Questions for Fairweather, Puget, and KK

[Dechristo]

you can have my ACLU when you pry my cold, dead, :pagetop:s from it

Edited December 8, 2006 by Dechristo

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't give a rat's ass if I convince any ....God-hating, pinko losers on this list.

 

It helps to believe in something before you hate it. And if you want to know more about pink socks, just ask me.

[tvashtarkatena]

Michael Savage is a sleazy jackass. And so is Ann Coulter. Let's see you say the same about someone on the left.

 

What about Dan Savage?

 

 

[olyclimber]

you bastards have run off all the conservatives, so I'll take over for them. The ALCU is the Antichrist. Prove me wrong.

[Dechristo]

if you want to know more about pink socks, just ask me.

 

were you socked by a gay person?

 

 

 

phonetic interpretation permissible

[tvashtarkatena]

In the future, you'll be able to pull a pink sock...from your ass.

[olyclimber]

I thought so. Next topic: The [spit]liberals[/spit](including all of the media, the educated class, and anyone who thinks I may be wrong about anything) hate America. Prove me wrong.

[olyclimber]

No response? I thought so.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

that's it kaskadksfhihfghkd, breathe.

 

Nice and easy, breeeaaaathe.

 

Nothing allows one to approach a problem with new innocent freshness, free of prejudices and blind spots, than a nice deep breath.

 

I love how you think you can discern emotion over an emotionless medium of bits over TCP/IP. I'm highly amused by this thread, not the least bit "angry". It's all about rattling the monkeys' cage.

[selkirk]

Is it possible for two groups seeking two very different ends to employ the same means without becoming moral equals of one another?

 

The tactics that the US and England employed against the civilians populations in, say, Germany were every bit as brutal and deadly as anything that the Germans air campaigns inflicted on England.

 

Since the two sides employed tactics that were physically equivalent - deliberately inflicting the maximum civilian carnage via bombing - then the two sides must be viewed as moral equals despite the very different ideals and ends that the Allies were striving for?

 

Well, the big tipping point on the moral equality in for WWI/WWII was that the Germans were both gassing their own people and were the initial aggressors actively attacking initially non-hostile countries with the intent of taking over. That said, some of the shit we pulled was pretty ugly as well. Anyone ever read Slaughterhouse 5?

 

From a pragmatic standpoing however, the decision to return tit for tat in blatanly going after civilians, wasn't playing any role in actively increasing the ranks of the Germans. Besides it was an organized government that we were fighting. In that case going after the civilians could justifiably be seen as attacking the country as a whole and decreasing it's ability to continue to make large scale war by destroying it's resources (in this case people).

 

The same doesn't apply to the guerilla warfare in Vietnam or the current terrorist movement. The more we crack down, the more civilians we kill (collateral or otherwise) the more the population see's us as the threat, and in the end breeds more terrorists. I've said it before, but if we want to use conventional tactics to end the war in Irag, Afghanistan, or the the Middle East in general it will require that we raze the entire region to the ground and salt the earth. IMHO there are only two ways to end terrorism. Kill anyone and everyone who might ever become a terrorist, or convince the populations who provide recruits for the the terrorists that we aren't their as a threat and don't want to play a role in governing them. The problem is any chance we had of doing that in the near term is toast, we've blown any clout we once had. and will be much better off stepping out of the region almost entirely. To end the violence there we need allies with local respect to step in and provide a stabilizing influence while we bow out. Iraqi troops would be great, but they can't draw any support from us at all or their tainted. Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan etc. would all be better choices. They all have a vested interest in a stable Iraq, and the local jihadi's will have a much harder time recruiting people to kill muslim troops from the region.

 

We might almost be better off stepping entirely out of rebuilding efforts or any effort to affect or facilitate local politics, and serve only as a policing force responding to violence and/or the threat of violence. Let the local develop their own government from scratch independantly.

[counterfeitfake]

Dude, this IS spray. WTF, you take this seriously??

 

I was going to say, "oh yeah", but I thought about it and that is pretty weak. Don't start an argument you aren't willing to finish.

[olyclimber]

Thanks KaskadskyjKozak, I'll let you take it from here. Tough work being the underrepresented on this site!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Dude, this IS spray. WTF, you take this seriously??

 

I was going to say, "oh yeah", but I thought about it and that is pretty weak. Don't start an argument you aren't willing to finish.

 

I didn't start it. Look at the subject line and the initial post. I'm just having my fun.

[Dechristo]

Don't start an argument you aren't willing to finish.

 

What?

 

...and ban divorce?

[sexual_chocolate]

I was going to write

 

the aclu helped stalin murder innocents

 

as provocation, but i relized that this is the association many make. the aclu was created by leftists who in many cases did support communist causes.

 

there was division amongst communists in the US regarding stalin. many continued to view him favorably, even when the attrocities started to surface.

 

the fact that the aclu works for civil rights and constitutional compliance today doesn't overshadow the history of the organization for many.

[sexual_chocolate]

I love how you think you can discern emotion over an emotionless medium of bits over TCP/IP. I'm highly amused by this thread, not the least bit "angry". It's all about rattling the monkeys' cage.

