Am I ACLU material?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Im thinking about joining an ACLU club/ organization at UNLV and was wondering if I'm ACLU material here is my info:

Chemical Soldier
Registered Republicam
SGT in USAR
Prefers khaki and button long sleeve shirt
HUGE NASCAR, Football fan
Think Ann Coulter is HIT able
Am pretty Patriotic
Veteran of OEF
Think I'll fit in?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Im thinking about joining an ACLU club/ organization at UNLV and was wondering if I'm ACLU material here is my info:

Chemical Soldier
Registered Republicam
SGT in USAR
Prefers khaki and button long sleeve shirt
HUGE NASCAR, Football fan
Think Ann Coulter is HIT able
Am pretty Patriotic
Veteran of OEF
Think I'll fit in?

Possibly. If your campus is pretty liberal, odds are that the ACLU chapter at your school will be considered a bit conservative...

[JW]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Im thinking about joining an ACLU club/ organization at UNLV and was wondering if I'm ACLU material here is my info:

Chemical Soldier
Registered Republicam
SGT in USAR
Prefers khaki and button long sleeve shirt
HUGE NASCAR, Football fan
Think Ann Coulter is HIT able
Am pretty Patriotic
Veteran of OEF
Think I'll fit in?

Just stay away from Ann Coulter. She's mine. Otherwise, I think you would fit in perfectly.

[Noop]

Quick question would you rather be safe with your civil liberties limited or unsafe with your civil liberties intact? I mean why are people so against the ACLU for trying to perserve(I know that is spelled wrong) the Bill of Rights. I have always held the belief that the first amendment was put first for a reason and the second one was put second for a reason.

[MrBug708]

Problem is Noop, that both sides think they are preserving the Bill of Rights

[Noop]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Problem is Noop, that both sides think they are preserving the Bill of Rights

I don't think limiting the Bill of Rights is preserving it. I once thought about how the thing can be changed to suit the needs of today. One conclusion was apparent after some thought... it never was the document which was the problem but the people who try to interpet it. Just thought I have come across...

[Subby]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Im thinking about joining an ACLU club/ organization at UNLV and was wondering if I'm ACLU material here is my info:

Chemical Soldier
Registered Republicam
SGT in USAR
Prefers khaki and button long sleeve shirt
HUGE NASCAR, Football fan
Think Ann Coulter is HIT able
Am pretty Patriotic
Veteran of OEF
Think I'll fit in?

Easy there - the ACLU are the ones who are going to end up defending you in your inevitable goat-dwarf porn smuggling ring trial.

[MrBug708]

Indeed. There are many ways to interpret a document that is over 200 years old.

[Karlifornia]

I don't know if I'd ever join the ACLU, but I have been thinking about starting an offshoot of the NRA called the NABA-or- National Atomic Bomb Association. I mean, atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people. If I want to bear arms, I should be able to bear whatever arms I want.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Noop

I mean why are people so against the ACLU for trying to perserve(I know that is spelled wrong) the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU goes too far sometimes. We don't have "Free Speech": you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, because of the public harm it may cause. The ACLU has a reputation for trying to defend even that type of speech.

Originally Posted by Noop

I have always held the belief that the first amendment was put first for a reason and the second one was put second for a reason.

Why does it matter? They don't contradict each other. So why are people who are all for a liberal interpretation of the first all for a conservative interpretation of the second?

[stevew]

The easiest way for conservatives to change an organization like the ACLU would be for them to en masse join, and change the group from the inside once they had a sizeable faction. Vice versa for the NRA.

[ISiddiqui]

Conservatives would have to deal with things they didn't like though, and I don't think they could change it too much. I mean I don't see the ACLU defending the PATRIOT Act no matter how many conservatives change it . And isn't the board voted from within?

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by Noop

Quick question would you rather be safe with your civil liberties limited or unsafe with your civil liberties intact?

Here is the key question. I think that a sizable percentage of the population would much rather give up a small piece of their civil liberties it it made people much safer.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Im thinking about joining an ACLU club/ organization at UNLV and was wondering if I'm ACLU material here is my info:

Chemical Soldier
Registered Republicam
SGT in USAR
Prefers khaki and button long sleeve shirt
HUGE NASCAR, Football fan
Think Ann Coulter is HIT able
Am pretty Patriotic
Veteran of OEF
Think I'll fit in?

I think you should run for club President.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

Here is the key question. I think that a sizable percentage of the population would much rather give up a small piece of their civil liberties it it made people much safer.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." ~ Ben Franklin

[MrBug708]

Well I'm sold because Ben Franklin said so...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JW

Just stay away from Ann Coulter. She's mine. Otherwise, I think you would fit in perfectly.

Oh hell no she ain't.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Ann Coulter needs to eat something. Then maybe she'd be attractive.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Dola - I much prefer Monica Crowley.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Ann Coulter needs to eat something. Then maybe she'd be attractive.

And what "something" did you have in mind?

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." ~ Ben Franklin

With all due respect to Ben, the fact is we do not have total liberty. Total liberty would be anarchy. The question is how much liberty are we willing to give up to make our society a safe one for everyone.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Surtt

And what "something" did you have in mind?

A bacon cheeseburger? Maybe two?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

With all due respect to Ben, the fact is we do not have total liberty. Total liberty would be anarchy. The question is how much liberty are we willing to give up to make our society a safe one for everyone.

I think this is for our courts to decide.

I see the ACLU's function, self appointed function mind you , as supplying the resources needed to bring these cases to court.
Granted some are over the line, but you can not tell where the line is until you cross it.

[Riggins44]

Originally Posted by Noop

Quick question would you rather be safe with your civil liberties limited or unsafe with your civil liberties intact?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

[Riggins44]

Thought this description was fitting of the ACLU's approach:

"The ACLU has perfected this masquerade, posing as the Constitution’s guardian while working to destroy it and the morality, responsibility, and decentralized, local governance essential to our constitutional system. The organization defends abortion on demand, child pornography, flag burning, homosexual "marriages" and the right of homosexuals to adopt children, full "constitutional" rights for illegal aliens, and legalizing prostitution, pandering, and all recreational drug usage. It opposes private ownership of guns, voluntary school prayer, religious displays on public property, capital punishment, prison terms for most crimes, and tax-exemptions for churches and synagogues."

[Raiders Army]

pix pls k thnx

[Peregrine]

"The ACLU has perfected this masquerade, posing as the Constitution’s guardian while working to destroy it and the morality, responsibility, and decentralized, local governance essential to our constitutional system. The organization defends abortion on demand, child pornography, flag burning, homosexual "marriages" and the right of homosexuals to adopt children, full "constitutional" rights for illegal aliens, and legalizing prostitution, pandering, and all recreational drug usage. It opposes private ownership of guns, voluntary school prayer, religious displays on public property, capital punishment, prison terms for most crimes, and tax-exemptions for churches and synagogues."

They probably don't support voting rights for the aliens of whatever planet this guy comes from either.

[Bearcat729]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Im thinking about joining an ACLU club/ organization at UNLV and was wondering if I'm ACLU material here is my info:

Chemical Soldier
Think Ann Coulter is HIT able

[Noop]

I agree with what Ben said... also the reason I feel the freedom of speech is the first right given by the Bill of Rights is because no matter what we should not lose the right to express concerns of things pertaining to the government. If we lose that right then we are all as good as dead. Not the second right given by the Bill of Rights is another important one in my opinion. Simply because it allows you to bear arms incase the government turns on the people. So if push comes to shove you will not be using rocks and sticks but instead some sort of firearm. But then again what do I know about life?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Subby

Easy there - the ACLU are the ones who are going to end up defending you in your inevitable goat-dwarf porn smuggling ring trial.

Well then,Looks like Im gonna sign the papers.

[IMetLyleAlzado]

I discussed this once with ACLU regarding their web site.

The first freedom/right listed in the Bill of Rights is the freedom of religion.

Amendments to the Constitution
Article [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Airhog]

I think taking away liberties is a slipery slope. Before you know it, you can't say anything bad about the government or risk being thrown in jail, or worse...

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

Here is the key question. I think that a sizable percentage of the population would much rather give up a small piece of their civil liberties it it made people much safer.

At the risk of getting quite a bit sidetracked, would you feel safer with someone who acts justily because their heart and mind is in it or because they are forced to act in a safe manner do to government restrictions? I contend that as a society we can't get MUCH safer through the restriction of currently protected civil liberities, unless you went to the extreme. And if you fashion a society waiting for shit to go down and restricting other peoples rights because of it, you sure as hell aren't allowing society to grow into a place where people will fashion their hearts and minds in a way where they will naturally act in ways that are safe for other people.

