Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Don't you ever get tired of demonstrating to everyone that you are an absolute idiot and laughingstock?>> I'm not the one defending child molesters or communists in the ACLU. Last time I checked the idiots were defending them ,while my side is winning elections and doing what we can to keep our kids safe from the sick perverts who just want to show their " love " for little boys. But nice try Shooba. It's this kind of debate I come to expect from the other side when they have nothing to say.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Here are some book reviews from people who read the ACLU vs. America. If anything they give a good education to people who don't understand what the ACLU is. ---- In the opening chapter of THE ACLU VS AMERICA: EXPOSING THE AGENDA TO REDIFINE MORAL VALUES, authors Alan Sears and Craig Osten, both attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund, expose the pro-communist, anti-American roots of the apostate organization. Sears and Osten present internal memos from the ACLU that clearly delineate its true agenda. In 1976, a federal law was passed called the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act. The intention of this Act was to insure the poor would always have access to legal representation in civil rights cases. In its deliberations, the Senate record shows, "in many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer". But, as all good attorney's do, the ACLU found a loophole; a way to abuse the law in 42 United States Code Section 1988 in which the law has for many years now, been used to secure fees in esoteric battles over the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The statute gives a court, at its discretion, the ability to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in civil rights cases. What this all amounts to is, you, the taxpayer, are footing the bill for the ACLU to travel the country in search of ridiculous lawsuits which are counter to the principles on which our nation was founded. Kentucky taxpayers spent $121,500 to pay the ACLU for its legal action against a Ten Commandments monument outside the Kentucky capital. Taxpayers in a Tennessee county paid the ACLU $50,000 for the same "offense". In Cincinnati, Ohio, taxpayers paid out over $46,000 to the ACLU in their lawsuit against a city ordinance. In their lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America, the ACLU collected over $790,000 of taxpayer money. Taxpayers dolled out another $106,000 to the ACLU in the Loudoun Virginia Library Case. The list of cases is endless and the future looks only to get worse. The author's chronicle countless cases where the ACLU trampled our fundamental rights and liberties with their self-serving and hypocritical positions. You will discover how by twisting of legal standards in order to reshape American social structure to fit the militant, perverted, and atheistic philosophy of its radical members. The ACLU's long held secretive agenda of undermining all that Americans hold dear, such as marriage, faith, family, border security, etc., is brought to light in this book. The future of our nation is up to us, dear reader. Do you think the First Amendment should be changed from "freedom of religion" to "freedom FROM religion"? Would you like to see child pornography legalized and readily available? Do you think military Chaplains should be done away with? Are you willing to accept international law over our own American Constitution? If any of this appalls you, then take a stand, and you can start by reading this valuable book. Monty Rainey
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'm not the one defending child molesters or communists in the ACLU.>> I'm not either Beau. I have no use for communists or child molesters, and I doubt many in the ACLU do either. You love to pick out the few cases that fit your viewpoint and then cram them down everyone's throat. Time and again, these cases seem to involve gay people. You've got a real hang-up there my man, whether you admit it or not. Why should a gay man NOT be a Scout Leader? I supervise a gay man and a gay woman where I work. Both of these people are extremely hard working and moral people; people that I am proud to say I know. Why should they not be allowed to be leaders of a group like the Boy Scouts? I can guarantee you they have absolutely no interest in children or in molesting anyone. <<Speaking of the Boy Scouts. They have a proven track record of helping boys learn how to be resposible men. Millions of men today who are great husbands, community leaders, business owners, great Americans are who they are because of the Boy Scouts.>> I was in the Boy Scouts. My crowning achievement was learning how to make a race car out of a block of wood, two axels and four plastic tires. Somehow I doubt the Pinewood Derby contributed much to me being a successful husband, father, or manager at work. The Pinewood Derby was cool though.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy One more review that gives an intersting opinon of the ACLU. --- Make no mistake, the ACLU was founded in the 1920's by anarchists, free-love advocates, Marxists, and outright Communists. Read in this book the words of the founders themselves: Founder Roger Baldwin said in his thirtieth anniversary Harvard University classbook: "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(p. 13). Baldwin's mentor and co-founder was Emma Goldman, or "Red Emma," as she was called-- an infamous anarchist, radical, and promoter of "free-love", who eventually got deported to Russia. Baldwin also counted Margaret Sanger among his friends, the "eugenicist" and founder of Planned Parenthood who believed inferior races should be reduced or eliminated through abortion and birth control. The ACLU--Planned Parenthood link is well documented. Both organizations work together to strike down any legal restrictions on abortion. Unrestricted abortion on demand is only one of the policies the ACLU seeks to impose through the courts. They also actively work to destroy marriage, the Boy Scouts, parental rights to raise their children, Christmas, religious faith, religious symbols, American sovereignty, and the Constitution itself. What!? That sounds too far fetched to believe, you say. Well, get the book and read the evidence. There is a chapter on each of these topics.
Originally Posted By idleHands If you're speaking about me, I believed I made myself quite clear in earlier posts. Quit putting works in my mouth! I stated that I defended NAMBLA's right to exist as an organization, as I would defend the rights of the Nazi party and the Ku Klux Klan to exist, and homophobic "churches" like the one Fred Phelps runs in Kansas. I did not defend nor "make excuses" for men wanting to have sex with "little boys." I consider sex with kids under the age of 12 taboo, which is by definiton, pedophilia. Even though many (not most) NAMBLA members would disagree with me, this is one of the infamous "talking points" that I find morally reprehensible. I previously stated that I agree with SOME of the points of their tenets, such as having voluntary sex with older minors in their mid to late teens. But I disagreed with MANY of the other ones, including the ones which referenced boys less than 12 years of age. The sex with young males I do NOT approve of is from those "sick predators" who by definition often coerce or even kidnap and threaten these young boys, forcing them into sexual relations they do not wish to have. But most NAMBLA members, Beau, whether or not you wish to accept it, do NOT kidnap nor abduct the young men they are attracted to. Nor do they force these boys and young men into sexual relations that they neither desire nor seek out. That is not what most members believe is appropriate, that is not what they promote, that is not what they practice. Yes, very few members do engage in behaviors of which you're describing. And in no way have I ever advocated such unethical behavior, on this board or elsewhere. You've twisted my words into something other than I had described, in order to further your own "liberals are mentally ill to the point they are dangerous if left unchecked" agenda. What a surprise. When it comes to NAMBLA, Beau, you don't know the first thing about it. Yes, the stuff about sex with boys under the age of 12 greatly disturbs me, as it would most intelligent adults. And as I stated previously, most NAMBLA advocates are not comfortable with crossing that "under the age of 12" line. But what also disturbs me is this arbitrarily drawn dividing line telling our older teenaged youth that sex before the age of 18, especially with an adult, is dangerous and morally wrong. Poppycock. Girls start menstruating around 12. And why is that? To get the baby making machine geared up. If Mother Nature had intended for the sex thing to be put on ice until 18, then She wouldn't have made hetero men so crazy in the brain when watching cheerleaders in competition. And the menstrual thing would definitely be starting a lot later. Like 18. Truth is, kids are far more mature now, and can deal with issues such as sex, by the time they're old enough to drive the family car. If they're old enough to legally drive, then they're old enough to run out of gas and jump in the backseat for legal backseat sports. I'm talking about 16 and 17 year olds, older mature teens. I'm not talking about 10 and 11 year olds. That's a HUGE difference in age and maturity. That's why for under 12 it's called "pedophilia" from the Latin "pedo" (as in pediatrics) which means young child. And I'm totally against that. Too bad you were too busy slamming me for being a "lib" to figure what I actually believed in. Got it now? Finally? GOOD!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In the opening chapter of THE ACLU VS AMERICA: EXPOSING THE AGENDA TO REDIFINE MORAL VALUES, authors Alan Sears and Craig Osten, both attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund, expose the pro-communist, anti-American roots of the apostate organization. Sears and Osten present internal memos from the ACLU that clearly delineate its true agenda.>> You don't get it do you Beau? A book like that means nothing. It is obviously biased from the start, setting out to prove how bad the ACLU is. As I pointed out before, I'm sure the Socialist Workers Party could write a great book 'proving' that capitalism is the world's greatest evil. I wouldn't believe them either. Do you know what an UNBIASED SOURCE is Beau? Let me clue you in -- it isn’t Rush or Hannity. This is perhaps going off on a tangent, but I don't really care. The thing that REALLY bugs me about you Uber-Conservatives is that you feel any group that disagrees with you needs to be eliminated. I'm fine with all you right-wing-wackos having your little clubs. I would never suggest that they be disbanded or censored. I may think their point of view is totally wrong, but I would never challenge their right to exist. Are you neo-con wack-jobs so insecure in your position that you feel you need to ELIMINATE anyone who thinks differently? If so, that is really sad. I'll let anyone have their say and leave it to the American people as to whether they are right or wrong. In 2000 and 2004 you guys stole one election and won the other by a hair. We'll see how the 2006 elections look. It should be interesting.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy idlehands, it's late, I am tired but I would I wish I could give you a 24/7 cable news show so you could state your opinons. You would have the ACLU shut down in no time and conservatives would win even more seats in congress. The public is starting to understand what the ACLU is, who their founders were, what their agenda is, and how they get paid to sue helpless organizations who have had a 10 commandment monument sitting on it's property for the last 50 years. If you want a socialist, secular, godless America where terrorists go unchecked and wife beaters are heros.... keep suporting the losers at the ACLU. Anyone with kids who supports the ACLU should be ashamed by the way. The ACLU is not lookng out for your kids.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The public is starting to understand what the ACLU is, who their founders were, what their agenda is, and how they get paid to sue helpless organizations who have had a 10 commandment monument sitting on it's property for the last 50 years.>> It doesn't make me much difference Beau. That was a long time ago, and the people involved today do not necessarily share the same feelings. If I remember correctly, Eugene Debbs and Margaret Sanger both bordered on Socialist beliefs. Does that mean that anyone involved today with Unions or Planned Parenthood is a Socialist? I doubt it. <<Anyone with kids who supports the ACLU should be ashamed by the way. The ACLU is not lookng out for your kids.>> I'm not too worried. My daughter has never given us any worries when it comes to drugs, alcohol or sex. She went through High School with all grades being straight A's except for one A-. She is graduating from a highly ranked college in about three weeks, and she has gone through her four years with all straight A's except for one B+. Her political views are so far to the left that I personally would consider her a socialist. But somehow, in spite of her liberal parents and her REALLY liberal personal views, she has a record of achievement and success that any neo-con parent would envy. I frankly don’t think a person’s political outlook has jack-squat to do with their personal success.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe 31--Not 100% obviously but maybe 90% through body language mostly, gesticulations, etc. It's like I can tell where someone is from with their accent. Disney is a prime example for both preference and where a person is from dialect> especially countries. I have MANY blind spots but a couple gifts.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I'm still tripping out that NAMBLA is being defended. idlehands, thank you for your honest opinion on this. Here is part of a piece written about NAMBLA and the fact that they teach their members how to rape kids and get away with it. A group like this has no right to exist in my opinion beause they are responsible for activity that harms children. At some point you need to draw the line if you are a responsible person who cares about our children. You sure the hell don't defend these creeps like the ACLU decided to do... for free, while at the same time you are trying to crush the boy scouts. ---- However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering. "According to lawyers familiar with [NAMBLA's] website," O'Reilly explained, "it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught." NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them." Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships." "Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed." "In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."
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 RoadTrip <<Just curious Road Trip, are you in favor of child porn or the right of someone to have child porn?>> Of course not, and it is disgusting that you would even ask such a thing. I am asking for your post (and my reply) to be redlined.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Truth is, kids are far more mature now, and can deal with issues such as sex, by the time they're old enough to drive the family car. If they're old enough to legally drive, then they're old enough to run out of gas and jump in the backseat for legal backseat sports.> TOTALLY disagree with this. It's far too general a statement. And at 16, I don't think kids are any more mature than they were 50 years ago. And back in the good old days, 16 year old girls weren't getting pregnant out of wedlock and there weren't child predators. <<--[sarcasm]
Originally Posted By Beaumandy 16 year olds having sex with 18 year olds is one thing. Those were good times for me. 40 year old men wanting to have sex with little boys is something totally different and I can't believe I have to even argue this. YOu simply DON'T defend NAMBLA, you shut them down. I have an 8 year old son. What is better for him? Boy Scouts or NAMBLA. Give me a freaking break people. Does being gay and getting your " respect " mean so much to some that they would actually pick NAMBLA over the boy scouts because the boy scouts don't allow gay scout leaders? So lets throw in with the child rapists? My question to RoadTrip or anyone else is if they thinks child porn is OK? The ACLU defends child porn all the time. But the ACLU is doing great things for America.... rigghhhttt... Off to the new dispatch center I am working on that is spending a lot of tax dollars so people can be safe. Have a great day everyone.
Originally Posted By ecdc I thought this topic was about the ACLU. Why all the obsession with NAMBLA? It was one case out of literally thousands the ACLU took. As has already been pointed out, Beau is cramming it down everyone's throats because it's his only example. I guess Beau thinks we should all judge Bush on nominating Harriet Meiers for the Supreme Court. Though, in his case, we have plenty of other reasons to be concerned. I do want to thank you, however, Beau. Because of this topic, I'm strongly considering donating to the ACLU and becoming a card-carrying member.
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 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>
