Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If you are a republican or a conservative and you don't hate the ACLU, then you are not really a conservative or a republican.<< So sayeth the king!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy >>They want a godless, socialist, secular nation that is going to lay down and let the terrorists win<< This is what they want. All you have to do is look at who they sue and what issues they always go after. Can you tell me a time the ACLU has ever supported any pro active anti terror measures? Or when the ACLU has sued a Muslim or when the ACLU has fought to let a Christian have free expression of religion?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy LOL..... I know, it seems like Dejavu. Nice picture, that's how I feel today.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>when the ACLU has fought to let a Christian have free expression of religion?<< <a href="http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141" target="_blank">http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousL iberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Thank you K2man. I will now find links that show Saddam helping his fellow man once in a blue moon.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Oh, brother. You ask for evidence, I provide it. More than you did for your "Torture is why we won WWII" theory.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Fine, the ACLU out of thousands of cases have a few token cases that defend the " other side ". But is that really going to fool a smart guy like you into thinking they are not out to advance their leftist , socialist, agenda? I won't bother linking the THOUSANDS of cases the ACLU has brought agaionst Christians and the effort for us to fight terrorism. The ACLU wants Amsterdam here in America. Is that what you want also?? If so, keep defending them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You keep talking about protecting us from terrorism, but you make no mention of protecting us from fascism. I think both are a concern.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'm not worried about them because they aren't the ones that can destroy what this country set out to show the world.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It was Dabob who brought up that hero to all liberals Roger Baldwin of the ACLU.> I didn't bring him up for any reason but to correct you about who founded the organization. Still waiting for you to diss that commie pinko Helen Keller, too. <If you are a republican or a conservative and you don't hate the ACLU, then you are not really a conservative or a republican.> Actually, there are a lot of Republicans of the libertarian stripe who support the ACLU wholeheartedly. But as Tom said, "Evidence is unimportant to those who know the truth, 2oony."
Originally Posted By cmpaley Are facists people who don't like faces or only like certain kinds of faces?
Originally Posted By ElKay Talk about facism, didn't Bush say that he'd consider using the military to be the lead in disasters? FEMA in the past 30 years have done a fairly decent job during hundreds of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornados, etc. Funny thing is everything went to hell in this Admin. and their idealogical theology that government is the root of all problems. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Bush is a man with so little experience and rational thought, that he would immediately latch on to the latest example before his eyes, that he can't imagine the ramifications of his decisions. Bush sees that the military can send helicopters to rescue people, so let's have them be in charge of all disasters from now on. Hey, we have a disfunctional mail service, let's have the military deliver the mail. There's a problem in the health care industry. Let's let Hawkeye and Trapper John and the rest of the M*A*S*H crew take care of everyone's health. Heck, I (Bush) have excellent care provided by the Navy, let's everyone go to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Oops, can't do that, I just ordered it shut down. The over reliance on the military in addition to close ties in supporting industry (ie: Haliburton) is a textbook example of facism.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That includes most of the Clinton years, when we went from deficit to surplus.> Because we got a Republican congress. Do I need to pull the quotes where President Clinton argued against balancing the budget? <I also notice that they don't give nearly as much detail, or even claim to be constant dollar numbers.> If you read the link carefully, they do state that all dollars are adjusted. <It's not a conclusion based on what they hoped to find, probably cherry-picking the years and measurements that best fit their conclusion; it's laying out the actual numbers year by year by year.> That's what the Cato report did.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When we got a GOP president paired with a GOP congress, the deficits went through the roof.> The deficits have not gone through the roof. When stated as a percentage of the GDP, they're fairly low.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That includes most of the Clinton years, when we went from deficit to surplus.>> <Because we got a Republican congress. Do I need to pull the quotes where President Clinton argued against balancing the budget?> You could, but that would be cheap, because mostly that was early in the process, arguing against some of the more draconian specific cuts the congress wanted. But - once again - if you look at the budgets that Clinton proposed and the ones that congress eventually enacted, they are NOT that different. I notice you've never disputed this. Yet the GOP continues to try to claim all the credit for getting the budget balanced. What a crock. And - once again - when we got a GOP congress AND a GOP president, the deficits started rising again. <<I also notice that they don't give nearly as much detail, or even claim to be constant dollar numbers.>> <If you read the link carefully, they do state that all dollars are adjusted.> It wasn't well stated, and there are a couple of places where I'm not even sure it's true. <<It's not a conclusion based on what they hoped to find, probably cherry-picking the years and measurements that best fit their conclusion; it's laying out the actual numbers year by year by year.>> <That's what the Cato report did.> No, that's what my link did. The Cato report did what I referred to in the top part of my paragraph.