I am a big believer in Hobbes that if we are left to our own devices we will just look out for ourselves and it would be one ugly mess. At the same time, I think what makes America great isn't a series of colors and it isn't a series of buildings. Its working towards what is right even if it is hard and even if its a burden. Upholding the Bill of Rights isn't easy, its fucking hard work. Me I would rather be less safe if it means living in a land with more freedom for everyone around me. Lots of people have been willing to give up their personal safety in the history of this great nation to preserve those freedoms. To me a great American looks at adversity and doesn't say "We will change ourselves and thats how we will kick the adversity in the ass." He/she says "We will stay true to that which this country was founded upon, freedom. And in doing so that will kick it's ass." The ACLU has strived to stay true to those principals even when it has meant defending those who don't even support the ACLU. That is something one has to respect.

I guess what I am saying on this soapbox is, I think every American should be proud we have the ACLU in this country, even when they don't support an individual action by the group. But maybe I'm just a dreamer.

[Noop]

^ I pretty much agree with what you said. Why would anyone be in-favor of losing your rights? I mean sometimes I get angry at the way our country thinks it has the right to decide what is wrong and right for people. I mean we have people who for some reason can not have cussing or any sexual stuff on television. Mind you this is just a small section of the population who thinks we shouldn't have any "fun". What baffles me is the fact they can not change the channel or dail. They use the children as a reason for the views... Bullshit! ...wait I got off topic. Well I don't care... I am sad.

[miked]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Im thinking about joining an ACLU club/ organization at UNLV and was wondering if I'm ACLU material here is my info:

Chemical Soldier
Registered Republicam
SGT in USAR
Prefers khaki and button long sleeve shirt
HUGE NASCAR, Football fan
Think Ann Coulter is HIT able
Am pretty Patriotic
Veteran of OEF
Think I'll fit in?

You insinuate that the ACLU and it's members are somehow unpatriotic. Is this the climate these days? These people exist to defend the civil liberties of Americans (though they do sometimes go too far). Is that somehow unpatriotic?

[gstelmack]

Good thing the ACLU is out there protecting my liberties:

Originally Posted by http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/jamboree.deaths.ap/index.html

The Boy Scouts of America have held the event every four years since 1937. The next gathering is set for 2010, five years from now, to coincide with the group's 100th anniversary. But it may not be held at Fort A.P. Hill, which has hosted the Jamboree since 1981. A federal judge recently ruled that the Pentagon can no longer financially support the event. If the ruling stands, the Boy Scouts would have to find another location for their next gathering.

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois contends that the Defense Department's sponsorship violates the First Amendment because the Scouts require members to swear an oath of duty to God.

In exchange for getting use of the Army training base, the Scouts have spent about $20 million on base improvements that include road paving and plumbing upgrades. The Army says it uses the Jamboree as an opportunity to train personnel in crowd control, communications and other logistical skills.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Ann Coulter needs to eat something. Then maybe she'd be attractive.

No. There is nothing that would make this beast of a b*tch attractive. She is hideous. Horrorific. The vile ugliness begins in the inside and works it's way out. She is a horrible, ugly, evil, vile, horse-faced C U Next Tuesday of a beast. My hatred for this... thing is unconditional and burns pure and bright like the light of 10,000 suns.

That is all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Good thing the ACLU is out there protecting my liberties:

While I am usually pretty supportive of the ACLU it is certainly a mixed bag and I think they often hurt some of their more noble and just causes with stupid shit like this.

[JW]

The ACLU is not the wonderful defender of our civil liberties that the ACLU and its supporters make it out to be. It it simply a very vocal and effective organization that has its own agenda concerning the shape of our civil liberties and works hard to attain that agenda. But the ACLU's agenda is not the only vision of what civil liberties in America should look like, and it is not always the right vision. The ACLU in fact holds itself out as the defender of our Constitutional rights, but consider this from the ACLU:

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/...m?ID=9621&c=25

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Neutral? On the right to bear arms? Accepting "reasonable regulations?"

In closing, let me say that I actually agree with the ACLU position on gun control -- read the entire position at the link -- but I find it ironic that the ACLU is "neutral" on one of the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution and quite willing to agree with restrictive interpretations.

