its official..the ACLU is a joke

ohskigod

I dont even know where to begin.......... does the ACLU do anything worth a damn anymore? if they do...tell me. I'm serious.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_re_us/take_my_wife_s_name


starving children, war, injustice, and this jerk off is ticked he cant take his wife's name. has he just had so little trial and tribulation in his life, that this is what truly irks him? he must have lived a charmed life compared to me, I have real **** to worry about :rolleyes:

bobman1235

Wow.... I wonder if the ACLU can sue that guy's future wife for stealing his balls while they're at it.

George Grand

He looks like a lizard, might as well act like one.

Oops, drank too much coffee today, gotta go drain my lizard.

F1nut

The American Communist Lawyers Union is all about what is wrong with this country. When we fold as a nation, look directly at them for the cause. Sue me, you ****.

aaharvel

That's a good read Ohski. And it's a pretty accurate reflection of why the ACLU of today is a decidedly mixed bag.

bobman1235

A mixed bag? They went far beyond a "mixed bag" years ago. Although there's a few mixed bags I could pick up at the gardening store that they might be comparable to.

candyliquor35m

Alot of what they do is out there in left field and annoys me to some extent but for me the fact that they defend the constitution to the nth degree whether it's a inchworm or a communist, makes me appreciate them for what they are.

Strong Bad

I just don't see why it's so hard for a man to take a womans last name.

I worked with someone many years ago who took his wifes last name. I believe the reasoning was (so I heard) that her family was quite small with few males to carry on the family name. He took her last name so any children they had could carry on the family name.

It all boils down to retarded lawyers and politicians having their heads up their asses and making stupid laws like this!

John in MA

They only defend the partsof the constitution they feel like.

aaharvel

candyliquor35m wrote:

Alot of what they do is out there in left field and annoys me to some extent but for me the fact that they defend the constitution to the nth degree whether it's a inchworm or a communist, makes me appreciate them for what they are.

Exactly.

markmarc

My problem with the ACLU is that they spend way too much of their resources defending scumbags. They could very easily find the same type cases to defend with much more deserving people.

Spending millions to defend such perverts as NAMBLA, is totally inexcuseable. Thirty years ago that would have never happened when ACLU was much beloved

ohskigod

candyliquor35m wrote:

Alot of what they do is out there in left field and annoys me to some extent but for me the fact that they defend the constitution to the nth degree whether it's a inchworm or a communist, makes me appreciate them for what they are.

I was in this camp back in the day. I would look at some of the stuff they did with a wierd look and my head tilted to one side in confusion, but i could see that having them as a protectorate of rights to keep prosecutors and lawmakers on there toes was stiill a good thing. They were wacky, but still needed..

to me, those days are over. Like I said in my original post, I see little to no instance where they actually do anything for the right reasons, truly defending the constitution, and protecting us from those who would truly abuse our rights, like search and siezure and whatnot. now its "no crosses" and "christmas trees on public land, travesty!!!!", man cant take a woman's name (OH MY GOD...NOOOOO!:rolleyes: ) are you effing kidding me? they have been losing there relevance in terms of there original mission for years, and their need and relevance is nearly gone. Am I coming out of left field? (no pun intended) Am I wrong?, I'm begging for a counterpoint here.

there are probably true cases of rights and freedom being infringed for the wrong reasons being verlooked to take on the same wacky cases I noted above.

Old school civil rights activists are rolling in there grave in disgust.

DollarDave

ohskigod wrote:

I was in this camp back in the day. I would look at some of the stuff they did with a wierd look and my head tilted to one side in confusion, but i could see that having them as a protectorate of rights to keep prosecutors and lawmakers on there toes was stiill a good thing. They were wacky, but still needed..

to me, those days are over. Like I said in my original post, I see little to no instance where they actually do anything for the right reasons, truly defending the constitution, and protecting us from those who would truly abuse our rights, like search and siezure and whatnot. now its "no crosses" and "christmas trees on public land, travesty!!!!", man cant take a woman's name (OH MY GOD...NOOOOO!:rolleyes: ) are you effing kidding me? they have been losing there relevance in terms of there original mission for years, and their need and relevance is nearly gone. Am I coming out of left field? (no pun intended) Am I wrong?, I'm begging for a counterpoint here.

there are probably true cases of rights and freedom being infringed for the wrong reasons being verlooked to take on the same wacky cases I noted above.

Old school civil rights activists are rolling in there grave in disgust.

No, you are not wrong. There is no counter-point to your observations. They are an anti-American organization under the guise of something else.

aaharvel

I'm tired of this whole "this is anti-american, that is not" tirade. Sounds like the purely subjective tripe that spews from the foul mouth of Mark Levin.

Jesus Christ.. (oh sorry, was that anti-american too?)

DollarDave

aaharvel wrote:

I'm tired of this whole "this is anti-american, that is not" tirade. Sounds like the purely subjective tripe that spews from the foul mouth of Mark Levin.

Jesus Christ.. (oh sorry, was that anti-american too?)

Good use of the word "tripe" - I like that. But, then again, I enjoy listening to Mark Levin on occasion.

Sorry, but I don't get the "Jesus Christ" reference? Especially during a topic regarding an organization whose sole purpose seems to be to remove any reference to Him (or his Father) from any public document or venue.

aaharvel

I was kidding about the Jesus Christ thing Dave. Glad to see I can still pick out a Mark Levin listener on demand

Regarding the ACLU, not going to debate you on it.. imo they're a mixed bag going down hill. We have the same line of thought on this issue, just that you're a little ahead of me in saying that they've already hit rock bottom.

DollarDave

I still like your use of the word "tripe"!

aaharvel

oh.. i probably just stole it from some anti-american liberal mainstream media terror supporting source-
i use it frequently when I blog, along with other "power" words. It appears to get whatever the point I'm making at that particular time across; for better or for worse.

ohskigod

aaharvel wrote:

imo they're a mixed bag going down hill. We have the same line of thought on this issue, just that you're a little ahead of me in saying that they've already hit rock bottom.

I feel ya, I'd say your a couple years or so behind me in the "frustratometer".
look forward to the day you catch up

Maurice

candyliquor35m wrote:

Alot of what they do is out there in left field and annoys me to some extent but for me the fact that they defend the constitution to the nth degree whether it's a inchworm or a communist, makes me appreciate them for what they are.

No offense, but that is complete BS. The aclu is just like Jesse Jackson or Gloria Allred, they only crawl from under their rock when there is a case that will bring them more attention. If the aclu was really interested in American's rights, they would be all over that eminant domain garbage, yet they seem to remain silent. I have no use for those fools.:mad:

candyliquor35m

ohskigod wrote:

I was in this camp back in the day. I would look at some of the stuff they did with a wierd look and my head tilted to one side in confusion, but i could see that having them as a protectorate of rights to keep prosecutors and lawmakers on there toes was stiill a good thing. They were wacky, but still needed..

to me, those days are over. Like I said in my original post, I see little to no instance where they actually do anything for the right reasons, truly defending the constitution, and protecting us from those who would truly abuse our rights, like search and siezure and whatnot. now its "no crosses" and "christmas trees on public land, travesty!!!!", man cant take a woman's name (OH MY GOD...NOOOOO!:rolleyes: ) are you effing kidding me? they have been losing there relevance in terms of there original mission for years, and their need and relevance is nearly gone. Am I coming out of left field? (no pun intended) Am I wrong?, I'm begging for a counterpoint here.

there are probably true cases of rights and freedom being infringed for the wrong reasons being verlooked to take on the same wacky cases I noted above.

Old school civil rights activists are rolling in there grave in disgust.

Actually I don't follow them that closely to know what they have been doing and what they haven't been doing. I agree with you that they take some wacky cases when I would like to see them to take cases concerning our right to privacy, illegal search and seizures, illegal wiretapping, etc. I'm on their mailing list and used to participate when they asked me to send a fax or email to my senator when I agreed with their philosophy on the subject but now they want me to call the senators directly which takes more time than what their web based fax/email system did so I haven't even been opening their emails most of the time. Send them a email and see what happens and then the rest of us can do the same using your experience as a reference.

mrbigbluelight

"Take Your Wife's Name? That'll Cost You --
so ACLU Steps in
Carla Hall
LA Times Staff Writer
December 15, 2006

Long before they got engaged on a ridge in the Grand Tetons, they had talked about the future and children and names -- specifically their own surnames. She loved hers. He wanted to shed his.

Diana Bijon asked her boyfriend if he would take her last name if they got married.

"I always hoped I would meet a guy who would let my kids take my name. My name dies with me, and my sister and I love my dad so much," said Bijon, 28, an ER nurse at UCLA whose father is a French emigre.

Mike Buday, estranged from his father, felt little attachment to his last name. He agreed to change it.

"Diana's father, to a certain extent, is a father figure to me, "he said.

The point is, though, that it shouldn't be more difficult for a man to change his name.

I'd strongly agree with the sentiment that the ACLU does need to take on some of the tougher cases, especially the issue of "Eminent Domain".''

...I do find it significant that her father is a FRENCH emigre.
The fact that he had enough common sense to get out of France is encouraging, but anytime the French get involved with anything, no matter how remotely, you can figure it's going to get fouled up.

Good post, though. It's given me the idea to start writing the ACLU with some issues that I have just to see what their response/non-response might be.
Ray Hartman, the ex-publisher of "The Riverfront Times" , is the head of the regional chapter of the ACLU. Should prove interesting.

aaharvel

Maurice wrote:

No offense, but that is complete BS. The aclu is just like Jesse Jackson or Gloria Allred, they only crawl from under their rock when there is a case that will bring them more attention. If the aclu was really interested in American's rights, they would be all over that eminant domain garbage, yet they seem to remain silent. I have no use for those fools.:mad:

well no offense to you Maurice, but they "seem to remain silent" because the media mostly reports on the controversial cases that the ACLU represent, and even then it is entirely subjective at best in regards to one's own view of how the constitution is interpreted in relation to. To dismiss someone's opinion as BS simply because you don't agree with it, or in this case because you're too content to read FOX News talking points on the ACLU instead of actually going to their website and read over all the cases they're involved with on a nation-wide basis, a daily nation-wide basis (there's a docket on their homepage) is superficial at best.

But then again.. a knee-jerk reaction is exactly what I would suspect from those who find it easier to label something as "anti-American" when in fact it's merely anti "your ideology." Try thinking outside the box once in a blue moon.

http://www.aclu.org/

bobman1235

Andrew, what is "American" or "anti-American" is obviously up to a bit of interpretation. YOu seem to have a thorn up your **** about that term, just let it go. If someone views the American ideals in one way, and someone goes against that ideal, that IS anti-American to that person. People may take it a bit far labelling EVERYTHING anti-American, but who cares, at least they're not labelling it terrorist or Communist for once. I don't agree that the ACLU is anti-American, but nor do I think they are currently doing anything to make America better. In fact they are making it worse by muddying up the courts with useless and meaningless battles, and getting people on opposite sides of the political spectrum to fight each other over the same, rather than over important issues.

Stop telling people to think outside the box when you yourself just sound like a million other liberal bobbleheads. You criticize people for mimicking all of the conservative blowhards, and then you yourself mimic the liberal blowhards. The extremes of both sides are insane. For a lot of people, the ACLU has come to embody what the extreme left is. Yes, their AIM is noble - to fight for the rights of the little man. Their implementation is garbage. They fight for rights that don't really matter. Maybe only 5% of their fights are these types, but they still waste time on it, and they still waste court time and money on it, which is enough to incur my ill-will towards them. I can't imagine you would find more than a dozen people in this country who would say that of the top 500 civil rights issues in America, a man having to do soem paperwork to change his name to his wife's last name is in that 500. Sure, it's not "fair", but... who CARES?! You can't expect people to take your organization seriously when you PUBLICLY back such a ridiculous and meaningless cause.

