ACLU gets B-Slapped

[Guest Patriot]

The Loony ACLU has lost again. They filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the wiretapping

issue. An Appellate Court ruled against them last month so they appealed to the Supremes. Today

the Supes upheld the Appellate Court. Fortunately, our courts are wising up to this anti-American

bunch of Loony Lefties.

[Guest Keith-Marshall]

The Loony ACLU has lost again. They filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the wiretapping

issue. An Appellate Court ruled against them last month so they appealed to the Supremes. Today

the Supes upheld the Appellate Court. Fortunately, our courts are wising up to this anti-American

bunch of Loony Lefties.

Anti - American? f**k you Mr. McCarthy!

[Guest KEith]

The Loony ACLU has lost again. They filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the wiretapping

issue. An Appellate Court ruled against them last month so they appealed to the Supremes. Today

the Supes upheld the Appellate Court. Fortunately, our courts are wising up to this anti-American

bunch of Loony Lefties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23173388/

Maybe you should watch this and then comment intelligently

[Guest Keith]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23173388/

Maybe you should watch this and then comment intelligently

One more thing. You can rant all day about how you don't like Olbermann which is fine, but there is no changing the facts of the topic.

[Guest Twizzler]

The Loony ACLU has lost again. They filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the wiretapping

issue. An Appellate Court ruled against them last month so they appealed to the Supremes. Today

the Supes upheld the Appellate Court. Fortunately, our courts are wising up to this anti-American

bunch of Loony Lefties.

The Supreme Court did not decide the wiretapping issue. Neither did the lower court. All they said was that the Plaintiffs could not prove they were surveilled, and therefore did not have standing to sue.

This is classic Catch-22. People are secretly surveilled, suspect it and try to sue. They have no proof because the surveillance was done in secret. Therefore they can't sue. The government covers its own tracks, making it impossible for aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. It's a potential nightmare, and if you cared about freedom you wouldn't be cheering this.

There should be a remedy for this, with a set of standards to define what should be required for an inspection of records by the courts. The purpose of the inspection would be to decide whether the Plaintiff had sufficient ground for complaint.

Let's hope that in the Obama administration, the president and the Congress and, most important, the American people will demand fairness. In matters of public importance like this one, where we know the telecoms turned over our records, there should be a different standard. Unfortunately, there isn't. So the courts declined to get involved.

That's all that happened. You'd be a much better citizen if you weren't constantly taunting those who disagree with you. The courts did not b-slap the ACLU, any more than it b-slapped the Bush administration in all the cases where it has ruled against it. They ruled according to the current law, no more and no less. The ACLU had a good point. It just wasn't strong enough under the law in this case.

[Guest guest]

Anti - American? f**k you Mr. McCarthy!

Sounds like you got your panties all ruffled there. Sounds like you are ready to move along to another state. Glad to know the Dem party is as messed up as ever.

[Guest Patriot]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23173388/

Maybe you should watch this and then comment intelligently

Keith, you foolish naive boy, haven't I told you many times to stop watching that Loony Left nonsense

on MSNBC. There's only about 10 people that watch MSNBC , doesn't that tell you something??

Fox News, the leading cable news network, (doesn't that tell you something) gives fair and balanced

reporting and they reported the story accurately.

[Guest Educator]

The Supreme Court did not decide the wiretapping issue. Neither did the lower court. All they said was that the Plaintiffs could not prove they were surveilled, and therefore did not have standing to sue.

This is classic Catch-22. People are secretly surveilled, suspect it and try to sue. They have no proof because the surveillance was done in secret. Therefore they can't sue. The government covers its own tracks, making it impossible for aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. It's a potential nightmare, and if you cared about freedom you wouldn't be cheering this.

There should be a remedy for this, with a set of standards to define what should be required for an inspection of records by the courts. The purpose of the inspection would be to decide whether the Plaintiff had sufficient ground for complaint.

Let's hope that in the Obama administration, the president and the Congress and, most important, the American people will demand fairness. In matters of public importance like this one, where we know the telecoms turned over our records, there should be a different standard. Unfortunately, there isn't. So the courts declined to get involved.

That's all that happened. You'd be a much better citizen if you weren't constantly taunting those who disagree with you. The courts did not b-slap the ACLU, any more than it b-slapped the Bush administration in all the cases where it has ruled against it. They ruled according to the current law, no more and no less. The ACLU had a good point. It just wasn't strong enough under the law in this case.

You're mixing semantics and hair-splitting. The Appelate Court ruled the ACLU did not have a valid

argument. The Supreme Court agreed. The ACLU lost. It had to be embarrassing for the ACLU

lawyers to be told they didn't have a valid case, THEREFORE, they were B-slapped.

[Guest Truth Squad]

Keith, you foolish naive boy, haven't I told you many times to stop watching that Loony Left nonsense

on MSNBC. There's only about 10 people that watch MSNBC , doesn't that tell you something??

Fox News, the leading cable news network, (doesn't that tell you something) gives fair and balanced

reporting and they reported the story accurately.