The bottom line is what some have said in this thread. None of our rights are absolute. The only argument is where we draw the line. So it is wrong in nearly every case to cast Americans as for or against civil liberties when the argument is almost always only about where to draw the line.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

No. There is nothing that would make this beast of a b*tch attractive. She is hideous. Horrorific. The vile ugliness begins in the inside and works it's way out. She is a horrible, ugly, evil, vile, horse-faced C U Next Tuesday of a beast. My hatred for this... thing is unconditional and burns pure and bright like the light of 10,000 suns.

That is all.

But how do you really feel about her? Don't hold back...

[CamEdwards]

Chemical Soldier,

You might check out the Center for Individual Freedom. They seem to be a more conservative/libertarian version of the ACLU. Admittedly, they're also a smaller organization, but I know one of their VP's and they appear to be pretty effective here in Washington.

Their website is www.cfif.org

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Chemical Soldier,

You might check out the Center for Individual Freedom. They seem to be a more conservative/libertarian version of the ACLU. Admittedly, they're also a smaller organization, but I know one of their VP's and they appear to be pretty effective here in Washington.

Their website is www.cfif.org

Thanks for the info and I will check it out.

[Jon]

People need to remember that the ACLU, despite its appearance, is not really one umbrella organization that commands its followers to take certain cases.

You should check into the cases that the Nevada affiliate has taken. When I was on the Board of the NW La. Chapter of the ACLU (not the Louisiana affiliate, we were actually separate at the time), we took cases involving the promotion of the exercise of religion. Not everybody in the ACLU is opposed to capital punishment and, in fact, there are some affiliates that take no position on affirmative action since they don't consider it a civil liberty issue. (It's not really).

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

At the risk of getting quite a bit sidetracked, would you feel safer with someone who acts justily because their heart and mind is in it or because they are forced to act in a safe manner do to government restrictions? I contend that as a society we can't get MUCH safer through the restriction of currently protected civil liberities, unless you went to the extreme. And if you fashion a society waiting for shit to go down and restricting other peoples rights because of it, you sure as hell aren't allowing society to grow into a place where people will fashion their hearts and minds in a way where they will naturally act in ways that are safe for other people.

I am a big believer in Hobbes that if we are left to our own devices we will just look out for ourselves and it would be one ugly mess. At the same time, I think what makes America great isn't a series of colors and it isn't a series of buildings. Its working towards what is right even if it is hard and even if its a burden. Upholding the Bill of Rights isn't easy, its fucking hard work. Me I would rather be less safe if it means living in a land with more freedom for everyone around me. Lots of people have been willing to give up their personal safety in the history of this great nation to preserve those freedoms. To me a great American looks at adversity and doesn't say "We will change ourselves and thats how we will kick the adversity in the ass." He/she says "We will stay true to that which this country was founded upon, freedom. And in doing so that will kick it's ass." The ACLU has strived to stay true to those principals even when it has meant defending those who don't even support the ACLU. That is something one has to respect.

I guess what I am saying on this soapbox is, I think every American should be proud we have the ACLU in this country, even when they don't support an individual action by the group. But maybe I'm just a dreamer.

While in general I agree with what you say, my point is that we do not have complete liberty. For argument's sake, lets consider freedom of religion. The Bill of Rights has guarenteed us freedon of religion, and yet we are not totally free to worship as we choose. If I wanted to take up the old Aztec worship of Xipe Totec I would not be allowed to offer a human sacrifice, nor would we allow someone promoting the hindu practice of Suttee which is an Indian funeral practice in which the widow is volentarily burned to death on her husband’s funeral pyre. There are sects of Mormanism that believe that you cannot truly reach the highest level of heaven unless you have multiple wives, and yet our government prosecutes them for polygamy. Clearly we have said that certain religious practices are not allowed. So where is the line between what should be allowed and what shouldn't? And this is true for most of the rights that we have.

The question that was originally asked was would you rather be safe with your civil liberties limited or unsafe with your civil liberties intact. My point is that out civil liberites are already limited (and rightly so), but how limited do we want to make them? It is easy to say that the far extream (such as human sacrifice) should not be allowed. But when we say that we then need to determine where the line is between what is allowed and what is not. And that line is not always agreed upon.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

No. There is nothing that would make this beast of a b*tch attractive. She is hideous. Horrorific. The vile ugliness begins in the inside and works it's way out. She is a horrible, ugly, evil, vile, horse-faced C U Next Tuesday of a beast. My hatred for this... thing is unconditional and burns pure and bright like the light of 10,000 suns.

That is all.

*snicker*

SI