Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 185
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    jeebus. Do you even read your own posts? Hiroshima a pre-emptive strike? And please cite what prisoners you are referring to regarding the ACLU.

    Also, yes, I have a problem with a presidency that thinks it's ok to scoop people up off the street and strip them of their citizenship rights and take them to another country to "interrogate".
    Regarding Hiroshima, I'd suggest you do some research on "Operation Olympic". It was the plan for the invasion of Japan. The 2nd Marine Division was to land in the first wave. After day three of the operation, there is no further mention of the 2nd Mar Div in the plans. The assumption was there would be no more 2nd Marine Division after 72 hours. The atomic bombings pre-empted the necessesary invasion.

    Please CITE where this administration has done what you refer to in your post? Are you talking about Jose Padilla?
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You are implying that some equally relevant free speech case went un-defended. Our country is based on principals which at times require a little sacrifice like your queasiness to nambla.
    An organization that trains its members in ways of seducing underage boys doesn't make you queasy? Not even a little?
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, I guess wanting free speech protected is just CRAZY TALK. Face it. You just associate the ACLU with protecting those "Commie Flag Burners" when in reality, it's not a political group but a rights gruop.
    The Bill of Rights, eh? Has the ACLU ever defended a citizen's right to keep and bear arms? Amendment #2...quite plainly spelled out...or so most rational people think, anyway.
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    "I have a problem with a presidency that thinks it's ok to scoop people up off the street and strip them of their citizenship rights and take them to another country to "interrogate"

    dathomas, how do you presume we interrogate then? are you saying we could get them to answer all of our questions over a warm cup of coffee, then?

    tell me, what better method of interrogation is there which will more effectively get them to talk. im very interested in what you have to say.
    When you say "Them" you're talking about us. And the all too simple fact is torture produces innacurate intel.
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    The Bill of Rights, eh? Has the ACLU ever defended a citizen's right to keep and bear arms? Amendment #2...quite plainly spelled out...or so most rational people think, anyway.
    I don't believe that's their goal. However, I've always said the best citizen is one with both an ACLU card AND an NRA card in their wallet.
  6.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    An organization that trains its members in ways of seducing underage boys doesn't make you queasy? Not even a little?
    A lot of things make me queasy, like when I hear Rumsfeld open his mouth. Point is in our society you don't squash speech. That's more of a Communist (as in China, check the labels on your clothing) thing.
  7.    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Regarding Hiroshima, I'd suggest you do some research on "Operation Olympic". It was the plan for the invasion of Japan. The 2nd Marine Division was to land in the first wave. After day three of the operation, there is no further mention of the 2nd Mar Div in the plans. The assumption was there would be no more 2nd Marine Division after 72 hours. The atomic bombings pre-empted the necessesary invasion.

    Please CITE where this administration has done what you refer to in your post? Are you talking about Jose Padilla?
    We were already at war with Japan. What's your point regarding the preemtive striking? I think you misundertand the term. You can review the policy at the Project for a New American Century .
  8. #48  
    daThomas, I would give up on this post. Our society today is not based on discourse and careful analysis of facts. It is based on fear-mongering propaganda hysterically force-fed to a barely literate public that is sure our forefathers all saw the world from the narrow perspective of George W. and his handlers. The fact is, free speech is under attack now as never before. It is not a Republican issue. It is not a Democract issue. It is an American issue. What those who attack the ACLU and groups like it do not understand is that our freedom of speech can never be compromised, even when those doing the speaking are repulsive, dangerous, or morally corrupt. If our government can silence individuals we deem to fall into one of those categories, then all we have to do is apply those phrases to a political movement, and we will have realized Orwell's vision of the future, not Jefferson's.

    As Patrick Henry once said, "If this be treason, make the most of it!" His words were a direct challenge to the crown, an indictment of the tyranny he saw King George (not W) sliding into. He said those words at a time when they could well have cost him his life, before most colonists had reconciled themselves to a breach with England. We may well need to utter such phrases again during the course of the history of our republic. How long it remains a bastion of freedom may well depend on our ability to utter such phrases without fear of retribution. (Those of you who have never read extensively on the founding of this country will have to take my word for the accuracy of this quote. Those of you who actually have and who think I jumbled his words, sorry, but I am quoting from memory.)
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You are implying that some equally relevant free speech case went un-defended. Our country is based on principals which at times require a little sacrifice like your queasiness to nambla.
    You need to read what I say, and stop putting words in my mouth. I said their coucil of NAMBLA was abhorrant. I never said NAMBLA doesn't have the right to it, nor that the ACLU should turn their back. Nor am I against their (ACLU) exsitence.

    And I will not safrifice my "queasiness to NAMBLA." Pedophila will always leave me queasy. Nice to know you're willing to sacrifice your queasiness of it. I know, I should just get over it.
    Last edited by Insertion; 03/06/2005 at 02:04 AM.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    You need to read what I say, and stop putting words in my mouth. I said their coucil of NAMBLA was abhorrant. I never said NAMBLA doesn't have the right to it, nor that the ACLU should turn their back. Nor am I against their (ACLU) exsitence.

