Jump to content

More ACLU outrages


Guest Patriot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Patriot

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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

Man, you are such an idiot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

What difference would it make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
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 ?

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
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?

Are you angry because you know it is true, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
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?

When you can't dispute the facts, just call him a liar. So typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
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?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lazarus

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve_C
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?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Radagast
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 ?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Living in Glass Houses

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
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.

"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 ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
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?

Promoting the rape of children is not protected speech. This isn't difficult, except for you , apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :D

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
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.

Ha !! I love the rationale of the Loony Left. If you don't agree with their ultra-liberal agenda, then "it's frightening".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Nope, wrong, try reading the Constitution again.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...