 

see how well breathing exercises work?

[tvashtarkatena]

the aclu was created by leftists who in many cases did support communist causes.

 

More accurately, the ACLU was founded in 1920 specifically for the purpose of gaining the release of labor leaders who were arrested and jailed, sometimes without being charged, just for peaceful organizing. These organizers primarily wanted to get rid of the 12 hour, 6 day a week work schedule, among other things. The guy that rounded them up and put them in the slammer? J. Edgar Hoover.

 

The ACLU was successful and both the organization and the labor movement in the US was born.

Edited December 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

the fact that the aclu works for civil rights and constitutional compliance today doesn't overshadow the history of the organization for manymorons.

[olyclimber]

Wiki, the source of FACTS:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU

 

In 1917, Roger Nash Baldwin became head of the National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB), an independent outgrowth of the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed American intervention in World War I. The NCLB provided legal advice and aid for conscientious objectors and those being prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 or the Sedition Act of 1918. In 1920, the NCLB changed its name to the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin continuing as its director. Jeannette Rankin, Crystal Eastman and Albert DeSilver, along with other former members of the NCLB, assisted Baldwin with the founding of the ACLU.[1]

 

In the year of its birth, the ACLU was formed to protect aliens threatened with deportation, and U.S. nationals threatened with criminal charges by U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer for their communist or socialist activities and agendas [4] (see Palmer Raids). It also opposed attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and other labor unions to meet and organize.

 

In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle."[5] The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party of the USA and the IWW.[6]

 

In the 1988 presidential election, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush called then-Governor Michael Dukakis a "card-carrying member of the ACLU," which Dukakis proudly acknowledged.[7] The phrase now serves as part of a jocular recruitment slogan for the ACLU.

 

The September 11, 2001 attacks and the ensuing debate regarding the proper balance of civil liberties and security including the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act led to a 20% increase in membership between August 2001 and December 2002, when total enrollment reached 330,000.[8] The growth continued, and in August 2004, ACLU membership was at 400,000.[9]

[sexual_chocolate]

the aclu was created by leftists who in many cases did support communist causes.

 

More accurately, the ACLU was founded in 1920 specifically for the purpose of gaining the release of labor leaders who were arrested and jailed, sometimes without being charged, just for peaceful organizing. These organizers primarily wanted to get rid of the 12 hour, 6 day a week work schedule, among other things. The guy that rounded them up and put them in the slammer? J. Edgar Hoover.

 

The ACLU was successful and both the organization and the labor movement in the US was born.

 

I don't think it's quite that simple. There's a complicated history to labor relations here, one that cannot be summed up in anything less than a volume of research, although I think the spine of the situation is perhaps the following:

 

business interests fought labor interests (and vice cersa, although that is a specious argument), business interests usually got government on their side. ad nauseum.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm sure part of the dislike for the ACLU is the perception shared by many (including myself) that their actions and agenda are not apolitical. Also, the argument of altruistic pro bono work is tainted by the profits gleaned from all taxpayers in pursuit of this perceived agenda.

 

Wow, an homemade cross made of pipes illegally erected in a public reserve. Certainly the defining issue of our day.

 

Loser pays winner's attorney fees is pretty standard in many kinds of cases. They had their day in court. They lost.

 

Sounds like whining to me. It also sounds like the democratic process at work.

 

I would guess that most Americans would not appreciate coming around a switchback in a publicly owned natural reserve and seeing a cheesy homemade islamic flag flying from a used piece of cyclone fencing. Same rules apply.

 

Equal protection, MOFO. You want a cross? Put one up on your own lawn. If someone burns it, the ACLU will be the first ones to come to your aid.

Edited December 8, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[sexual_chocolate]

business interests fought labor interests (and vice cersa, although that is a specious argument), business interests usually got government on their side. ad nauseum.

 

hells, that sounds rough. I gotta say I don't think it's a closed chapter story ending, it's evolving as most things are, hardly static.

[sexual_chocolate]

the fact that the aclu works for civil rights and constitutional compliance today doesn't overshadow the history of the organization for manymorons.

 

that's a little rough. everything has a context, even kaskadhgkshghk's hatred of the aclu, communism, pink socks and butt sex.

 

if we simply make fun of those with views other than our own, we're doing exactly what we as "progressive liberals" accuse the "other side" of doing.

 

but heck, it is fun though!

[tvashtarkatena]

Since I am a donating member of the ACLU,

 

again, no surprise there.

 

you guys just fit the stereotype so well.

 

Intelligent? Principled? Reasonable? Well versed in the topics of the day?

 

Why, thank you.

[prole]

the fact that the aclu works for civil rights and constitutional compliance today doesn't overshadow the history of the organization for manymorons.

 

that's a little rough. everything has a context, even kaskadhgkshghk's hatred of the aclu, communism, pink socks and butt sex.

 

if we simply make fun of those with views other than our own, we're doing exactly what we as "progressive liberals" accuse the "other side" of doing.

 

but heck, it is fun though!

 

Yes, I should have said anti-democratic and chauvinistic. That would have been more accurate.