mcarterbrown.com  

General Chat MCB's Coffee House: Pull up a seat, and grab your favorite caffeinated beverage. Non-paintball related chat within.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-27-2006, 07:35 PM   #71 (permalink)
Seasoned Member
 
mike31c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, California

Quote:
then parents who restrict what children see, say do, or hear are going to be facing criminal charges, right?
Wrong. It constitution says the GOVERMENT is restricted to what it can do. NOT your parents.

Quote:
only because that right is a sacred cow of the ACLU
Phelps and his ilk has been protesting far longer then the ACLU was ever interested in him and his "case". What makes you think he's protesting just to get the attention of the ACLU? What got the attention of the ACLU was when the GOVERMENT (not his long dead parents) tried to restrict his actions.

Quote:
"most people have been hunting and know how to handle guns"

maybe you should remember the Vice President and his ability to mistake a lawyer for a bird?


Quote:
In the end, they simply chose which one they WANTED to defend, and which one they decided wasn't as important.
This is no different then ANY group that uses the courts to defend their beliefs. No different then say what the NRA chooses to defend and which one they decided wasn't as important.
mike31c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2006, 08:42 AM   #72 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Christian Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wisconsin

Quote:
This is no different then ANY group that uses the courts to defend their beliefs. No different then say what the NRA chooses to defend and which one they decided wasn't as important.
But the NRA isn't called the American Civil Liberties Union..

Thier name implies that they would defend all civil liberties granted by the constitution, not pick and choose certain ones.

The NRA is called the National Rifle Association, so naturally, they would be presumed to focus on gun related issues.

It's kinda like my beef about reporters adding thier oppinion to the news. I expect that out of political commentators, but not reporters.

It has to do with what words mean, not what people "feel" they should mean.

I think if my parents tried to limit my speech, or censor what I see and do against my will at 32, there would be some legal consecuences, not the least of the charges would be a violation of my rights (not to mention the force required on thier part to actually force me to comply with thier wishes might constitute assault as an adult).

The same could not be said of a child. While my dad was not abusive, if he enforced his will on me like he did when I was a kid, it would be assault. I would garuntee you that my mom would have gone through my drawers in my dresser and stuff if thought I had drugs as a kid. At my age now, that would be an invasion of provacy. Children don't have those rights. Parents make thier children take a bath, sometimes against thier will. Do that to an adult sometime, see what happens.

This particular argument you pose simply does not hold water, I am sorry.


BTW Brewtt, no offence taken, no worries, I actually didn't mean the respect statment to sound directed at you in particular, I was making more of a general statement about respect of people's freedoms including things you may not approve of or like as well as thise you do approve of and like. Sorry it came out that way.

I could have a tall glass o lemonade with ya, but I just don't like any alcoholic beverage I have tasted, and added to that i have a moral issue with consuming it, I don't think it should be illegal, I would consider that a violation of your right. I go all the way to the level of legalizing drugs too, I consider it rediculous that people not harming anyone should be attacked for using drugs.

Last edited by Christian Nelson; 07-28-2006 at 08:52 AM.
Christian Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2006, 09:50 PM   #73 (permalink)
Post Whore
 
Gabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chugiak, AK
Send a message via MSN to Gabe

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azzy
Not the first or the last time the ACLU has helped some scumbag.
Very true. In fact, the UCLA has been supportive of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) though they do not openly publicize it.
__________________
"There's nary a beast that can outrun a greased-up scotsman!" - Willie

"What makes a VM so charming is that you can chop down small trees with it" - Jaan
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2006, 10:52 AM   #74 (permalink)
Seasoned Member
 
mike31c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, California

Quote:
the UCLA has been supportive of NAMBLA
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/prote...s20000831.html

sorry but the whole principle was to defend the constitution. Something a lot of people don't seem to get.
mike31c is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  mcarterbrown.com » General » General Chat

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC