RE: ACLU & the tea-party

RE: ACLU & the tea-party (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/25/2010 6:02:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Ken, it looks like you did as good a job reading what I wrote as you did reading your own link. I said "good luck," getting them interested in 2nd issues, not that there was no chance. Rulemylife, I have decided that there is little hope of you ever posting, or engaging in a discussion, in good faith. You are dismissed. Not with you Richie. You are one of those types of people that can never admit when they're dead wrong. Worse yet, even when it's there for everyone to see you come back with some bullshit and try to claim that was not really what you said or meant, or that your comments are just too deep for the minds of mere mortals to understand.

TheHeretic -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/25/2010 8:14:37 PM)
quote: The fact is you claimed the ACLU was not involved in defending the 2nd amendment. Why do you tell such ridiculous lies, Ken? My post is towards the top of the very same page, for Christ's sake. I suggest you read it again, perhaps after turning off the assumption that you know what I think already. Or, in your petty little black/white, liberal good/conservative baa-aaad, mindset that you think me not being fond of them equates to a desire to kill them all. And if you don't get that I'm actually supportive of the ACLU, then you sure as hell better come up with something better suggesting that the ACLU picks their positions in order to be in accord with the long held positions of SCOTUS. What sort of fucking nonsense is that??? edit to add quote

DomKen -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/25/2010 9:01:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: The fact is you claimed the ACLU was not involved in defending the 2nd amendment. Why do you tell such ridiculous lies, Ken? My post is towards the top of the very same page, for Christ's sake. I suggest you read it again, perhaps after turning off the assumption that you know what I think already. Or, in your petty little black/white, liberal good/conservative baa-aaad, mindset that you think me not being fond of them equates to a desire to kill them all. And if you don't get that I'm actually supportive of the ACLU, then you sure as hell better come up with something better suggesting that the ACLU picks their positions in order to be in accord with the long held positions of SCOTUS. What sort of fucking nonsense is that??? edit to add quote Bullshit again. We can all read what you claimed and we all know what you were implying. You were proven wrong but instead of simply admitting your error you tried to spin your way out. And of course the ACLU should adhere to long established precedent. Since they are concerned with protecting people's Constitutional rights and have a limited budget they can only take cases which are near to existing bounds as defined by the SCOTUS. Taking cases they are sure to lose would quickly result in them being unable to help anyone.

TheHeretic -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/25/2010 9:20:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen we all know what you were implying. You suck at mindreading, Ken. I'm well aware there are exceptions to the general attitude of the ACLU on 2nd Amendment matters, and I'll continue wishing anyone in need of such representation "good luck" in getting it from the ACLU. quote:* And of course the ACLU should adhere to long established precedent. Since they are concerned with protecting people's Constitutional rights and have a limited budget they can only take cases which are near to existing bounds as defined by the SCOTUS. Taking cases they are sure to lose would quickly result in them being unable to help anyone. Do you know you preceded this paragraph with these words? quote: spin your way out That's just very funny to me! as evidenced by your own link quote:* despite the national organization's position that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms

DomKen -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/25/2010 10:21:44 PM)
You do know that until Heller that was the precedent and due to the confused and bizarre majority opinion in Heller most constitutional scholars do not believe Heller will stand? Tell me why do you think the ACLU should agree with a ruling that states that a civil court judge may issue a simple order that permanently removes your individual rights? That's what the Heller ruling says. I personally doubt that this republic will long stand for people losing their right to speech and association by court order.

DomYngBlk -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/26/2010 5:16:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: marshalp I wonder why there is such animosity on the part of tea-party movement towards the ACLU. According to my understanding any organization who's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States", should be the perfect partner for the tea-party. It should seem like, apart form the tax-reduction platform, the ACLU & the tea-party have a common platform. Your thoughts??? The two are at odds for obvious reasons. The ACLU does not care what race you are until you are discriminated against. What is that supposed to mean?

tazzygirl -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/26/2010 5:18:39 AM)
My god, mention race in a post and there you are, demanding answers. YOU figure it out, post what YOU feel it means, then i, as usual, will correct you. gesh!

DomYngBlk -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/26/2010 5:20:57 AM)
Suite yourself. I could give a fuck less.

tazzygirl -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/26/2010 5:21:16 AM)
They why ask?

DomYngBlk -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/26/2010 5:23:00 AM)
Killin time

TheHeretic -> RE: ACLU & the tea-party (5/26/2010 6:23:36 AM)
What did time ever do to you?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125