It tells me that too many Americans can't tell the difference between entertainment and news. It's no surprise. Look at Britney, Paris and Lindsay dominating the newscasts. That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because people demand it.

Look at the junk people buy at newsstands. The only difference with television is that it moves and talks.

I was at a friend's house not long ago. She had Fox on, and complained that they weren't covering anything of substance. "Where's the real news?" she asked. So I flipped to CNN --- not that they're saints --- but they happened to be televising a real discussion on a real issue. It wasn't yelling. Two people were actually discussing an important issue calmly and intelligently --- like they do on PBS. They were taking their time, actually exploring something --- you know, like serious students do in their classes at school. My friend looked at it for a couple of minutes, wasn't entertained, and asked if there was anything else on. I reminded her that she said she wanted to see real news, and then changed the channel.

Fact is, most Americans are politically lazy. You say you want the truth, but you don't; you demand that politicians lie to you, and if they don't, you don't vote for them. You say you want to be informed, but you have a 30-second attention span, and if it doesn't entertain you, you turn it off.

Citizenship is work, and you're not willing to do it. So instead, you come here, post the same inane remarks over and over, congratulate yourself on your own cleverness, and imagine you've said something. I'd laugh at you, except for the fact that you can vote. That makes it not the least bit funny, because when you exercise your right to be stupid, you take me down with you. I'd divorce you, but in a democracy it doesn't work that way. So a few of us come here, write actual thoughts in actual complete sentences, and hope that one day you'll grow up and become a responsible adult and a functioning member of our system of government.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo.]

It tells me that too many Americans can't tell the difference between entertainment and news. It's no surprise. Look at Britney, Paris and Lindsay dominating the newscasts. That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because people demand it.

Look at the junk people buy at newsstands. The only difference with television is that it moves and talks.

I was at a friend's house not long ago. She had Fox on, and complained that they weren't covering anything of substance. "Where's the real news?" she asked. So I flipped to CNN --- not that they're saints --- but they happened to be televising a real discussion on a real issue. It wasn't yelling. Two people were actually discussing an important issue calmly and intelligently --- like they do on PBS. They were taking their time, actually exploring something --- you know, like serious students do in their classes at school. My friend looked at it for a couple of minutes, wasn't entertained, and asked if there was anything else on. I reminded her that she said she wanted to see real news, and then changed the channel.

Fact is, most Americans are politically lazy. You say you want the truth, but you don't; you demand that politicians lie to you, and if they don't, you don't vote for them. You say you want to be informed, but you have a 30-second attention span, and if it doesn't entertain you, you turn it off.

Citizenship is work, and you're not willing to do it. So instead, you come here, post the same inane remarks over and over, congratulate yourself on your own cleverness, and imagine you've said something. I'd laugh at you, except for the fact that you can vote. That makes it not the least bit funny, because when you exercise your right to be stupid, you take me down with you. I'd divorce you, but in a democracy it doesn't work that way. So a few of us come here, write actual thoughts in actual complete sentences, and hope that one day you'll grow up and become a responsible adult and a functioning member of our system of government.

Excellent response Truth Squad.

No doubt they never even bothered to watch the clip even though I followed up by acknowledging that I knew they would not like Olbermann but could not change the facts that the comment was about. I wonder how they feel about O'Rielly's recent lynching comment?

[Guest Guest]

You're mixing semantics and hair-splitting. The Appelate Court ruled the ACLU did not have a valid

argument. The Supreme Court agreed. The ACLU lost. It had to be embarrassing for the ACLU

lawyers to be told they didn't have a valid case, THEREFORE, they were B-slapped.

You see, that's what people like you will never understand. To you, it's all about show. You don't believe in anything important, so you're not willing to take a chance on anything that really matters - and maybe fail.

The ACLU doesn't care that it's going to lose some of the cases it brings. No one who ever accomplished anything important ever did. Every great scientist, every great leader, every great athlete, every great person in any walk of life has failed over and over and over again.

Michael Jordan used to have a commercial that said exactly that. He talked about how many times he had missed the game-winning shot, how in his career he had failed over and over and over. Then he said "That is why I succeed."

When Abraham Lincoln became president, he was a one-term former Congressman who had lost more elections than he had won. You want to talk about being b-slapped: what does Christ on the cross mean to you, if anything? Many people in this society believe in the story literally, but they don't understand what it means.

The ACLU doesn't think about being "embarrassed." They're focused on the important principles that are at the heart of civil liberties.

People like you don't get it. As long as you keep thinking the way you're thinking, you never will.

[Guest Guest]

You're mixing semantics and hair-splitting. The Appelate Court ruled the ACLU did not have a valid

argument.

Lie. The validity of the argument has nothing to do with whether one has enough substantiation to sue. Knucklehead.

[Guest Educator]

It tells me that too many Americans can't tell the difference between entertainment and news. It's no surprise. Look at Britney, Paris and Lindsay dominating the newscasts. That doesn't happen by accident. It happens because people demand it.

Look at the junk people buy at newsstands. The only difference with television is that it moves and talks.

I was at a friend's house not long ago. She had Fox on, and complained that they weren't covering anything of substance. "Where's the real news?" she asked. So I flipped to CNN --- not that they're saints --- but they happened to be televising a real discussion on a real issue. It wasn't yelling. Two people were actually discussing an important issue calmly and intelligently --- like they do on PBS. They were taking their time, actually exploring something --- you know, like serious students do in their classes at school. My friend looked at it for a couple of minutes, wasn't entertained, and asked if there was anything else on. I reminded her that she said she wanted to see real news, and then changed the channel.

Fact is, most Americans are politically lazy. You say you want the truth, but you don't; you demand that politicians lie to you, and if they don't, you don't vote for them. You say you want to be informed, but you have a 30-second attention span, and if it doesn't entertain you, you turn it off.

Citizenship is work, and you're not willing to do it. So instead, you come here, post the same inane remarks over and over, congratulate yourself on your own cleverness, and imagine you've said something. I'd laugh at you, except for the fact that you can vote. That makes it not the least bit funny, because when you exercise your right to be stupid, you take me down with you. I'd divorce you, but in a democracy it doesn't work that way. So a few of us come here, write actual thoughts in actual complete sentences, and hope that one day you'll grow up and become a responsible adult and a functioning member of our system of government.

What in the world ......??? Are you high ???

[Bryan]

The Supreme Court did not decide the wiretapping issue. Neither did the lower court. All they said was that the Plaintiffs could not prove they were surveilled, and therefore did not have standing to sue.

This is classic Catch-22. People are secretly surveilled, suspect it and try to sue. They have no proof because the surveillance was done in secret. Therefore they can't sue. The government covers its own tracks, making it impossible for aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. It's a potential nightmare, and if you cared about freedom you wouldn't be cheering this.

There should be a remedy for this, with a set of standards to define what should be required for an inspection of records by the courts. The purpose of the inspection would be to decide whether the Plaintiff had sufficient ground for complaint.

What a great idea. This way, terrorists or terrorist proxies can sue in court to see whether or not they are being monitored. And the courts would be responsible for making their case for them. And the taxpayers will pay for it.

Welcome to the Constitution as suicide pact.

Let's hope that in the Obama administration, the president and the Congress and, most important, the American people will demand fairness. In matters of public importance like this one, where we know the telecoms turned over our records, there should be a different standard. Unfortunately, there isn't. So the courts declined to get involved.

We need more adequate protections for terrorists. Vote Obama.

That's all that happened. You'd be a much better citizen if you weren't constantly taunting those who disagree with you. The courts did not b-slap the ACLU, any more than it b-slapped the Bush administration in all the cases where it has ruled against it. They ruled according to the current law, no more and no less. The ACLU had a good point. It just wasn't strong enough under the law in this case.

Depends on the judge. They were probably hoping to get some loony leftist judge who would ignore the problem of standing.

[Guest Twizzler]

What in the world ......??? Are you high ???

If you are an educator, as you seem to be claiming you are, what would you say if a student responded to something like that? If you're any kind of an educator at all, you'd either send the paper back with an invitation to think and work on it, or you'd flunk the paper.

Open your mind, think, and then if you have something constructive to add, do it.

[Guest Truth Squad]

What a great idea. This way, terrorists or terrorist proxies can sue in court to see whether or not they are being monitored. And the courts would be responsible for making their case for them. And the taxpayers will pay for it.

Welcome to the Constitution as suicide pact.

Welcome to another installment of Bryan's fantasy world. Yeah, bin Laden is going to be racing into federal court tomorrow to have his activities litigated.

Uh-huh.

[Guest Guest]

What in the world ......??? Are you high ???

I hope your subject's not English, "Educator".

[Guest Educator]

If you are an educator, as you seem to be claiming you are, what would you say if a student responded to something like that? If you're any kind of an educator at all, you'd either send the paper back with an invitation to think and work on it, or you'd flunk the paper.

Open your mind, think, and then if you have something constructive to add, do it.

What in the world .....??? Are you high ???

[Guest Guest]

What in the world .....??? Are you high ???

Another buffoon wasting bandwidth.

[Bryan]

Welcome to another installment of Bryan's fantasy world. Yeah, bin Laden is going to be racing into federal court tomorrow to have his activities litigated.

Uh-huh.

He'll just send his lawyer.

[Guest Truth Squad]

He'll just send his lawyer.

To talk about what? A personal appearance in federal court in Manhattan isn't his only concern.

[Guest Keith]

He'll just send his lawyer.

No doubt that the Carlisle Group would be happy to furnish one.

[Guest Guest]

He'll just send his lawyer.

What color is the sky in your world?

[Bryan]

To talk about what? A personal appearance in federal court in Manhattan isn't his only concern.

To talk about how Bush can't listen in on his phone conversations without a warrant when his calls are routed through the U.S., of course.

[Guest Truth Squad]

To talk about how Bush can't listen in on his phone conversations without a warrant when his calls are routed through the U.S., of course.

As we keep telling you, Bryan, you don't understand the law. The only way for him to do that is to prove he has standing. Apparently you didn't read the Supreme Court opinion that prompted this topic.

How is he going to prove standing?