The ACLU is Protecting You, Dumbass (2036 hits)
Category: NoneLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 0.92 on 139 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-01-03 15:24:09 EST
This is a response to Stabkill's latest masterpiece: http://www.ubersite.com/m/81777 I posted this in a reply, but I thought that since I've seen about all the ACLU bashing I can fucking stand on this website, I'd chimb in with my 2 cents in a post...
Here's my opinion on the ACLU in a nutshell (excuse the rampling):
In a lot of cases, the ACLU is about the only organization that stands up against the erosion of our civil liberties and prevents this country from becoming just another police state. I personally don't give a fuck what you or anyone else thinks of me for respecting the ACLU, but it's the fucking truth.
Are there a lot of times when they choose their battles unwisely? Of course. I think a lot of the things they take a stand against soils their name and destroys their credability in the eyes of some, but that doesn't mean that when they get it right that their point should simply be disregarded because they are the ACLU. That would be like saying that because Einstein didn't get onboard with the big bang theory or quantum mechanics right away that we should disregard his Special and General theories of Relativity outright. I'm not saying the ACLU are a bunch of Einsteins, but I think we all make mistakes, even if we're geniuses. But if you're vigilant in your persuit of Truth, and you at least ATTEMPT to peer through the muck and mire, you'll realise that the ACLU are on the right side more times than not in terms of preventing lawmakers from creating a slippery slope ripe for the degradation of the fundamental freedoms we 'SUPPOSEDLY' have in this country. (It's funny to me that to be as 'free' as we are, we're constantly having to defend our freedoms from people who are trying to take them away, AKA rampant and unchecked politicians.)
In that letter you linked to, the ACLU are simply pointing out the flaws in the legislation being put forth. They are not saying that it's a bad idea to secure the borders. They are saying that the specific language of that specific bill would allow for widespread undesirable ramifications such as the INDEFINITE DETAINMENT OF FOREIGN PEOPLE WITHOUT A HEARING!
I wish I could underline that last sentence and put it in BOLD type, because I think it's very important you take a look at what you THINK you're battling against.
All you seem to hear is the part where your brain is saying: "but they're trying to defend Mexicans from coming in a taking our jobs". That's not what they're saying. If anything, it's the RICH REPUBLICANS who want to be able to exploit that cheap labor.
Just like the Republicans tried to squeeze the Alaskan oil drilling provision in with their last defense spending bill, politicians will always try some sneaky tactic to push their agenda.
I know it must be hard for you to realize that even criminals need advocation sometimes, but that's why we have court appointed defense attourneys. That's why we have a justice system wherein people are tried by a jury of their peers. That's why we don't just allow the fucking president of the United States to throw anyone he wants in jail indefinitely...oh. Oops. I guess we've already done that!
IT'S CALLED THE FUCKING PARTIOT ACT!
The Patriot Act is the Fourth fucking Reich, and it's a reality. And it's there because of people who either take the time to read it or just didn't give a fuck about the rights of civilians.
There are times when we need people to stand up and say "HANG ON A FUCKING MINUTE" and draw attention to some of the hidden ramifications of what, on the surface, might seem like a good idea.
The bottom line is this: our Declaration of Independance was written under the basic assertions of human rights and liberties, and fully subscribing to the precept that all men are created equal, and that no law should be imposed upon a people with the fair representation of the people. Essentially we were pissed at King George for the taxes he was imposing on us without our say. We didn't think it was right that a continent should be ruled by an island, and we were quite right. We didn't believe in a system of government in which the voice of the aristocracy was held above that of the common man, and we were quite right.
We somehow have gotten away from that. Since 9/11 we've been so eager to give up our civil liberties from some empty promise of security, it's insane. When you've got a president who chooses to unilaterally BYPASS THE FUCKING COURTS to wiretap his own citizens, you're treading on fucking dangerous ground no matter which way you slice it. Then, you have no accountability and you have no oversight. Checks and balances are out the window with the kitchen sink. At that point, the whole system has gone cuckoo, because you don't have to be guilty in a court of law, you only have to be guilty in the mind of George W. Bush.
Or should I say... King George?
User Reviews
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2006-01-06 02:51:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
full page ad in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago..."The World Can't Wait"
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-06 01:34:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Williamson,
Thank you for helping me *try* to be the voice of reason here, but I just don't think people like Stabkill, Domenad, Indoninja, and a host of others on this site understand how rights are lost.
I really don't think they've ever truly considered the long-term ramifications of that. Democracy and freedom are a tenuous balancing act. Going too far in either direction, left or right, will only destroy everything our fathers and grandfathers bled and died for.
Like everything, politics is a circle. One has to be mindful of those that would compromise the rights and laws of the people under the protective umbrella of 'security'. Using fear as a mechanism of public control is as old as society itself, and the ultimate goal of a democracy is to have a government that is transparent and accountable unto its people.
We've lost that.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-01-06 01:01:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:21:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
You don't want to see your country destroyed? It will be destroyed by liberals who are the pussies who protect people that want to kill us.
A wiretap on someone with ties to muslim extremists will destroy our nation? No, my friend... the people who want the terrorists to know our tactics so they can avoid them the next time is the true enemy.
=-=--==-=-=--==-=-=-==-==-=-=
Anybody who thinks wiretapping is fundamentally wrong is a dolt. But this is about how the wiretapping comes about.
But to allow wiretapping without a warrant... that's in direct opposition to your constitution which as Lincoln once said is the foundation of your nation both in war and peace and no leader should ever break the constitution lest he destroy the very nation he seeks to defend.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the US president is spying on you because there has been another organisation set up for a long time. Eschelon.
Basicallly it was thought that the US government spying on it's own citizens was against the law, but their is no law against wiretapping other nations. So the USA, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand all got together and began wiretapping eachother and sharing the information. As they are all spying on other countries no laws are broken and they end up with information from 5 nations.
It's win-win! Except of course for people who are spied on without a warrant against them.
Stabkill, if there is enough reason to tap an enemy of the US, a judge will allow it. However, give the President that same power and it's no longer about enemies of the state; it's enemies of the government. People who are opposed to the Republicans will be spied on. We will have political prisoners.
But as long as they're liberals, who cares, hey? They don't have a right to exercise freedom of speech or thought because they're dirty, stinking liberals, hey? Anyone who questions the wisdom of the President is obviously a traitor and should be spied on.
After all; one people, one nation, one fuhrer.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-01-05 04:39:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Absolutely.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-01-04 19:43:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:58:13 (#)
Ranking: -2
Of course, I don't agree with attacking civilian sites like WTC, but this is the nature of the bedfellows we make when we continue to ignore alternative technologies in favor of the internal combustion engine.
----------------------------
Bad ETS. Just when we were having a reasonable discussion.
If we had 3x the nuclear power plants, and everyone drove hybrid cars it still would have happened.
As long as there is an israel and it is the only real democracy in the middle east, they will hate us.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Democracy doesn't mean shit.
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2006-01-04 17:19:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Just like the Republicans tried to squeeze the Alaskan oil drilling provision in with their last defense spending bill, politicians will always try some sneaky tactic to push their agenda. "
i heard about this! a senator from alaska stuck this bill on the end of some huge, must-pass defense bill. it's scumbags like him that make me think that, sometimes, it's okay to kill people.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 16:00:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
In that case, here: http://www.ubersite.com/m/81877
You can -2 it there too.
It's not my fault if you won't at least attempt.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:58:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Of course, I don't agree with attacking civilian sites like WTC, but this is the nature of the bedfellows we make when we continue to ignore alternative technologies in favor of the internal combustion engine.
----------------------------
Bad ETS. Just when we were having a reasonable discussion.
If we had 3x the nuclear power plants, and everyone drove hybrid cars it still would have happened.
As long as there is an israel and it is the only real democracy in the middle east, they will hate us.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:46:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Do you really not see that as a small leap? If you precieve hostility from ten commandments on the wall can't you get that from someone wearing a cross? a burqua?
--------------
That depends on whether it's being worn by an official who is deciding my fate in a criminal or civil proceeding.
Endorsement of religion by a body that's supposed to be arbitrary and funded by taxes is a bad thing.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:43:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here is a speech by Osama Bin Laden:
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:42:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You moron, Muslims are NOT going to fucking destroy our nation. WE WILL.
The only reason they might try is for the EXACT SAME political reasons we're in Iraq right now. It's all about the oil, son. That's it.
You think exposing the truth about the illegal activities of our leaders is a bad thing? You're severely skewed, buddy. They've got you bad. Essentially what you're saying is, "It doesn't matter what's behind the curtain so long as everything appears to be running correctly."
That's the very attitude that got us attacked in the first place. Why do you think Osama Bin Laden attacked us? You think he just woke up one day and threw a couple darts at a map and they just happened to land in New York and Washington? There is a lot more going on there than we'll know about in our lifetime.
I see idiots every day with "Support the Troops" magnets on the back of their gigantic, gas-guzzling SUVs and I want to fucking cry.
We really are a nation of idiots. We're so eager to be molded. We're so eager to take a shortcut to thinking. But the last thing we want to give up is a little comfort to make our world a better place.
You reap what you sow, and in terms of foreign policy, we got exactly what we deserved on 9/11.
Of course, I don't agree with attacking civilian sites like WTC, but this is the nature of the bedfellows we make when we continue to ignore alternative technologies in favor of the internal combustion engine.
This is what makes the world go round. In antiquity, people fought over spices and trade routes and hunting and fishing grounds. Now we're more interested in what's underground.
This whole LIE that is 'terrorism' is thrown at you everyday by Fox News and the Republican party because they want to keep people scared. When people are scared, they tend to give that away which is most dear to them in the interest of security - a.k.a their rights.
I'm not giving up my rights over the threat of terrorism. At that point, I have to question what it is we're even trying to preserve anymore.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:27:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:13:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
The ten commandments on a courthouse lawn constitutes a blatant endorsement of a religious institution and, like I've said before, creates an atmosphere of inequality (even if it is only perceived) in the mind of someone who does not share the Judeo-Christian belief system.
----------------------
Okay people should be protected from a precieved atmoshpere of inequality? I have a huge problem with this. You don't see a short leap from there to what france did with banning personal religious jewelery in schools and public jobs?
I don't really think it will happen, but at this rate I see that as a bigger threat to freedom of religion than everyone being forced into christianity (as in I think it is more likely to happen, not that it would be worse).
I find it hard to believe that you think it is open and shut and once ten commandments, christmas trees, and menorah's are gone the ACLU will stop. Once you allow a "percieved" atmosphere of hostility to guide your decisions you are going to have a lot of people percieving problems with everything.
Do you really not see that as a small leap? If you precieve hostility from ten commandments on the wall can't you get that from someone wearing a cross? a burqua?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:23:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:08:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:02:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
DROP THE PARTY AFFILIATION CRAP YOU CLOSED MINDED LITTLE TWIT.
-------------------------------
I think Bush should be challenged on this. I think it gives too much power to the executive.
I don't expect you to remember a debate by clinton in 2004.
I would expect you to ask yourself some questions as to why this wasn't issue then.
---------------------------
I was talking to Stabkill, not you.
You mean in 1994?
Dude, I was 17 years old. I was thinking about sex, drugs, and rock and roll back then. Besides, Clinton was a FAR better president than this joke we have now. And I say that not as a Democrat or a Republican. (I'm a registered Independant.)
Without seeing a specific article, I couldn't tell you the differences between the two scenarios, but I can tell you this much... There is a major fucking difference between saying you SHOULD have the power to do something and secretly exercising that perceived power, bypassing the laws of your country, and doing it anyway.
As if there weren't enough good reasons to hate Bush already, that level of arrogance takes the fucking cake.
To think he can just bypass the laws that OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN CONGRESS, who are supposedly our direct representatives, put forth for him to follow is an infraction of his responsibilities as our president.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Yea, right.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:21:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You don't want to see your country destroyed? It will be destroyed by liberals who are the pussies who protect people that want to kill us.
A wiretap on someone with ties to muslim extremists will destroy our nation? No, my friend... the people who want the terrorists to know our tactics so they can avoid them the next time is the true enemy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:13:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"That being the case why does does the ACLU see the ten commandments in a public place as a threat, but doesn't care about real limits placed on gun ownership?"
--------------------
I'll tell you why...and it goes back to choosing one's battles wisely...
Placing limits on guns is going to have tangible positive effects, and will be reflected in crime statistics. As long as guns aren't being denied to responsible adults who follow the lawful process, there is no infringement of rights there.
The ten commandments on a courthouse lawn constitutes a blatant endorsement of a religious institution and, like I've said before, creates an atmosphere of inequality (even if it is only perceived) in the mind of someone who does not share the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Again, the argument of historical significance is moot because a courthouse is not a museum. You dont go to the courthouse to learn about the history of the judicial system over the last 5000 years. You go there because you have official business to attend to as a citizen of your district.
Besides, the NRA has got the market cornered on gun advocacy.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:08:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:02:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
DROP THE PARTY AFFILIATION CRAP YOU CLOSED MINDED LITTLE TWIT.
-------------------------------
I think Bush should be challenged on this. I think it gives too much power to the executive.
I don't expect you to remember a debate by clinton in 2004.
I would expect you to ask yourself some questions as to why this wasn't issue then.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:02:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
DROP THE PARTY AFFILIATION CRAP YOU CLOSED MINDED LITTLE TWIT.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 15:02:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:43:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:20:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
The problem is, and this is the reason a lot of these suits seem so 'out there', we've gone so long allowing government and religion to become bedfellows, people forget that's not the way it's supposed to be. They see an entity coming in disrupting the status quo, the way it's always been, but they forget that it probably shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.
-------------------------
Not the way it is supposed to be? It has always been that way. I realize that argument works for slavery, but we had an ammendment to change that.
Your whole argument of checks and balances is thrown out the window when you look at legislating from the bench.
As far as going after Bush, you realize clinton had the same beliefs as far as international espionage. I think it was in a 1994 debate when he went so far as saying when it came to matters of international security he could search peoples house, persons, and...i forget without a warrant.
I will find a link.
Point is if you think the executive shouldn't have that power, you should believe it for all leaders, not just Bush.
------------------------------
No shit!
Where the fuck did I say that was ok for ANY president!?!?!?
Look, people, come off the fucking black/white, conservative/liberal mentality they've created to keep us divided. It's fucking nonsense.
You've labeled me a liberal, and nowhere have I EVER said I was a liberal. I might have some liberal leanings. but I also have some conservative leanings. I would have raised the same sort of rucous had Clinton tried to do the same thing Bush has ALREADY DONE, which, once again, for those that didn't hear it, is:
HE BYPASSED THE COURTS AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE VERY PATRIOT ACT HE CHAMPIONED IN ORDER TO SPY ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, THEN ADMITTED TO BREAKING THE LAW ON NATIONAL TELEVISION AND SAID HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN!
People...that's criminal.
There is no other way to look at it. Whether you believe domestic spying is a good idea or not doesn't matter; THE MAN BROKE THE FUCKING LAW!
At best he is a criminal and an arrogant and unfit president. At worst, he is a power-hungry neo-nazi who thinks he is on some kind of mission from God and wants to test the limits of his power.
Not if I have anything to say about it. And by fucking God, I will scream it 'till I'm blue in the face, because I don't want to see my country destroyed.
That's enough Bush talk. Now I'm getting angry.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:50:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Are you missing that a majority of democrats signed that legislation?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:50:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:34:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
You're sidestepping the point again. I think I've pretty much summed up the anti-christian argument below.
As for the second amendment. No one has ever tried to take away anyone's guns in this country. Never has there been a bill on the floor of Congress that sought to outlaw guns outright. The only thing that people have tried to do is limit the kinds of weapons the public is allowed to have; because of the changing nature of our society, that's a good thing.
I believe in the right to bear arms. I don't feel that right has been infringed upon. Does the Constitution say anything about what kind of guns? No. Does it forbid waiting periods? No. Does it make provisions for convicted felons? No. But it also doesn't say anything about children's rights to bear arms either. If one so wanted to interpret it, they could take the second amendment and argue that a 10 year old has just as much right to bear arms as a 30 year old.
---------------------------------
Nobody has tried to take away freedom of religion either. In fact I could make a very clear argument that the limits put on gun control are much stricter than the "limits" put on religion by displaying the ten commandments.
I realize that is a little bit of apples and oranges, but you have to admit that there are more limits on guns then religion. That being the case why does does the ACLU see the ten commandments in a public place as a threat, but doesn't care about real limits placed on gun ownership?
They DO have an agenda. They aren't for every civil liberty
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:49:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"So if the patriot act is passed, it is law... and once those "rights" are no longer protected by such passed law they no longer are civil liberties we own under the law."
I forgot to respond to this one. The answer here is very simple. That's a bill, not a Constitutional amendment. Even if it were a Constitutional amendment, I have the following answer for you:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is all really simple, Stabkill... You're missing the forest for the trees here.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:45:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://newsbusters.org/node/3298#obvious
Perhaps you'd like to take a few moments to gather yourselves and figure out which of your stories are correct and which stories are politically motivated fabrications.
COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
Reverses 1979 Ruling
The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.
Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.
In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.
The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''
The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:43:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:20:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
The problem is, and this is the reason a lot of these suits seem so 'out there', we've gone so long allowing government and religion to become bedfellows, people forget that's not the way it's supposed to be. They see an entity coming in disrupting the status quo, the way it's always been, but they forget that it probably shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.
-------------------------
Not the way it is supposed to be? It has always been that way. I realize that argument works for slavery, but we had an ammendment to change that.
Your whole argument of checks and balances is thrown out the window when you look at legislating from the bench.
As far as going after Bush, you realize clinton had the same beliefs as far as international espionage. I think it was in a 1994 debate when he went so far as saying when it came to matters of international security he could search peoples house, persons, and...i forget without a warrant.
I will find a link.
Point is if you think the executive shouldn't have that power, you should believe it for all leaders, not just Bush.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:43:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"A smoker has had his "civil liberties" taken away by the government. Where is the ACLU?"
Nowhere in the constitution is the 'right to smoke' outlined.
"A biker has had his "civil liberties" taken away by the government. Where is the ACLU?"
Driving is not a right. It's a priviledge.
"All motorists have had their "civil liberties" taken away by the government. Where is the ACLU?"
See above.
"So if the patriot act is passed, it is law... and once those "rights" are no longer protected by such passed law they no longer are civil liberties we own under the law. Seatbelts, helmets, etc. are the same exact thing. Where is the ACLU?"
Seatbelts are enforced as a condition of the priviledge of driving.
"My guess is in a meeting singing the old soviet national anthem."
Nope, they're out there preserving the same Constitutional rights our forefathers had in mind when they began this country. What you're doing, Stabkill, is the same thing Indo and others are doing here... You're misdirecting anger that should be on the lawmakers who have made these idiotic laws you despise so much onto an organization that is trying to protect your rights.
You're an ungrateful shit.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:34:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:19:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
The name annoys me too.
American Civil Liberties Union.
Time and time again they take up fights, which to me, seem petty and vindictave (and often anti christian) with the argument they have to vigoursly defend peoples rights so the question of taking someones freedom of speech or religion away never comes into question.
Have they ever had a case when they supported the second ammendment? They try to act that they don't care how offensive or disttasteful the person or group is that they are defending (NAMBLA)because they have to defend the Bill of rights from ever being threatened, but they never support gun groups.
It should be American Civil Liberties that fit with our Ideology Union. Or American Liberal Elite Civil Liberties Union.
--------------------------
You're sidestepping the point again. I think I've pretty much summed up the anti-christian argument below.
As for the second amendment. No one has ever tried to take away anyone's guns in this country. Never has there been a bill on the floor of Congress that sought to outlaw guns outright. The only thing that people have tried to do is limit the kinds of weapons the public is allowed to have; because of the changing nature of our society, that's a good thing.
I believe in the right to bear arms. I don't feel that right has been infringed upon. Does the Constitution say anything about what kind of guns? No. Does it forbid waiting periods? No. Does it make provisions for convicted felons? No. But it also doesn't say anything about children's rights to bear arms either. If one so wanted to interpret it, they could take the second amendment and argue that a 10 year old has just as much right to bear arms as a 30 year old.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:29:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo has points...they only do what they want to further their socialist-style agenda.
A smoker has had his "civil liberties" taken away by the government. Where is the ACLU?
A biker has had his "civil liberties" taken away by the government. Where is the ACLU?
All motorists have had their "civil liberties" taken away by the government. Where is the ACLU?
Do you want to argue definitions of civil liberties?
Civil liberties:
1. One's freedom to exercise one's rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country
2. Fundamental individual right protected by law and expressed as immunity from unwarranted governmental interference
So if the patriot act is passed, it is law... and once those "rights" are no longer protected by such passed law they no longer are civil liberties we own under the law. Seatbelts, helmets, etc. are the same exact thing. Where is the ACLU?
My guess is in a meeting singing the old soviet national anthem.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:20:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'll bet ETS also believes the feds are listening to his conversations just like all good paranoids believe. Of course, if you are calling arabs on cell phones which numbers were obtained on computers in the caves full of dead terrorists in Afghanistan you may be right. Other than that, it is ridiculous.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:20:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thank you, Hadley. Nice points there.
Indo: Not entirely sure. I just googled the name of the town trying to see if it was based on a Spanish mission or what.
That's kinda beside the point though. My point in these kinds of situations is: as long as you're creating the perception that your government is endorsing religion, you're creating a measure of hostility toward those who don't share your set of beliefs.
The problem is, and this is the reason a lot of these suits seem so 'out there', we've gone so long allowing government and religion to become bedfellows, people forget that's not the way it's supposed to be. They see an entity coming in disrupting the status quo, the way it's always been, but they forget that it probably shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.
To me, separation of church and state is right up there with systems of checks and balances in terms of importance to a democratic form of government. I'm with you in that groups like the ACLU should prioritize more, but sometimes if you give an inch, next thing you know, people will be begging for the full 9.
Who the ACLU really need to be going after is our president on behalf of those people that were spied upon under the cloak of the patriot act, where Bush admitted outright he broke the law and compromised civil liberties. That man needs to be impeached, along with Cheaney, (who is really behind it all.)
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:19:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The name annoys me too.
American Civil Liberties Union.
Time and time again they take up fights, which to me, seem petty and vindictave (and often anti christian) with the argument they have to vigoursly defend peoples rights so the question of taking someones freedom of speech or religion away never comes into question.
Have they ever had a case when they supported the second ammendment? They try to act that they don't care how offensive or disttasteful the person or group is that they are defending (NAMBLA)because they have to defend the Bill of rights from ever being threatened, but they never support gun groups.
It should be American Civil Liberties that fit with our Ideology Union. Or American Liberal Elite Civil Liberties Union.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:13:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'll pass... they were inspired by communists and full of them...
Fuck all so-called "progressive" morons.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-04 14:08:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
First of all, there is absolutely NO reason for an insurance company to look at your stock portfolio or bank balances, but almost all can. That said....
I'm willing to bet that if someone filed a lawsuit because they felt they were being discriminated against (based on credit rating and supposedly secret financial or medical data), the ACLU would be in on that sort of data collection. What you forget is the ACLU doesn't initiate the lawsuit without SOMEONE going to them and complaining. And far more frequently, they simply have their lawyers join a legal team on an already-existing lawsuit.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:58:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, are you sure about the accuracy of that Wikkepedia entry? I thought three people were killed and later a church/monestary was built there with the three crosses as a symbol.
HadTobeDone-
Arguing that your medical records are private and should not be subpoenaed in what was, at the time, a fishing expedition doesn't affect you? Do you want anyone with a "vested interest" to go poking through your medical records?
"Sorry, Mr. Indoninja, but we obtained a court order to look through your medical records and you have been turned down for life insurance. You see, that VD you had in 2006 marks you as a high risk applicant and we don't feel that you conduct your life responsibly enough to make sure that your loved ones can afford to bury you and pay off your debts."
------------------
First off, I haven't had a VD since 2002. I don't think Mr. Limbaugh needed the ACLU, and if police are looking at my records because they suspect substance abuse I am not worried (that is what I remember happening, could be wrong).
As far as the insurance thing I would love if the ACLU were fighting it (I didn't think they were, haven't seen any cases on it). I think they have a reason to look at "crime statistics for your neighborhood, access to your financial data, and your credit rating" as long as they don't drop you later if you have/are paying.
I don't see them fighting credit card companies, or any other company gathering personnel data. But would love it if they did.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:50:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's another Bible verse that seems appropo;
He saideth to the moron, shut the fuck upeth - Shlongy 6:13
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:40:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I've got a Bible verse for ALL of you.
Ezekiel 25:17
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:39:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:01:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well so far it has only done shit that annoys the hell out of me (christmas trees, the names of towns, shit like that), or only supported groups that while not against me are for putting others people rights ahead of mine (NAACP, gay rights, etc). So, in the last 10-20 years they haven't done anything for me or any group I am a member of.
-----
Arguing that your medical records are private and should not be subpoenaed in what was, at the time, a fishing expedition doesn't affect you? Do you want anyone with a "vested interest" to go poking through your medical records?
"Sorry, Mr. Indoninja, but we obtained a court order to look through your medical records and you have been turned down for life insurance. You see, that VD you had in 2006 marks you as a high risk applicant and we don't feel that you conduct your life responsibly enough to make sure that your loved ones can afford to bury you and pay off your debts."
It isn't a far walk down that road, given the direction that things are headed. In the last 10 years, insurance companies are increasingly getting more and more information about applicants, including crime statistics for your neighborhood, access to your financial data, and your credit rating to plug into some formula to determine how responsible you are.
Cities are now able to seize your land for PRIVATE development with little or recourse. The courts may not even be able to save you, because it is now legal precedent that taxes on coprorate holdings are for the public good. Wanna take a short walk down the road that government and businesses are on?
Several government agencies have looked into massive databases of personal details. Spending habits. Travel habits. How frequently you are at your doctor's office. If you have a GPS navigation system, average driving speed and frequently-driven routes. Criminal history. civil litigation history. Pictures of you in your daily life. Anything data that any state, federal, or local agency has on you. That data is not going to be kept on government-owned computers and handled only by government entities. It is only a matter of time before all that mined data (which may or may not already exist - look at the recent data theft from LexisNexis and others) is in the hands of any company willing to pay for it.
THAT is how the ACLU is relevant to your life.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:30:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo:
I agree it would be ludicrous to try and erase the history of that town or any town with a religious background. The name of the town is tied to that history. It would be ludicrous to change that as well.
The emblem, while reflecting the name of the town in the sense that it has crosses, is not a direct part of its long term history. It's simply a picture of Calvary. The following is taken from Wikipedia:
"Las Cruces' name (Spanish for "the crosses") has been a disputed topic amongst historians. The most common theory is that in 1830, there was an Apache massacre of a party of nine travelers, including a Mexican Army General, a priest, and five choir boys. Only one choir boy survived the massacre, and buried the other, marking the graves with crosses. The area became known as "El Pueblo del Jardín de Las Cruces." The nearby village of Mesilla was founded in 1848 by settlers from Doña Ana, a village just north of the newly established U.S.-Mexico border, who wished to stay in Mexican territory after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that year. However in 1853, the region was incorporated into the United States with the Gadsden Purchase. Las Cruces was incorporated as a city in 1907."
So, if the emblem were historically accurate, it would have had 8 crosses, not 3.
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.
;)
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:13:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:53:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
That case in Los Crusas with the Calvary emblem on the police cars is a good example of the ACLU choosing to go after something that, while I believe is unconstitutional and shouldn't be there as it is clearly a government endorsement of religion, still was small potatoes on the scale of what should be the priority.
As for your feared slippery slope of religious icons in portraits or on desks in offices, each one of those cases would have to be taken seperately. Some cases might constitute a blatant sidestepping of the law and an endorsement of religion and should be removed. Others might constitute an incidental religious emblem in an otherwise secular display, such as in the case of a cross necklace in a portrait of a former justice. Then there are cases of private office space within the courthouse. Those should be left alone.
The whole concept of law, Indo, is to create exceptions and to define things in concrete terms. By saying that no religious iconography should be displayed on publicly funded property, the Supreme Court could have defined what constituted 'religious iconography' once and for all and gotten this whole mess over with a LONG time ago. But now they've gone and set some stupid predecents and, just like a growing lie that has to sustain itself, each successive lawsuit on the matter forces more convolution of the point.
--------------
I can see the argument for no icons on public places, I don't agree with it. There is nothing in the constitution against it (there are some loose ways to interpret that it is forbidden, but that involves a fair amount of interpretation). Especially in small towns say 100 years ago where they only had one big building, it was probably a lot more important. Now there really isn't a need for it, the only reason I don't want it to change is because the more lights and christmas trees I see, the more I enjoy the holidays.
When it comes to Los Crusas there is NO violation. Religion plays a part in the history of this country, you can't argue that. It plays a significant part in the history of that town. To try and change that or erease that is idiotic. Their emblem represents what was the foundation of the town.
Should we change the name of St Louis? Or San Diego? If you believe that seperation of church and state should extend to an emblem for a city, why not to the name?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:11:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Civil rights and liberties are there for all of us.
While it might seem to Christians that the ACLU is out to get them, it's not difficult to imagine a reverse scenario where a group of Muslims had established their own town with their own ordinances right here in the US, in which Christians might be the minority and need some civil liberties protections as well because the law makers had overstepped their constitutional bounds. Civil liberties go both ways.
In any case, it's important, no matter which side of the argument you're on, to at least talk about these issues and remain mindful of what our lawmakers are doing at all levels of government.
Knowledge is power, and, in this case, ignorance is NOT bliss.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:04:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
it's not completely wrong to support a group that supports you. charity is nice, but you do have to take care of yourself first. why would indo help a group that doesn't help him when he needs it? it's not selfish or anything, it's common sense. it's a good idea to look after your own best interests first, you can't give a helping hand to anyone if you need one yourself.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 13:01:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:53:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:34:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
I will change my mind on the ACLU if they take on a case relevant to me.
-----
How typical. Until it is about you, it is a bad thing.
You sound a lot like Rush Limbaugh. You know, up until the ACLU jumped in on his side during his criminal problems.
--------------------------
Well so far it has only done shit that annoys the hell out of me (christmas trees, the names of towns, shit like that), or only supported groups that while not against me are for putting others people rights ahead of mine (NAACP, gay rights, etc). So, in the last 10-20 years they haven't done anything for me or any group I am a member of.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:56:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ParlorTrick (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:43:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - B. Franklin
------------------
Yep...
Bubba Franklin said that, y'all!
Better recognize!
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:53:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:34:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
I will change my mind on the ACLU if they take on a case relevant to me.
-----
How typical. Until it is about you, it is a bad thing.
You sound a lot like Rush Limbaugh. You know, up until the ACLU jumped in on his side during his criminal problems.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:53:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That case in Los Crusas with the Calvary emblem on the police cars is a good example of the ACLU choosing to go after something that, while I believe is unconstitutional and shouldn't be there as it is clearly a government endorsement of religion, still was small potatoes on the scale of what should be the priority.
As for your feared slippery slope of religious icons in portraits or on desks in offices, each one of those cases would have to be taken seperately. Some cases might constitute a blatant sidestepping of the law and an endorsement of religion and should be removed. Others might constitute an incidental religious emblem in an otherwise secular display, such as in the case of a cross necklace in a portrait of a former justice. Then there are cases of private office space within the courthouse. Those should be left alone.
The whole concept of law, Indo, is to create exceptions and to define things in concrete terms. By saying that no religious iconography should be displayed on publicly funded property, the Supreme Court could have defined what constituted 'religious iconography' once and for all and gotten this whole mess over with a LONG time ago. But now they've gone and set some stupid predecents and, just like a growing lie that has to sustain itself, each successive lawsuit on the matter forces more convolution of the point.
Submitted by ParlorTrick (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:43:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - B. Franklin
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:41:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Spreading the message is part of the responsibility of a practicing Christian. Any preacher, priest, or theologan will tell you the same thing.
-------------------------
Not when you are including forcing it into court houses. Nevermind if that wasn't what you meant. I thought you were implying to be a good christian you had to want ten commandments in the church.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:38:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo:
If you think that spreading the 'gospel' (which means "good news", by the way) of Christ is not high on the Christian agenda, you're mistaken, dude.
All those books after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John deal with the Acts of the Apostles, the creation of the church, and the spreading of the gospel.
Christianity is what is is today for precisely that reason. You don't get to be the most practiced religion in the world by keeping your ideas to yourself. There is not a single language into which the New Testament has not been translated, and there is not a single country in which Christians are not spreading their message right now. The Bible is the #1 selling book of all time, and was the first book ever to come off a printing press. Crusades were launched in the middle ages. Modern churches actually pay for members of their congregation to go to these places on missions.
Spreading the message is part of the responsibility of a practicing Christian. Any preacher, priest, or theologan will tell you the same thing.
Spreading the message of Jesus, which is primarily one of love, compassion, selflessness, and spirit, is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it doesn't become about something else...
...problem is, it often does.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:34:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:11:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo:
I called you a redneck because you're acting like one. Doesn't matter where you live. I could give a shit less. If you argue like a neandertal, I'l continue to treat you like one.
--------------------
Because I argue like one?
Who threw out insults first?
You said absolutely no religious Icons at all on public property should be the rule of the land.
It isn't that simple. What about wearing a cross? What about having a picture on your desk? What if you are wearing a cross and they put your picture on the wall, then you have a cross on the wall and that would break your simple rule. Laugh them away as stupid, but guess what 10, 20 years ago a lawsuit because of having a nativity scene would be laughed at.
But that argument is a little bigger then the ACLU.
Five years ago a town having to change its name and symbol because it had a cross on it would have been laughed at.
It isn't like the ACLU has to go after these cases, they choose to.
I will change my mind on the ACLU if they take on a case relevant to me. If they take on a case where they aren't the big dogs in terms of money and support.
Submitted by Vulva (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:32:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-01-03 17:29:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
Vulva...look into the history of the Constitutional Convention.
Hamilton fought very hard to place anti-slavery measures within the constitution, as did many other people. However, there was NO WAY the US Constitution would have been passed by 9 of the 13 states if it held anti-slavery measures within it. The closest they came to was the 20 year limit in which the slave trade was banned after 20 years that the constitution took place.
that was the compromise and without it there would have been no constitution.
----------------------------------------------------
Point taken, however, that doesn't explain the way our liberties and rights of ALL were to be equal... then we toss aside everyone who doesn't vote, or wasn't permitted to vote. I understand no system is perfect, there will always be flaws. But the whole system we based our freedoms and rights on was in contradiction in and of itself from the start. You got me on the slavery part, but I can still ask the questions about indians and women. You know as well as I do in the phrase "all MEN are created equal", men is simply a generic term for person. It has been stated... Yet they, as well as the people we flat out STOLE the land from, were shunned and treated as second, or even lower, class citizens. Far from the equals they were initialy made to believe they worked and fought and even died to become.
The ideology of it all is quite appealing. But cal a spade a spade. People then, and people now refuse to admit that it was just a good idea. A good idead that never became a reality! Now fix it or leave it as is, but stop walking around and pretending that we had it right the first time. Afraid to offend the "great" leaders who drafted this whole idea in the first place. If it would have been an effective plan initially, there would be no ACLU, NAACP, or...... dare I say it? CASINOS!!!! Ahhhhh, maybe I should be quiet, I do love me some Indian casinos! wOOt
Regardless, your point above is well taken. I stand corrected on the slavery issue, even though I feel it is still a contradiction in terms. Think about it!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:24:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:13:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
That's Old Testament. Doesn't apply to Christians.
Jews on the other hand are living in sin every day they don't stone people to death in the street.
Look man...you're not going to win this argument. Trust me.
---------------------------------
Touche
I don't have to believe everything in the bible to be a good christian. Not that I really think of myself as a good christian, or even as a christian sometimes. But blanket comments about what good christians want or should do other than believe in Jesus have about as much relevance as comments about all muslims being terrorists.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:13:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:06:20 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:59:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Please don't tell me what the job of a christian is. Your half assed interpretation shows the same levels of ignorance as people that think all muslims want to blow them up."
---------------------
Rom. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes--to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
2 Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are being changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Mat. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
-------------------------------------
Thanks, I am familiar with the bible, I have actually read it, not just googled quotes to support an anti christian point of view.
Leviticus
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
So christians must kill fags?
----------------------------------
That's Old Testament. Doesn't apply to Christians.
Jews on the other hand are living in sin every day they don't stone people to death in the street.
Look man...you're not going to win this argument. Trust me.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:11:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo:
I called you a redneck because you're acting like one. Doesn't matter where you live. I could give a shit less. If you argue like a neandertal, I'l continue to treat you like one.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:11:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
notice not lezzies. but ets quoted the new testament not the old. so words of jesus and his homefries are a little different then the laws of moses. gotta admit jesus never really advocated killing fags, at least not in any books that were released to the public.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:06:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:59:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Please don't tell me what the job of a christian is. Your half assed interpretation shows the same levels of ignorance as people that think all muslims want to blow them up."
---------------------
Rom. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes--to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
2 Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are being changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Mat. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
-------------------------------------
Thanks, I am familiar with the bible, I have actually read it, not just googled quotes to support an anti christian point of view.
Leviticus
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
So christians must kill fags?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 12:05:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't hate Christianity, IDT.
I see the hypocracy of what's become of Christ's church and the way that men constantly twist the message of Jesus to suit their own ends.
Even the antichrist will appear to us as an angel of light, according to Revelation.
I was raised on a brand of Christianity that held that each and every one of us was supposed to find his/her own relationship with Christ. He could be found as more in a deserted forest than in a stale church.
In the process of trying to stand up for Jesus and put a plastic nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, people are missing the point entirely. I am forced to conclude that Jesus is little more to them than a bargaining chip and a status symbol.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:59:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Please don't tell me what the job of a christian is. Your half assed interpretation shows the same levels of ignorance as people that think all muslims want to blow them up."
---------------------
Rom. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes--to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
2 Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are being changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Mat. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:58:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
but at the same time you seem to point out flaws in christianity's followers more than any other religion. like by far. and it's still the followers as groups, no names or personal experiences mentioned. just seems like you hate christianity.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:50:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:35:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
so why do you hate christianity and not individual christians who are being dicks?
----------------------
I don't hate Christianity.
Who said I did?
In fact, while I might not be exactly prepared to consider myself a Christian, persay, I'm one of the few people on this website who has ever mentioned loving and respecting Jesus and everything he stands for. He is the greatest man who ever lived, bar none. To me, he is the embodiment of the spirit of revolution, compassion, conviction, and fury all rolled into one. If Jesus were here right now, he wouldn't want his church tainted by being anywhere NEAR man's law.
"Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:48:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:23:58 (#)
Ranking: 2
Also...what the hell are you talking about? I didn't say the Supreme Court should say: "you can't say 'bless you' in court". You're just taking something that you know is completely reasonable and rational to the end of madness because it's your only recourse. It's the only way you can gain support so people will continue to rally around these efforts to inflict your religion on others in a combative public forum. It amounts to Christians wanting a fight because they feel it's their duty to be soldiers of Christ above all else. In Christianity, it's considered your JOB to spread the gospel, and that's all this mess is about.
The bottom line is this: "RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY (and that means statues and stuff to those who don't know how to fucking read) DOES NOT BELONG ON PUBLICLY FUNDED PROPERTY."
Christians aren't the only ones who pay taxes in this country.
You can sit there all you like and scream "YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHT TO PRACTICE MY RELIGION FREELY!" But what you're missing is this: no one ever said you can't go to church. That's what the fucking buildings there THERE FOR! In fact, you get tax breaks for having the fucking things, so shut the fuck up.
No one ever said you can't talk about religion in public. What they ARE saying is that when it comes to matters of state and government, be it local, state, or federal, religion does not belong there.
It's really pretty simple. I know you can surely follow that, even considering you are a drooling retard.
You said public buildings are there to serve the public. You're exactly right. And you know what...they each have a VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE for which they were built, as well. For instance, a court house is there to conduct the business of municipalities and local government. It's NOT A FUCKING CHURCH. And the 'public' you're referring to does not only consist of Christians. Regardless of this argument, our Constitution says it doesn't belong there, and the Supreme Court has managed to fuck up and protract the argument further by giving a stupid ass ruling to try and appease the Christian right. That's the maze we're navigating at the moment. To me there is no issue.
It's really none of your business the last time I left the country, but I'll tell you anyway...I went to England in October.
You also said this, which cracked me up: "You don't know shit about the world, you think any anti republican, christian, conservative news is gospel, and anything supporting them is a lie." And while it makes no sense whatsoever, I think I can surmise what you were attempting to say and my response is this:
IF THE SHOE FITS!
------------------
No because that is what the ACLU is doing.
What was the town los cruces new mexico(spelling could be wrong)? The town symbol had three crosses on a hill because the town was founded by a mission that had three crosses on a hill. The ACLU tried to sue them to get rid of it.
Please don't tell me what the job of a christian is. Your half assed interpretation shows the same levels of ignorance as people that think all muslims want to blow them up.
I never said the ACLU is taking away my right to worship. It is however taking fun out of the world. Most people I know like christmas trees, even if they aren't christian. I like seeing menorahs. I know courthouses and whatnot have a purpose but a fucking christmas tree doesn't interfere with it.
As far as the ten commandments, I don't give a rats ass. I resent the money wasted to fight having them there, but if the ACLU is going to pursue the fight under the guise that it offends people, I see no reason to not sidestep their argument by relying on the historical signifigance of the ten commandments in our laws.
As far as when you left the country, it is my concern when you call me a redneck. I was born in Cali and grew up all over the East coast. You can probably count on one hand the number of times you have left indiana or whatever shithole you live in. Which is probably the same shithole you will die in since you are too fucking simpleminded to think for yourself, or get a real job so you can afford to move.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:42:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
OK, reading over it again when I am more awake, I do see your points in there. However, I must tell you that I just don't care. If its the Fourth Reich then so be it, it was bound to happen some time. All this trampling on freedoms, taking away our rights, spying on us...it just doesn't bother me that much. Oh what are they gonna go, beat the shit out of me for a few months? Like it hasn't been done before! But if they're keeping the President in line, good for them! And if they're going a little overboard...well, who hasn't? If somebody tries to reinstate the draft, and the ACLU fights against it, then I will be pissed at them.
Yes, good job, you are clearly very intrigued with your subject matter, nearly made me cry, almost brought to tears, how embarassing.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:35:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
so why do you hate christianity and not individual christians who are being dicks?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 11:23:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
INDONINJA: Here's the case you're talking about. And the case was the Knights of Columus (who wanted to put up a creche (nativity scene) vs. the town of Trumbull (who denied their request). The only place the ACLU is mentioned is when referencing precedent cases that were relevant.
The following is taken from the docket of the case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/949297.html
"For sixteen years prior to 1994, a Christmas tree and a menorah have been placed on the Town Green of Trumbull, Connecticut (the "Town") during the holiday season. The tree was a permanent part of the Green and was decorated by the Town, although a private group had participated in the lighting celebration. The menorah, on the other hand, was set up by a private group.
In November 1993, the plaintiffs-appellants, Donald Creatore and the Knights of Columbus Council No. 2961, first sought permission from the Town to erect a crèche on the Green. The Town, through appellee David A. Wilson, the Town's First Selectman, denied the appellants' application. Early in 1994, the appellants renewed their application, and on May 9, Wilson responded that he had no objections to the placement of the crèche on the Green, as long as the appellants submitted proper plans. The appellants obtained approval of their plans from the Town and prepared to place their crèche on the Green on December 17. On Wednesday, December 14, however, Wilson informed the appellants that the Town was revoking their permit because the crèche would impermissibly communicate a religious message. Two days later the appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction ordering the appellees to allow the crèche to be placed on the Green."
--------------
Also...what the hell are you talking about? I didn't say the Supreme Court should say: "you can't say 'bless you' in court". You're just taking something that you know is completely reasonable and rational to the end of madness because it's your only recourse. It's the only way you can gain support so people will continue to rally around these efforts to inflict your religion on others in a combative public forum. It amounts to Christians wanting a fight because they feel it's their duty to be soldiers of Christ above all else. In Christianity, it's considered your JOB to spread the gospel, and that's all this mess is about.
The bottom line is this: "RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY (and that means statues and stuff to those who don't know how to fucking read) DOES NOT BELONG ON PUBLICLY FUNDED PROPERTY."
Christians aren't the only ones who pay taxes in this country.
You can sit there all you like and scream "YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHT TO PRACTICE MY RELIGION FREELY!" But what you're missing is this: no one ever said you can't go to church. That's what the fucking buildings there THERE FOR! In fact, you get tax breaks for having the fucking things, so shut the fuck up.
No one ever said you can't talk about religion in public. What they ARE saying is that when it comes to matters of state and government, be it local, state, or federal, religion does not belong there.
It's really pretty simple. I know you can surely follow that, even considering you are a drooling retard.
You said public buildings are there to serve the public. You're exactly right. And you know what...they each have a VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE for which they were built, as well. For instance, a court house is there to conduct the business of municipalities and local government. It's NOT A FUCKING CHURCH. And the 'public' you're referring to does not only consist of Christians. Regardless of this argument, our Constitution says it doesn't belong there, and the Supreme Court has managed to fuck up and protract the argument further by giving a stupid ass ruling to try and appease the Christian right. That's the maze we're navigating at the moment. To me there is no issue.
It's really none of your business the last time I left the country, but I'll tell you anyway...I went to England in October.
You also said this, which cracked me up: "You don't know shit about the world, you think any anti republican, christian, conservative news is gospel, and anything supporting them is a lie." And while it makes no sense whatsoever, I think I can surmise what you were attempting to say and my response is this:
IF THE SHOE FITS!
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-04 10:42:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ya know i might just stop discussing it as soon as i don't have it put on me because i'm white. i really hate the whole thing where when i don't like someone as a person and i try to make it known, usually nicely, they jump up my ass about being racist if they're anything other than white. and this happens alot. i don't know what the racial demographic of evans indiana is, i'm sure it's alot whiter, but it's a fairly mixed group around here. how many people do you deal with on a daily basis that aren't white? is it countable? i get evaluated solely on the basis of my race alot. i know this because it gets mentioned in insults. sentences in conversations with people i've known for years and strangers alike start or end with phrases like "well you're white so..." i mean really i'm almost at the point where i think if i get accused of it i might as well earn it. i was raised to see everyone as individual people, but i get my race held against me. i don't see talking about it as hypocritical. i mean some people are psychotic about racism. it still does have power but it would be there even if it wasn't talked about. all bad things are there whether or not we acknowledge them. irrational fears don't need to be noticed and discussed to exist. if everyone in the world all of a sudden ignored skin color, just wait a generation it would come back on its own.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 10:38:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 10:18:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Racism goes both ways and a definite area the aclu is lacking is the one where they say equality. They want to give the "repressed" people the upperhand not even the odds across the board."
-----------------------
I agree completely, but that's not the ACLU's doing. That's the NAACP.
-----------------------
Then why doesn't the ACLU take up cases involving racism against white people?
Why do they commonly support the same cases as the NAACP?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 10:36:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Jesus ETS,
They APPEAR to bully these groups or 'favor' them because they're the ones who have no one else to protect them. You think the white anglo saxon protestants like us need more protection? We've got 1001 organizations doing that for us everyday who are NOT the ACLU.
-----------------
NAACP, ACT UP, LGBA, the list goes on and on for groups out there to protect minorities. Name one of the 1001 group that protects only me?
If the Supreme Court wasn't a band of morons and pussies with no spines, they'd have already said "THERE ARE TO BE NO RELIGIOUS ICONS ON PUBLICLY-FUNDED GROUNDS AT ANY TIME" and that would be that. That means no menorahs, no nativity scenes, no crosses, no crescents, no buddhas, no Krishnas...NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.
------------------
Are you a simpleton? It isn't that simple. There is a line where something is not just a religious symbol. As much as you hate to admit it there is no way you can argue that religion plays a part in the culture of the US. From holidays, to saying shit like bless you after someone sneezes. If you say keep all religious icons out, speech will be next, and soon enough you can't say god bless you in a court house. Sounds way out there, but when people cry about having "NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA." I think it is reasonable to make the assumption that shit like this will be next.
You give me the name of the town and show me some evidence of the ACLU taking down a nativity scene and putting up a menorah. You're full of shit, and you're lying. They might have threatened a lawsuit if the nativity scene wasn't taken down, and the town responded by putting a menorah up beside it, but you're twisting your facts, buddy, and I suggest you stop tring to confuse people with your lies.
--------------------
Trumbull CT. I never lied, I never said they put a menorah up, they just didn't threaten to sue to make people take it down. They had a problem with a christian symbol, but not a jewish one. They were both up, ACLU threatened to sue if the christian wasn't removed, so we were left with a menorah. I am sure this isn't an isolated incident. Just the threat of a lawsuit from the ACLU is enough to make people afraid and looking ovber their shoulder worrying about offending anyone. And guess what I wasn't crying about the menorah. For someone who thinks of themself as a liberal you have a very fucking narrow view. I don't care about seeing a menorah, nobody should.
Seeing a menorah, the ten commandments, a nativity scene never violated anyones rights. Guess what public buildings are there to serve the PUBLIC.
That is right I work for Fox news and I am a redneck.
When is the last time you left the country, or your computer in your basement for that matter? You are an ignorant bumpkin who thinks he is rebelling and fighting the man. You don't know shit about the world, you think any anti republican, christian, conservative news is gospel, and anything supporting them is a lie.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-01-04 10:26:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Who signs your check, redneck?
=======
I do.
Who signs yours, hippy? :)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 10:18:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Racism goes both ways and a definite area the aclu is lacking is the one where they say equality. They want to give the "repressed" people the upperhand not even the odds across the board."
-----------------------
I agree completely, but that's not the ACLU's doing. That's the NAACP.
Affirmative action is really bullshit.
Using the language of 'equality' the NAACP has somehow managed to gain a level of 'favoritism'.
There should be no such thing as a 'minority' in this country any more. Blacks have just as much opportunity to listen in class and pay attention as I do. They have just as much access to a decent education as I do without all the preferential treatment. It's really time to grow up and start seeing each other as 'people' instead of races.
That's part of the hypocracy of even talking about racism. By even discussing it, you're acknowledging its power. You're actually creating it by discussing it at all.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-04 09:42:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually statistically it's harder to get any sort of help if you're a white male in america. White women are second. If you're not a minority of some sort you're fairly screwed unless you're rich. There may be 1001 orgs for wasps but in the end they don't get good press and state fed charity as much as something representing a minority.
I have a friend who's trying to get in law school, because he's a white male he's having a lot of trouble getting an edge on anything even though he's on the low end of middle class, nationally speaking, so regionally that's not well off at all. He's had to work his ass off to pay for school and can't afford to take the lsats again, couldn't get financial aid for prep classes and can basically barely afford the application fees. He still has no clue how he's going to pay for the school other than take out thousands more in loans. A black kid with the same grades and income level would get more specialized help. There was an article in us news a couple months ago about minority children getting preferential treatment with admissions in ivy league schools over white children from the same income level and sometimes even with better scores. Granted alumni children and athletes got even better treatment but being white basically lowered their chances of getting the education they wanted because schools get more money for meeting racial quotas.
Even me being a white woman I have more trouble with getting looked over than black women I know. The white women I knew that were on welfare received less for being employed and having one child than the colored ones I knew with the same kind of job and household status. My white friend works with colored people who get into section 8 housing even though they have the same job, educational level, and live in the same area. They don't always need more help than everyone else but they get it anyway. Racism goes both ways and a definite area the aclu is lacking is the one where they say equality. They want to give the "repressed" people the upperhand not even the odds across the board.
And as far as religious icons on courthouse lawns, I believe in a separation of church and state, but most people that have a problem with it don't ask for equal representation they just ask whatever's there to be taken down. Nothing should be there in the first place, but they don't usually ask to put up their version of whatever holiday they just don't want to see the christian one.
And on that note maybe I'll be hindu, there's no holiday around this time of year and everyone ignores them.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-01-04 09:20:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It wouldn't be Rush. Ever since the ACLU went to court to try and protect his medical records, I bet he has a lot less of a problem with them.
OMG! THE ACLU STOOD UP FOR A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN WHEN SOMEONE TRIED TO TRAMPLE ON HIS PRIVACY RIGHTS!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-04 09:08:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 08:21:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
I am a white male who is gainfully employed, the ACLU may be protecting but only after they protect black, females, gays, muslims and athiests.
They have a very agenda which overwhelmingly supports blacks over whites, athiests over muslims, muslims over jews, and jews over christians.
I have lived in towns where they have fought to have christmas trees removed from public property, but had no problem with menorah's. that doesn't protect anyones rights. Christmas trees and nativity scenes don't hurt anyone.
At one point they were a useful organization, and occasionally they will pick a worthwhile battle, but it is no longer a David vs. Goliath fight for out rights. Nine times out of ten they are the goliath. They are bullying small towns, schools or anywhere they can "protect" their favorite groups.
---------------------------
You're a fucking retard.
They APPEAR to bully these groups or 'favor' them because they're the ones who have no one else to protect them. You think the white anglo saxon protestants like us need more protection? We've got 1001 organizations doing that for us everyday who are NOT the ACLU.
Besides, if a Christian was having his constitutional rights truly violated, the ACLU would stand up for them too. But when a Christian or a white man has his rights violated, more times than not, they either have the money to stand up for themselves, or they know some other organization that does.
Nevertheless, it's rarely a case of a Christian having his rights violated in this country. It's usually a case of a Christian trying to overstep his bounds and force his beliefs on everyone around him, hence the reason the minority religions along with the ACLU might SEEM TO BE on the offensive.
If the Supreme Court wasn't a band of morons and pussies with no spines, they'd have already said "THERE ARE TO BE NO RELIGIOUS ICONS ON PUBLICLY-FUNDED GROUNDS AT ANY TIME" and that would be that. That means no menorahs, no nativity scenes, no crosses, no crescents, no buddhas, no Krishnas...NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.
But instead, they have to be dumbasses and protract the fucking argument by saying "well, you can have a nativity scene as long as you have other symbols of the holiday as well."
WHY?
What could possibly be the purpose of allowing religious iconography on a courthouse lawn? Why would they POSSIBLY want to draw this argument out further? What you're failing to remember is that, while you might look around you and see mostly white Christians, there are people of other faiths and colors that should be and ARE protected under the laws of our Constitution as well. There are people of other faiths and colors who pay their taxes just like you do, and they don't deserve to have THEIR courthouse desecrated by a bunch of your religious iconography, but they don't always have the numbers to pressure Congress or the money to BUY a Congressman or a law like the white Christians in this country.
In numerous cases, if it wasn't for the ACLU, the pack mentality would run roughshod over the Constitution of the United States, and our country would degrade rapidly to hell.
You give me the name of the town and show me some evidence of the ACLU taking down a nativity scene and putting up a menorah. You're full of shit, and you're lying. They might have threatened a lawsuit if the nativity scene wasn't taken down, and the town responded by putting a menorah up beside it, but you're twisting your facts, buddy, and I suggest you stop tring to confuse people with your lies.
Honestly...who do you work for?
Who pays you to come here and say stupid shit to counter whatever I say?
Is it Fox News?
Rush Limbaugh?
Pat Robertson?
Tom Delay?
Who signs your check, redneck?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-04 08:21:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I am a white male who is gainfully employed, the ACLU may be protecting but only after they protect black, females, gays, muslims and athiests.
They have a very agenda which overwhelmingly supports blacks over whites, athiests over muslims, muslims over jews, and jews over christians.
I have lived in towns where they have fought to have christmas trees removed from public property, but had no problem with menorah's. that doesn't protect anyones rights. Christmas trees and nativity scenes don't hurt anyone.
At one point they were a useful organization, and occasionally they will pick a worthwhile battle, but it is no longer a David vs. Goliath fight for out rights. Nine times out of ten they are the goliath. They are bullying small towns, schools or anywhere they can "protect" their favorite groups.
Submitted by jagmcmanus (user info) at 2006-01-04 03:05:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Vermin (user info) at 2006-01-04 02:13:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
George Bush is protecting us shithead. I don't know about you but since 911 I have been shitting my shorts in fucking terror. If survival means losing my freedom rather than dying, well - that is the Conservative way.
Us conservatives are all cowards who need our daddy George to protect us from the scary terrorists. I know the chance of dying in a terrorist attack are slim to nil, but dammit, losing all that this country stands for on a 0.001 chance that some smelly raghead will kill me, well that is what we Republicans are all about.
_______________________________________________________
Please tell me this is sarcastic...
If its not then fuck the U.S needs more people like you!
(now thats sarcasm)
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-01-04 02:49:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
the ACLU promotes violence and hatred against people who don't like to pay taxes.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-01-04 02:43:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Well shit, think you delete a sentence...
Anyway, it was Cheaney, not Dubbya. Eesh, I'm fucking tired.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-01-04 02:42:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Wanna hear something funny?
My name is on a watchlist in the CBI (state version of FBI) because I was breifly detained in 2004 outside the Brown Palace Hotel where Dubbya was holding a fundraiser dinner.
What was I doing?
I was held for an hour for protesting outside the Brown Palace Hotel during a Cheaney fundrasing dinner in early 2k4.
I found out, because a friend of mine who works as a gunsmith was going to sell me a 9mm and had to run my name and SS#. It came up that he had to call CBI for further verification, and when he called, they said I had possible small ties to a "domestic organization that promotes violence and hatred"
Wanna know who organized the rally?
ACLU.
Yeah, love losing my freedoms.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-01-04 02:29:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-03 20:42:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
I like to picture Tom Delay's stretched, rosy face being raped by a giant black cock of death.
That brightens my day considerably.
-------------------------
you like to picture a mossberg 12 guage semi-auto being repeatedly rammed into a guy's mouth?
sick fuck, you sure you aren't republican?
Submitted by Vermin (user info) at 2006-01-04 02:13:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
George Bush is protecting us shithead. I don't know about you but since 911 I have been shitting my shorts in fucking terror. If survival means losing my freedom rather than dying, well - that is the Conservative way.
Us conservatives are all cowards who need our daddy George to protect us from the scary terrorists. I know the chance of dying in a terrorist attack are slim to nil, but dammit, losing all that this country stands for on a 0.001 chance that some smelly raghead will kill me, well that is what we Republicans are all about.
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2006-01-04 01:08:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
yeah.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2006-01-03 23:33:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh that was simply uncalled for, why, I never, not in my life, why, simply embarassing, intolerable, how embarassing!
But I'm not gay, an atheist, a minority, a displaced or mistreated person, a foreigner, a criminal, or a general menace to society, so no, they don't.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2006-01-03 23:32:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Of course they're protecting you...
Retard.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-03 22:39:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not really. I've resigned myself to my limitations long ago.
I get most digusted by people who are transparent to me and whose motivations are ugly.
Ugly motivations are one thing, but at least have enough self-respect to try to cover them up.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-03 22:13:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
and even though alot of christian groups try to control the political scene that's all anyone ever really tries to do. vote/pass/bribe in their own favors. that's how it always works, even when it's done under the guise of we think this is best for everyone it still is whoever "we" is trying to make sure their best is the law of the land. everyone who votes or runs or whatever is only doing it because they see it as their view of everyone's best interest or their own best interest. all sides are never really accounted. humans are too stupid.
you know this ets. it makes your head hurt doesn't it?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info)