    And I will not safrifice my "queasiness to NAMBLA." Pedophila will always leave me queasy. Nice to know you're willing to sacrifice your queasiness of it. I know, I should just get over it.
    See, that's where we part. I understand that speech is just that, speech. It is not responsible for behavior. Yea, nambla is gross and more importantly just stupid. But even stupidiness is allowed speech.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    See, that's where we part. I understand that speech is just that, speech. It is not responsible for behavior. Yea, nambla is gross and more importantly just stupid. But even stupidiness is allowed speech.
    Actually, we don't part. Free speech is a right, and needs to be protected. I don't want any speech quashed, simply because, this time it may be "the other side" that gets silenced. Next time, it could be you.

    But I can use my speech to question why one group would want to represent such a vile group as NAMBLA.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Actually, we don't part. Free speech is a right, and needs to be protected. I don't want any speech quashed, simply because, this time it may be "the other side" that gets silenced. Next time, it could be you.

    But I can use my speech to question why one group would want to represent such a vile group as NAMBLA.
    That would be silly. The representation was to protect speech.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That would be silly. The representation was to protect speech.
    maybe it's because I just woke up and haven't had my dose of coffee yet, but I don't understand what you are refering to? Something I said?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    maybe it's because I just woke up and haven't had my dose of coffee yet, but I don't understand what you are refering to? Something I said?
    Good morning Sua. I think he was refering to this line
    Quote Originally Posted by insertion
    But I can use my speech to question why one group would want to represent such a vile group as NAMBLA.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, I guess wanting free speech protected is just CRAZY TALK. Face it. You just associate the ACLU with protecting those "Commie Flag Burners" when in reality, it's not a political group but a rights gruop.
    Honestly? I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the philosophies of the ACLU may have changed. However, you can't tell me Roger N. Baldwin didn't have a political agenda.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Good morning Sua. I think he was refering to this line
    Thanx NRG, after a pot o' coffee, it makes more sense.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  17. #57  
    I agree that free speech is under attack in this country. Look what is happening to Larry Summers at Harvard. Observe how convservative groups are villified on campuses all over the country, while administrations turn a blind eye. McCain/Feingold's "Campaign Finance Reform" should be named, "The Peasants Shut the Hell up and Take it Act." Damn congress for passing it, damn W for signing it, and Double Damn the Supreme Court for upholding that abomination. Now they're moving the position that blogging is contribution in kind to campaigns. What would Ben Franklin have to say about that?

    However, speech advocating child molesation or violence against individuals and groups
    isn't morally equivalent to legitimate political discourse.

    DA, if speech doesn't impact on the actions of individuals, then you have no problems with huge corporations advertising SUV's and genetically altered food?

    I'm off to the gunshow to buy a couple of cases of "just in case". Back later!
  18. #58  
    When you say "Them" you're talking about us. And the all too simple fact is torture produces innacurate intel."

    -dathomas


    no. "them" does does not refer to "us", ( unbelievable) it refers to the insurgent PRISONERS! come on dathomas! why was that so difficult to grasp?

    you havent answered the question. you think the "simple fact" is that torture produces inaccurate intel. hey dathomas, prove this to me. CITE.

    i want you to tell me how you think treating the INSURGENT AND TALIBAN PRISONERS like gold will more effectively get them to talk. i really cant wait to hear your response. honestly.
  19. #59  
    The ACLU does not support open speech. It supports the limitation of free speech to those who do not agree with its method of operations and philosophy. The history of the ACLU is fraught with say this, do this. Rumsfeld has never advocated the "squashing" of speech. You really are not making much headway with this stuff.

    Ben

    --------------

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    A lot of things make me queasy, like when I hear Rumsfeld open his mouth. Point is in our society you don't squash speech. That's more of a Communist (as in China, check the labels on your clothing) thing.
  20. #60  
    Free speech is under attack - sure is. Not by the government though. My complaint with Larry Summers is that he says what he wants with no consideration for those directly affected by 9-11. Liking the victims of 9-11 to the Nazis - frankly, I liken him to Clinton - a man with no morals. A man who looks and smiles at you and works hard to hide the facts.

    Ben

    --------------

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I agree that free speech is under attack in this country. Look what is happening to Larry Summers at Harvard. Observe how convservative groups are villified on campuses all over the country, while administrations turn a blind eye. McCain/Feingold's "Campaign Finance Reform" should be named, "The Peasants Shut the Hell up and Take it Act." Damn congress for passing it, damn W for signing it, and Double Damn the Supreme Court for upholding that abomination. Now they're moving the position that blogging is contribution in kind to campaigns. What would Ben Franklin have to say about that?

    However, speech advocating child molesation or violence against individuals and groups
    isn't morally equivalent to legitimate political discourse.

    DA, if speech doesn't impact on the actions of individuals, then you have no problems with huge corporations advertising SUV's and genetically altered food?

    I'm off to the gunshow to buy a couple of cases of "just in case". Back later!
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions