searches are unconstitutional.

Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Originally posted by NWguy83
ACLU supports NAMBLA, which is an organization for gay pedophiles...

I can only assume you have a credible source for that claim?

Misfit

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by NWguy83
ACLU supports NAMBLA, which is an organization for gay pedophiles...

I can only assume you have a credible source for that claim?

Misfit

They've defended NAMBLA. It's right here on their site.

They claim they're only defending NAMBLA's free speech rights and that they don't advocate pedophilia. They claim.

Check out this link here as well. NAMBLA's another of those groups trying to hide behind the First Amendment.

Originally posted by Amethyst
They've defended NAMBLA. It's right here on their site.

They claim they're only defending NAMBLA's free speech rights and that they don't advocate pedophilia. They claim.

Check out this link here as well. NAMBLA's another of those groups trying to hide behind the First Amendment.

Thanks for the links.

Do not misconstrue what I say - I have no words for the disgust I feel of NAMBLA, but as for your suffixed "They claim.", if a defense attorney, be it paid or court appointed, represented charges brought against a member of NAMBLA, is that attorney, put to analogy as here as ACLU, then also a supporter of NAMBLA?

My personal feelings of the ACLU in this case is quite mixed:
[1] They are defending rights .... period.
[2] The defense of these rights [speak, post, etc] of those that would propegate their actions due to those rights, per their case, be achieved. [bare in mind, I have full acknowledgment of what material postings this would be, I am not defending that specific action, but the right in general]

Hope I said all this right, I am not defending the ACLU's actions in this case, but am defending the overall context of the ACLU at the same time. At the end of the day, being what the ACLU is and what NAMBLA is, my personal feelings are - ACLU should have stayed out of it - crime towards a child is crime that should have no rights. But then, the whole damn scenario of "any rights left", if some are taken, comes into play. It really is a very nasty Catch-22

Misft

Misfit, I'm not condoning the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA, just so you know.

It's an interesting paradox, I think. One one end you have our First Amendment rights being trampled on--like the free speech zones during the 2004 campaigning. Then on the other end you have miscreant groups trying to hide behind the First Amendment, like NAMBLA.

Personally, and this is what *I* think, having free speech rights was supposed to keep the government from arresting you for criticizing it. You can be sued for slander and libel, however, provided that what you said about someone was untrue and dragged their name through the mud.

Originally posted by Amethyst
Then on the other end you have miscreant groups trying to hide behind the First Amendment, like NAMBLA.

Your hobby must be that of a framer [construction], as you just drove a 16 penny nail dead with one drive!!

In other words, I can not concur with your statement with any more
adamancy than I already do [insert silly thumb-up emoticon that BTS not have, lol]

Misfit

anything the aclu does is just lawyers being lawyers, do anything for the almighty buck. the causes they take up are no more rediculous that the one where a woman won millions because she spilled hot coffee on herself claiming she didn't know it was hot because there wasn't a warning printed on the cup. or the ones that sued mcdonalds because they claimed the food made them fat. does that mean that if a drunk driver kills someone that the family of the victim can sue jack daniels for making a product that got the guy drunk. or could the lawyer of the drunk driver use that as a defence and also sue jack daniels for getting him into such a predicament. the lawyers are just out of control. my mother is a corrections officer. one day while the inmates were outside in the excersize yard a riot broke out and the inmates started using the tables and chairs that were there as weapons and smashed them all to bits. after locking the place down for a week they let the inmates in the yard again but this time no furniture. one of the clowns got ahold of a lawyer and sued saying it was cruel and unusual punishment that he not have a place to sit. as far as i'm concerned most of them are lucky they have a place to breath esspecially child molesters and murderers. if i had my way i'd have a conga line going from death row to the execution chamber till there was non left. save a ton of money and give the lawyers one less "victim" of the cruel prison system. oh wait a minute. how about this we sue jack daniels because the child molester was drunk at the time he raped and murdered the 9 year old boy. don't think it could happen? theres some lawyer out there who would take that case.

Wow, we are now starting random strip searches with me as the boss. What? Lindsey Lohan is going to this party? I better be there to do a random strip search on her, hey, I like random searches after all!

Anyways, the Bill of Rights say this is illegal, the ACLU is a Bill of Rights/Constitution group, so I can see why they are against random searches, just like they support freedom of speech for the KKK and NAMBLA and Rush Limbaugh, who begged them to defend him when he went to court for doing more drugs than GWB and Cheech and Chong put together.

Wow, we are now starting random strip searches with me as the boss. What? Lindsey Lohan is going to this party? I better be there to do a random strip search on her, hey, I like random searches after all!

come on. whats she going to hide. to skinny. now pamela anderson, shes got lots of places to hide things