candyliquor35m

Also what's not fair is the media broadcasting the wacky cases just to help their ratings. If the ACLU filed a lawsuit claiming that the sneak-a-peek searches that congress and/or the president have authorized are unconstitutional, that would surely have to be taken all the way to the supreme court and alot of folks would just yawn at that and not tune in.

aaharvel

wowzers. So i'm a liberal blowhard even though I agree that the ACLU is a mixed bag? That's a new one on me. Like I said earlier, I disagree with what the ACLU is doing with this, and quite a many other cases. In fact, I'd say the so-called frivolous lawsuits are higher than 5%.. I was thinking double that.

and btw, as for the whole anti-american this & that- absolutely it's a thorn up my ****. I hear it more often than not on this forum, and nobody calls it out for what it is. And judging from last November, most other Americans are sick of that devisive crap as well.

btw, I also think Barbara Boxer's comments toward Condi Rice were absolutely deplorable. It was prejudiced, and she owes her an apology.

I think macro.

Maurice

Well, I'll simply put it this way. ANY group that defends someone who wants to burn an American flag is Anti-American and flat out stupid. ANY group that wants to remove prayer from schools is extremely uninformed. We can easily track the decline in schools since that great decision. ANY group that sets out to remove any reference of Christianity from Gov. when the entire country and constitution was clearly drawn from those values, is of no use to me whatsoever.

The ACLU, much like the Democratic Party, is not what it used to be, not even close. Maybe I'm trippin', but I choose to think and not be led. I choose to judge people and/or groups by their track record, not what they say at the moment. If the aclu were an organization of honor, they would never take up some of the BS cases which they do.

You may disagree, but if you do, you're wrong.;)

aaharvel

Regarding flag burning, I'm right there with you Maurice. Other than that, read The Danbury Letter by Thomas Jefferson. And re-read the 1st Amendment.

Maurice

Ahh the letter, if you read that in context, the seperation spoken of was never meant to protect the Gov. from the church, but the other way around. If you do some research on it, you'll be surprised to find that a good number of the signers of the Constitution were ministers. Not only that, but church services were held in the Rotunda(sp) of the Capital Building every sunday. George Washington also wrote that ANY educational system in this country should have the Bible as its basic premise. Doesn't sound like the Founding Fathers are being interpreted correctly these days. Check www.wallbuilders.org

mrbigbluelight

candyliquor35m wrote:

Also what's not fair is the media broadcasting the wacky cases just to help their ratings. If the ACLU filed a lawsuit claiming that the sneak-a-peek searches that congress and/or the president have authorized are unconstitutional, that would surely have to be taken all the way to the supreme court and alot of folks would just yawn at that and not tune in.

I'll have to read a little more on that but, if I'm not mistaken, Congress authorized one thing, than President Bush issued an "Executive Interpretation" (can't recall the exact phrasing) that basically says:

"I/We interpret this legislation to give me, or anyone I authorize, the power to open up anyone's mail, at any time, anywhere, whenever I feel like it. No justification needed other than I feel like it".

No recourse if you don't like that; Congress gave him the power, or President Bush SAYS they gave him the power.

That is the kind of issue that the ACLU should be addressing.

If you feel that the President needs that sort of power to address the dangers of terrorism, so be it.
Just realize that you've just given President Hillary Clinton those same powers.

bobman1235

aaharvel wrote:

wowzers. So i'm a liberal blowhard even though I agree that the ACLU is a mixed bag? That's a new one on me.

I wasn't calling you a liberal blowhard, I said you said some of the same things they said. Not in this case so much, but in the past, in many other places.

I actually mostly agree with you on this topic, and even on people brandying the "anti-American" tag about (though I just ignore it, which is kind of what I was getting at), but you seem to be just as quick to label someone a Mark Levin follower as others are to label the ACLU anti-American.