Guest Patriot Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 Here's another gem from the ACLU. At about the same time the ACLU was defending NAMBLA, they were in court in California sueing to prevent the Boy Scouts of America from camping on public lands. So raping children is OK, but we have to protect our public lands from those Boy Scouts. I wonder if Matthew was ever a Boy Scout ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stixx3969 Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 Here's another gem from the ACLU. At about the same time the ACLU was defending NAMBLA, they were in court in California sueing to prevent the Boy Scouts of America from camping on public lands. So raping children is OK, but we have to protect our public lands from those Boy Scouts. I wonder if Matthew was ever a Boy Scout ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Man, you are such an idiot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 Here's another gem from the ACLU. At about the same time the ACLU was defending NAMBLA, they were in court in California sueing to prevent the Boy Scouts of America from camping on public lands. Yeah, because the Boy Scouts of America accepts public funding but still wants to be able to discriminate and keep atheists and homosexuals out. So raping children is OK, For the last time, the ACLU defended NAMBLA's freedom of speech. They did not defend NAMBLA's views, only NAMBLA's right to express them. but we have to protect our public lands from those Boy Scouts. I wonder if Matthew was ever a Boy Scout ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What difference would it make? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 1, 2007 Report Share Posted March 1, 2007 Here's another gem from the ACLU. At about the same time the ACLU was defending NAMBLA, they were in court in California sueing to prevent the Boy Scouts of America from camping on public lands. So raping children is OK, but we have to protect our public lands from those Boy Scouts. I wonder if Matthew was ever a Boy Scout ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We may not know if Matthew was a Boy Scout but we DO know that YOU are a lying A**! BTW, when they were defending NAMBLA were they also defending Catholic priests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 Yeah, because the Boy Scouts of America accepts public funding but still wants to be able to discriminate and keep atheists and homosexuals out.For the last time, the ACLU defended NAMBLA's freedom of speech. They did not defend NAMBLA's views, only NAMBLA's right to express them. What difference would it make? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you angry because you know it is true, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 We may not know if Matthew was a Boy Scout but we DO know that YOU are a lying A**!BTW, when they were defending NAMBLA were they also defending Catholic priests? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When you can't dispute the facts, just call him a liar. So typical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 Yeah, because the Boy Scouts of America accepts public funding but still wants to be able to discriminate and keep atheists and homosexuals out.For the last time, the ACLU defended NAMBLA's freedom of speech. They did not defend NAMBLA's views, only NAMBLA's right to express them. What difference would it make? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> People like "Patriot," as he calls himself, apparently cannot grasp the simple distinction between a legal principle and popularity. It's frightening to know how little so many people understand about the essential underpinnings of a Constitutional democracy based on the rule of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 Yeah, because the Boy Scouts of America accepts public funding but still wants to be able to discriminate and keep atheists and homosexuals out.For the last time, the ACLU defended NAMBLA's freedom of speech. They did not defend NAMBLA's views, only NAMBLA's right to express them. What difference would it make? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But it's ok to defend their right to express their views even if their views are to promote illegal acts? Stick to your push broom Strifey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lazarus Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 You are proving yourself more and more of an idiot by the day, "Patriot." You've made it blatantly clear that you have no clue what the ACLU stands for. It is called the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union. And what are our civil liberties? Freedom of speech, you dolt. They defended NAMBLA's right to say what they wished to say, and they certainly did not defend their actions. In a free society, every orginization, no matter how reprehensible, should get to have the floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve_C Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 We may not know if Matthew was a Boy Scout but we DO know that YOU are a lying A**!BTW, when they were defending NAMBLA were they also defending Catholic priests? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The ACLU would defend Patriot if he wanted to protest NAMBLA. http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/28163prs20070129.html ACLU of Louisiana Lawsuit Forces Repeal of Illegal Natchitoches Permit Laws NATCHITOCHES, LA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana today announced a federal court's decision in its free speech lawsuit on behalf of Christian protester Edwin Crayton, whose rights were violated by Natchitoches' unconstitutional permit requirements. In October of 2006, Crayton peacefully picketed for about 40 minutes on a public sidewalk in Natchitoches with a sign that said: "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Lifestyles And Marriage. Don't Shop There." He was then approached by a Natchitoches police officer who refused to allow him to continue protesting without obtaining a permit. Despite the passage of several weeks after application for a permit, the mayor failed to approve Crayton's request, which resulted in the ACLU of Louisiana lawsuit. "We celebrate this victory for free speech and applaud the wise decision of Natchitoches to repeal these ordinances, which were repugnant to the Constitution to every person in the city and specifically to Mr. Crayton," said Joe Cook, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana. "The City Council knew or should have known better than to put such a law on the books in the first place that effectively stifled free expression in public places." In November of 2006, the court issued a preliminary order that prevented the city from requiring Crayton to obtain a permit before protesting. Subsequently, the city repealed the offending ordinances, and agreed to an order declaring them unconstitutional. Additionally, Crayton was awarded one dollar in nominal damages, which served as a symbolic acknowledgement of the harm done to him. "Mr. Crayton brought this lawsuit to vindicate his right to be heard on a matter of great religious significance to him," said Katie Schwartzmann, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Louisiana. "He was never concerned about recovering money from the city. He just wanted the unconstitutional laws off of the books, and for the city to learn that it is unacceptable to interfere with someone's constitutional rights." ACLU cooperating attorney Jane Johnson and Schwartzmann served as counsel for Crayton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Radagast Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 Here's another gem from the ACLU. At about the same time the ACLU was defending NAMBLA, they were in court in California sueing to prevent the Boy Scouts of America from camping on public lands. So raping children is OK, but we have to protect our public lands from those Boy Scouts. I wonder if Matthew was ever a Boy Scout ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gee, Mr. Patriot ... the ACLU has also defended the free speech of the Ku Klux Klan and various other right wing nuts too. That should make you happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Living in Glass Houses Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 It appears the teacher's lawyer (Demetrios Stratis) has represented a person charged with sexual lewdness. Does that disqualify him from advocating his causes? Good Samaritan takes action in Pequannock 911 call, chase lead to lewdness arrest By Sarah N. Lynch Daily Record PEQUANNOCK --"What is your emergency?" the 911 dispatcher asked Donald Harper Tuesday night as Harper clutched a cell phone and the steering wheel of his pickup truck. "I'm chasing somebody ... ," Harper blurted out. "Hold on," the dispatcher responded. It was a conversation the 31-year-old Pequannock resident never expected to have, but there he was chasing a black Pontiac along Route 23. Its driver, Harper told police, had allegedly committed a lewd act. Harper's celI call and pursuit led to the arrest of the man he was chasing. Harper followed the Pontiac onto Route 287 and eventually to Haskell where the driver, Stephen Sofis, 46, was charged by Pequannock police shortly thereafter with lewdness. Not-guilty plea Sofis' lawyer, Demetrios Stratis of Wayne, told a reporter Thursday that his client intends to plead not guilty to the charge. The chase sequence began when Harper and his neighbor Phil Laprezioso were outside their First Street homes around 8 Tuesday night chatting and smoking, when the Pontiac pulled over to the side of their street. It seemed slightly odd when the driver of the car turned off the engine, but kept his headlights on, the two men told a reporter Thursday night. Ironically, the normally broken street light was working, and between the headlights and the street lamp, the men said, it was as "bright as daylight." "We saw him get out of the car," Harper said. "He was fumbling with his shorts and he went out to the bushes. I thought, 'Well, when you gotta go, you gotta go.'" But to the men's surprise, the driver did not just walk over to the bushes. Instead, he appeared to be waiting for someone, Harper said. "He started to look suspicious," Harper said. Shorts dropped The neighbors saw two young girls, possibly in their early teens, walking down Oak Street, which runs perpendicular to First Street. As the girls got closer to the intersection, the man allegedly faced the street and suddenly dropped his shorts. The man also allegedly appeared to be moving his hand in front of his body, Harper said. Laprezioso screamed "Hey!" at the man, who looked back and then and pulled his pants up, according to the men at the scene. The two girls kept walking, and as the man got back into his car, Harper said, it suddenly clicked in his mind that this man needed to be caught. "Phil, call 911!" Harper said before jumping into his pickup truck and heading after the Pontiac. "When (Phil) yelled, it was like it kicked in to go and chase him and stop him," Harper said. "If I didn't chase him and get the license plate number, who knows what would have happened. He could have gotten away and we wouldn't have found his house." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 When you can't dispute the facts, just call him a liar. So typical. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You ARE a liar and have demonstrated it repeateddly on this board, wanker! THAT's a fact you can't dispute with your lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 Are you angry because you know it is true, right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 When you can't dispute the facts, Referring to the ACLU as having a stance that "raping children is OK" might be a fact in your twisted mind, but it isn't here in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 But it's ok to defend their right to express their views even if their views are to promote illegal acts? YES! Everybody has that freedom of expression. That's why freedom of speech exists in this country--popular speech doesn't NEED protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 You are proving yourself more and more of an idiot by the day, "Patriot." You've made it blatantly clear that you have no clue what the ACLU stands for. It is called the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union. And what are our civil liberties? Freedom of speech, you dolt. They defended NAMBLA's right to say what they wished to say, and they certainly did not defend their actions. In a free society, every orginization, no matter how reprehensible, should get to have the floor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "They defended NAMBLA's right to say what they wished to say" ?? Here's a clue: They don't have a "RIGHT" to promote illegal acts against children. BTW, what's your favorite Kool-aid flavor ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 Yeah, because the Boy Scouts of America accepts public funding but still wants to be able to discriminate and keep atheists and homosexuals out.For the last time, the ACLU defended NAMBLA's freedom of speech. They did not defend NAMBLA's views, only NAMBLA's right to express them. What difference would it make? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Promoting the rape of children is not protected speech. This isn't difficult, except for you , apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall.Mo Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 I like to talk about smoking pot. Should I be in jail for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 I like to talk about smoking pot. Should I be in jail for that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Only if you don't share Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 "They defended NAMBLA's right to say what they wished to say" ?? Here's a clue: They don't have a "RIGHT" to promote illegal acts against children. Nope, wrong, try reading the Constitution again. Merely promoting an illegal act is well within civil rights--otherwise you wouldn't have so many people talking about doing illegal drugs so casually with zero consequences. Even on national radio shows, a caller can (and often has) called in and completely casually talked about smoking pot etc. and NOBODY reacts in a negative way. People have the right to talk about/promote illegal acts if they want to. To say anything less is to show pure idiocy and a tremendous lack of knowledge of the Bill of Rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 Promoting the rape of children is not protected speech. LOL! Yes, it is. I defy you to cite the law or part of the Consitution that forbids talking about or promoting illegal acts. Come on, show me what law or part of the Constitution it violates, hotshot...if you can. You are such a fool...I hear on a nearly-daily basis fundamentalist Christians talking about murdering abortion doctors, homosexuals, atheists, etc. Well, guess what, D**bA**? Murder is illegal too. But do you see any of those doctors, homosexuals, atheists etc. suggest something as stupid as how they don't have the right to say those things because murder is illegal? No. And why not? Because we understand what freedom of speech means in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KearnyKard Posted March 4, 2007 Report Share Posted March 4, 2007 I like to talk about smoking pot. Should I be in jail for that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is raping children equal to smoking pot in Mo. ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 People like "Patriot," as he calls himself, apparently cannot grasp the simple distinction between a legal principle and popularity. It's frightening to know how little so many people understand about the essential underpinnings of a Constitutional democracy based on the rule of law. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ha !! I love the rationale of the Loony Left. If you don't agree with their ultra-liberal agenda, then "it's frightening". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Nope, wrong, try reading the Constitution again. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> PatRat could read it 1oo times to no effect, it's pretty obvious he either has no interest in understanding it or chooses to only believe selective parts of it, much like the Bush administration's use of gathered intelligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.