RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (Full Version)

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



Message


BamaD -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 12:24:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I pointed out that (a) people feared X, and spend 5 times the previous amount in that fear, and
(b) X never happened.

When things never happen but you act as if they were going to, that's not "prudence."

No matter how many people pretend it is, it doesn't become so, anymore than centuries of "the world is flat" smashed down the globe.

I'm sorry you find reality "smug" and "pompous." You can save that, because no one cares what you think of anyone anyway.

Now, if you and your buddies were laying out actual proven plots to grab your firearm stash, and your purchases heroically stopped that, sure, enlighten us. But instead, you are just repeating your believe in a common "OMG the liberals are coming" mythology.

Yet here you are still. And armed--5 times as much as you were.

I think you were played. You think you were "prudent." I'm sure the firearm industry appreciates your patronage.


Why do you refuse to admit the numerous attempts to do exactly what pro gun people were "afraid" of.
You claim to be only interested in facts but you ignore that critical fact and pretend that it doesn't count because it failed.
If there was anyone in the nation who was trying to drive up gun sales it was Obama. The title of this thread should not be is Trump bad for gun sales. It should be that Obama with his failed drive to kill gun rights (remember he said that he does not believe in an individual right to bear arms) proving that the myth that the liberals are coming for our guns was, in fact, not a myth.




bounty44 -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 12:55:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

My computer crashed a second before I hit post (so something different) – win10 fuked screen-does that randomly 2-4 times a day.…anyone wanting to buy me a computer made of solid gold I will argue how cool guns are for a year and maybe even shoot one….seems fair :)

Because you suffer mind poverty that’s no reason to try and drag me down to your hovel. Not that the trenches scare me.

I can assure you if you laws were akin to ours the
Homicides 12 000
Suicides 20 000
Accidents 1 000
His cock was too small 57
I was aiming for a bumble bee 700 guffaws

would be ~14th of what they are now,

I have the chronic form of CFS, not a secret, and it has many monikers, and a never ending list of bizarre symptoms – so I can assure you I am very familiar with pain

The problem with America and their guns - is America itself



The point wasn't about pain. Mine or anyone's. My point was about corruption and how it makes criminals rich and puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage.

Discussing this with you, results in insults from you claiming I have mind poverty and that I am trying to drag you down to my hovel. Which makes polite discourse an exercise in futility. Since another of my points is differing parties can't discuss the points civilly let alone come to compromises that could benefit anyone, this serves to illustrate my point.






winsome, I might be engaging in a little hyperbole but have you found anyone here on the left who can discuss things civilly?




Musicmystery -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 12:58:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I pointed out that (a) people feared X, and spend 5 times the previous amount in that fear, and
(b) X never happened.

When things never happen but you act as if they were going to, that's not "prudence."

No matter how many people pretend it is, it doesn't become so, anymore than centuries of "the world is flat" smashed down the globe.

I'm sorry you find reality "smug" and "pompous." You can save that, because no one cares what you think of anyone anyway.

Now, if you and your buddies were laying out actual proven plots to grab your firearm stash, and your purchases heroically stopped that, sure, enlighten us. But instead, you are just repeating your believe in a common "OMG the liberals are coming" mythology.

Yet here you are still. And armed--5 times as much as you were.

I think you were played. You think you were "prudent." I'm sure the firearm industry appreciates your patronage.


Why do you refuse to admit the numerous attempts to do exactly what pro gun people were "afraid" of.
You claim to be only interested in facts but you ignore that critical fact and pretend that it doesn't count because it failed.
If there was anyone in the nation who was trying to drive up gun sales it was Obama. The title of this thread should not be is Trump bad for gun sales. It should be that Obama with his failed drive to kill gun rights (remember he said that he does not believe in an individual right to bear arms) proving that the myth that the liberals are coming for our guns was, in fact, not a myth.

Why do you refuse to admit it ultimately didn't happen?

Let's suppose there was a rapid gun grab and you successfully fought it off entirely. That also means ultimately there was no reason for the panic gun buys---didn't turn out to be necessary. Now you might argue that you decided to be safe just in case. OK. Nonetheless, it was a panic buy and not a "Hey Mildred...I think we need a few extra guns."

Fear is very good for the gun business.




WinsomeDefiance -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 1:39:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

My computer crashed a second before I hit post (so something different) – win10 fuked screen-does that randomly 2-4 times a day.…anyone wanting to buy me a computer made of solid gold I will argue how cool guns are for a year and maybe even shoot one….seems fair :)

Because you suffer mind poverty that’s no reason to try and drag me down to your hovel. Not that the trenches scare me.

I can assure you if you laws were akin to ours the
Homicides 12 000
Suicides 20 000
Accidents 1 000
His cock was too small 57
I was aiming for a bumble bee 700 guffaws

would be ~14th of what they are now,

I have the chronic form of CFS, not a secret, and it has many monikers, and a never ending list of bizarre symptoms – so I can assure you I am very familiar with pain

The problem with America and their guns - is America itself



The point wasn't about pain. Mine or anyone's. My point was about corruption and how it makes criminals rich and puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage.

Discussing this with you, results in insults from you claiming I have mind poverty and that I am trying to drag you down to my hovel. Which makes polite discourse an exercise in futility. Since another of my points is differing parties can't discuss the points civilly let alone come to compromises that could benefit anyone, this serves to illustrate my point.






winsome, I might be engaging in a little hyperbole but have you found anyone here on the left who can discuss things civilly?



I've found bi-partisan discussions usually devolve quickly into name calling and civility amongst those debating to be rare.





WickedsDesire -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 2:03:03 PM)

An idiot declaring itself a bigger idiot is not an argument or point of view, it is simply a fuking idiot.







WinsomeDefiance -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 2:52:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

An idiot declaring itself a bigger idiot is not an argument or point of view, it is simply a fuking idiot.





It is very generous of you to concede and apologize, but you are really being to hard on yourself.




WickedsDesire -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 3:28:43 PM)

A puddle of muck will always be.




BamaD -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 5:22:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I pointed out that (a) people feared X, and spend 5 times the previous amount in that fear, and
(b) X never happened.

When things never happen but you act as if they were going to, that's not "prudence."

No matter how many people pretend it is, it doesn't become so, anymore than centuries of "the world is flat" smashed down the globe.

I'm sorry you find reality "smug" and "pompous." You can save that, because no one cares what you think of anyone anyway.

Now, if you and your buddies were laying out actual proven plots to grab your firearm stash, and your purchases heroically stopped that, sure, enlighten us. But instead, you are just repeating your believe in a common "OMG the liberals are coming" mythology.

Yet here you are still. And armed--5 times as much as you were.

I think you were played. You think you were "prudent." I'm sure the firearm industry appreciates your patronage.


Why do you refuse to admit the numerous attempts to do exactly what pro gun people were "afraid" of.
You claim to be only interested in facts but you ignore that critical fact and pretend that it doesn't count because it failed.
If there was anyone in the nation who was trying to drive up gun sales it was Obama. The title of this thread should not be is Trump bad for gun sales. It should be that Obama with his failed drive to kill gun rights (remember he said that he does not believe in an individual right to bear arms) proving that the myth that the liberals are coming for our guns was, in fact, not a myth.

Why do you refuse to admit it ultimately didn't happen?

Let's suppose there was a rapid gun grab and you successfully fought it off entirely. That also means ultimately there was no reason for the panic gun buys---didn't turn out to be necessary. Now you might argue that you decided to be safe just in case. OK. Nonetheless, it was a panic buy and not a "Hey Mildred...I think we need a few extra guns."

Fear is very good for the gun business.

Why do you refuse to admit that the increase in gun sales was cause by the unceasing efforts of the left to destroy gun rights and keep all but the rich and the government from being able to own them. Instead you pretend that gun owner just went nuts and started buying guns for no reason.
Then you insist that since the left failed in their efforts there was no threat. So does that mean that since the Nazis failed we shouldn't have fought them. You fail to comprehend that gun owners didn't just buy new gun. They did take direct action to stop the gun grab, they spoke out, ad they provided support for those who had the power to fight. And yes, they bought more guns in case they lost.
Why do you keep trying to tell us that their failure somehow equals a lack of intent?




mnottertail -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 5:47:17 PM)

well, you fucking retarded welfare patient, tell us about those unceasing efforts of the left, do you think they were as vigourous and shitgobbling as the 50+ repeals of Obamacare by you welfare patient nutsuckers, or the borrowing and spending of you nutsuckers? You welfare patients get to sit at home and watch Luke and Laura on the soaps, some of us work and are steeped in reality.

I imagine it was those 22 anti-gun EOs in 2013 your head of welfare patients and dumbasses who married their sisters and were caught cheating with their mothers, 'intellagence' agents like you who held the line for America though.

I salute you, retard.




Musicmystery -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 7:06:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I pointed out that (a) people feared X, and spend 5 times the previous amount in that fear, and
(b) X never happened.

When things never happen but you act as if they were going to, that's not "prudence."

No matter how many people pretend it is, it doesn't become so, anymore than centuries of "the world is flat" smashed down the globe.

I'm sorry you find reality "smug" and "pompous." You can save that, because no one cares what you think of anyone anyway.

Now, if you and your buddies were laying out actual proven plots to grab your firearm stash, and your purchases heroically stopped that, sure, enlighten us. But instead, you are just repeating your believe in a common "OMG the liberals are coming" mythology.

Yet here you are still. And armed--5 times as much as you were.

I think you were played. You think you were "prudent." I'm sure the firearm industry appreciates your patronage.


Why do you refuse to admit the numerous attempts to do exactly what pro gun people were "afraid" of.
You claim to be only interested in facts but you ignore that critical fact and pretend that it doesn't count because it failed.
If there was anyone in the nation who was trying to drive up gun sales it was Obama. The title of this thread should not be is Trump bad for gun sales. It should be that Obama with his failed drive to kill gun rights (remember he said that he does not believe in an individual right to bear arms) proving that the myth that the liberals are coming for our guns was, in fact, not a myth.

Why do you refuse to admit it ultimately didn't happen?

Let's suppose there was a rapid gun grab and you successfully fought it off entirely. That also means ultimately there was no reason for the panic gun buys---didn't turn out to be necessary. Now you might argue that you decided to be safe just in case. OK. Nonetheless, it was a panic buy and not a "Hey Mildred...I think we need a few extra guns."

Fear is very good for the gun business.

Why do you refuse to admit that the increase in gun sales was cause by the unceasing efforts of the left to destroy gun rights and keep all but the rich and the government from being able to own them. Instead you pretend that gun owner just went nuts and started buying guns for no reason.
Then you insist that since the left failed in their efforts there was no threat. So does that mean that since the Nazis failed we shouldn't have fought them. You fail to comprehend that gun owners didn't just buy new gun. They did take direct action to stop the gun grab, they spoke out, ad they provided support for those who had the power to fight. And yes, they bought more guns in case they lost.
Why do you keep trying to tell us that their failure somehow equals a lack of intent?

Ah, no, that's you going completely off the rails.





BamaD -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 8:02:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I pointed out that (a) people feared X, and spend 5 times the previous amount in that fear, and
(b) X never happened.

When things never happen but you act as if they were going to, that's not "prudence."

No matter how many people pretend it is, it doesn't become so, anymore than centuries of "the world is flat" smashed down the globe.

I'm sorry you find reality "smug" and "pompous." You can save that, because no one cares what you think of anyone anyway.

Now, if you and your buddies were laying out actual proven plots to grab your firearm stash, and your purchases heroically stopped that, sure, enlighten us. But instead, you are just repeating your believe in a common "OMG the liberals are coming" mythology.

Yet here you are still. And armed--5 times as much as you were.

I think you were played. You think you were "prudent." I'm sure the firearm industry appreciates your patronage.


Why do you refuse to admit the numerous attempts to do exactly what pro gun people were "afraid" of.
You claim to be only interested in facts but you ignore that critical fact and pretend that it doesn't count because it failed.
If there was anyone in the nation who was trying to drive up gun sales it was Obama. The title of this thread should not be is Trump bad for gun sales. It should be that Obama with his failed drive to kill gun rights (remember he said that he does not believe in an individual right to bear arms) proving that the myth that the liberals are coming for our guns was, in fact, not a myth.

Why do you refuse to admit it ultimately didn't happen?

Let's suppose there was a rapid gun grab and you successfully fought it off entirely. That also means ultimately there was no reason for the panic gun buys---didn't turn out to be necessary. Now you might argue that you decided to be safe just in case. OK. Nonetheless, it was a panic buy and not a "Hey Mildred...I think we need a few extra guns."

Fear is very good for the gun business.

Why do you refuse to admit that the increase in gun sales was cause by the unceasing efforts of the left to destroy gun rights and keep all but the rich and the government from being able to own them. Instead you pretend that gun owner just went nuts and started buying guns for no reason.
Then you insist that since the left failed in their efforts there was no threat. So does that mean that since the Nazis failed we shouldn't have fought them. You fail to comprehend that gun owners didn't just buy new gun. They did take direct action to stop the gun grab, they spoke out, ad they provided support for those who had the power to fight. And yes, they bought more guns in case they lost.
Why do you keep trying to tell us that their failure somehow equals a lack of intent?

Ah, no, that's you going completely off the rails.



So you agree that the increase in gun sales was caused by the Dems constant attempts to limits to 2nd amendment rights.
You agree that it was that they failed , not that they didn't try.
And you have finally see that there was a real threat to these rights, not a paranoid believe in one that prompted gun sales.
Or are you still living in a dream world where the gun grabbers are saints and nobody has any business complaining as long as they are allowed even one kind of gun.




Musicmystery -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/8/2017 8:21:04 PM)

Since you're determined to be a dick, believe what you want.

But you're just making shit up now.




thompsonx -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/9/2017 1:20:25 AM)


ORIGINAL: BamaD



Again you dismiss concerns about gun control as false hysteria simply because the gun grabbers failed in every attempt to take away our rights.



Cite please.

There was no hysteria during the Obama administration, there was a concerted effort to grab every gun possible.


Cite please




BamaD -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/9/2017 10:15:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I pointed out that (a) people feared X, and spend 5 times the previous amount in that fear, and
(b) X never happened.

When things never happen but you act as if they were going to, that's not "prudence."

No matter how many people pretend it is, it doesn't become so, anymore than centuries of "the world is flat" smashed down the globe.

I'm sorry you find reality "smug" and "pompous." You can save that, because no one cares what you think of anyone anyway.

Now, if you and your buddies were laying out actual proven plots to grab your firearm stash, and your purchases heroically stopped that, sure, enlighten us. But instead, you are just repeating your believe in a common "OMG the liberals are coming" mythology.

Yet here you are still. And armed--5 times as much as you were.

I think you were played. You think you were "prudent." I'm sure the firearm industry appreciates your patronage.


Why do you refuse to admit the numerous attempts to do exactly what pro gun people were "afraid" of.
You claim to be only interested in facts but you ignore that critical fact and pretend that it doesn't count because it failed.
If there was anyone in the nation who was trying to drive up gun sales it was Obama. The title of this thread should not be is Trump bad for gun sales. It should be that Obama with his failed drive to kill gun rights (remember he said that he does not believe in an individual right to bear arms) proving that the myth that the liberals are coming for our guns was, in fact, not a myth.

Why do you refuse to admit it ultimately didn't happen?

Let's suppose there was a rapid gun grab and you successfully fought it off entirely. That also means ultimately there was no reason for the panic gun buys---didn't turn out to be necessary. Now you might argue that you decided to be safe just in case. OK. Nonetheless, it was a panic buy and not a "Hey Mildred...I think we need a few extra guns."

Fear is very good for the gun business.

Why do you refuse to admit that the increase in gun sales was cause by the unceasing efforts of the left to destroy gun rights and keep all but the rich and the government from being able to own them. Instead you pretend that gun owner just went nuts and started buying guns for no reason.
Then you insist that since the left failed in their efforts there was no threat. So does that mean that since the Nazis failed we shouldn't have fought them. You fail to comprehend that gun owners didn't just buy new gun. They did take direct action to stop the gun grab, they spoke out, ad they provided support for those who had the power to fight. And yes, they bought more guns in case they lost.
Why do you keep trying to tell us that their failure somehow equals a lack of intent?

Ah, no, that's you going completely off the rails.



Aren't you bright enough to understand that when I say that the reason nothing passed was because the gun grabbers were defeated at every turn is not a denial of "nothing happened"
but rather a explanation of why. You won't admit that the constant failed attempts constituted a threat.
Are you telling me that we shouldn't consider it a threat until they actually confiscate guns?




Musicmystery -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/9/2017 10:23:13 AM)

Please stop being childish. I don't mind that we disagree. I appreciate different points of view.

But we've traveled the same circle repetitively. Grow up and discuss things like a man.

There are two different factors:
- the threat, real or perceived, that gun ownership was threatened.
- people rushed out to buy five times as many guns over 8 years of the real or perceived threat.

Now, maybe the threat wasn't really there substantially, or maybe it was and you successfully beat it back.
- if either are true, you didn't need to rush out and buy five times as many guns. You just needed more faith in your political strength.
- if you rushed out to buy them just in case, OK. But if you did so because the NRA whipped up hysteria, you were played.
- if you needed or wanted them anyway, and bought them as a precaution, then that's prudent.

That's reality. All your insistence that I have to believe in an evil plot to subvert the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to the end results.

I wish you showed this much fervor in defending the rest of the Bill of Rights. You'd join me in supporting the ACLU.

Instead, you want to play the childish game.

Please go away if that's all you bring.




BamaD -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/9/2017 10:54:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Please stop being childish. I don't mind that we disagree. I appreciate different points of view.

But we've traveled the same circle repetitively. Grow up and discuss things like a man.

There are two different factors:
- the threat, real or perceived, that gun ownership was threatened.
- people rushed out to buy five times as many guns over 8 years of the real or perceived threat.

Now, maybe the threat wasn't really there substantially, or maybe it was and you successfully beat it back.
- if either are true, you didn't need to rush out and buy five times as many guns. You just needed more faith in your political strength.
- if you rushed out to buy them just in case, OK. But if you did so because the NRA whipped up hysteria, you were played.
- if you needed or wanted them anyway, and bought them as a precaution, then that's prudent.

That's reality. All your insistence that I have to believe in an evil plot to subvert the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to the end results.

I wish you showed this much fervor in defending the rest of the Bill of Rights. You'd join me in supporting the ACLU.

Instead, you want to play the childish game.

Please go away if that's all you bring.

Most of the guns were purchased because people wanted them and just got them early as a precaution.
I don't consider most pro gun control people to be evil, the have just been driven to hysteria by people like Obama and Blumberg som
of whom actually believe that the more the government is in charge of the better off we all are..




bounty44 -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/9/2017 12:31:05 PM)

just stopping in to comment on his statement of "joining in with supporting the aclu if you cared about the rest of the bill of rights."

its laughable. here's the stuff I posted last time the "bill of rights loving" aclu was praised...and he was in on that thread (the word "un-teachable" comes to mind):

yeah---the aclu is all about the bill of rights...

quote:

The ACLU likes to pretend that it wants to protect the Constitution. In reality, it's a radical left-wing group dedicated to destroying our country and our constitution. If you don't believe me, take it from its co-founder...

[In 1934, Roger Nash Baldwin, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the ACLU, wrote an article for "Soviet Russia", in which he quite clearly explained why he was fighting for civil liberties.]

"I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which worker's rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever."

"When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people—power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children...[65]"

"I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal.[66] "

The ACLU often insists that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution requires censorship of religious expression.

The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to abortion, such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself

The ACLU has defended polygamists

In September 2000, the ACLU represented the North American Man/Boy Love Association when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, who was raped, tortured and murdered by two men, filed a $200 million federal lawsuit for wrongful death. John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU stated, It's not a real popular case, but the First Amendment issues are clear.

the ACLU has taken [numerous steps] to weaken America in its fight with terrorists.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/266020/aclu-dedicated-protecting-basic-tenants-our-daniel-greenfield
http://www.conservapedia.com/ACLU


"Political democracy is useful only as a tool of peaceful change," Baldwin wrote, on another occasion. The goal was "change", or as Baldwin had written previously in the Yale yearbook, "Communism is the goal". Before the Fish Committee in 1930, he testified that he supported the right of aliens to advocate the violent overthrow of the United States. For this same reason, Baldwin defended Soviet repressions as, "Weapons of the struggle in a transition period toward socialism." Back then Baldwin and his comrades were using civil liberties to enable a Communist takeover of the United States, that would end all civil liberties. Today they and so many on the left are working to enable an Islamist takeover…

Once again, Baldwin himself said it best. "I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it." Today the United Front is Red and Green, the Marxist-Islamist alliance, and the left thinks that it and the Islamists want the same things. Including the violent overthrow of the United States.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/08/day-aclu-joined-al-queda.html


Ever notice how the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) seems to take on only cases that are anti-Christian - pro-sodomy, pro-abortion, anti-family, pro-pornography, pro-prostitution, pro-euthanasia, pro-homosexual, pro-infanticide, pro-crime, pro-humanism, anti-God -- and, except for atheism, anti-religion?

Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:

the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);

the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);

opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);

opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);

opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);

opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)

not to mention the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).

http://dianedew.com/aclu.htm


What Does the ACLU Really Want?

On its website the ACLU declares forthrightly that “the right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.” In practice, however, ACLU attorneys frequently make legal arguments against religious freedom whenever Christian symbols are introduced in a public place. Whether it’s a student wearing a cross in school or a minister invoking Jesus’s name during a pre-meeting prayer at a local government office, some ACLU lawyer is apt to argue a case for suppressing the public expression of religious belief.

Critics have noted that ACLU lawyers typically become involved in cases that seek to prohibit, not protect, the public display of religion. Rather than uphold the First Amendment, these legal cases undermine it. ACLU’s critics conclude that the organization is not really committed to freedom of religion. It is committed to freedom from religion…

However, the ACLU is perhaps best known for its assaults on the public expression of religion. “The ACLU is the greatest censor of religion in our nation today,” says Joseph Infranco, a senior attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a non-profit legal group that takes many First Amendment religious freedom cases. “They selectively take a few cases [defending the right to Christian belief]. But even a broken clock is correct twice a day.”

https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-american-civil-liberties-union-how-it-thwarts-freedom-of-religion/




bounty44 -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/9/2017 12:32:37 PM)

"The ACLU: Enemy of America and Christianity"

quote:

For the past forty years the ACLU has used every legal machination to make the display of Christmas trees illegal if placed in a public institution or on property where there is even the remotest connection to a tax dollar. They’ve bludgeoned America with their claim that such displays violate the separation of church and state. The display of the Ten Commandments? Illegal, they say. Prayer in school? Prohibited, they charge. The mere mention of God at a graduation ceremony — grounds for a law suit. The display of a Menorah — the next morning the ACLU is at the court steps already litigating.

How strict are they in their interpretation of separation of church and state? In Pittsburgh they went so far as to demand that a municipal parking lot be off limits to those parking there to visit a local Christmas display at a nearby church.

So when the University of Michigan decided to fund $25,000 worth of ritual foot-washers for Islamic students wishing to pray, one assumed the ACLU would yell foul. After all, it is a public institution, receiving federal and state taxes and using that money for a religious device whose purpose is to facilitate prayer. Not only did the ACLU not object but it also supported the expenditure as “reasonable,” something it can never bring itself to say when activities are for Judeo-Christian expression or symbols.

The Byron Union school district in California has decided that its public schools should set aside days and assignments where all students choose a Muslim name, recite passages from the Koran, and periodically give up certain comforts as “forms of fasting” that correspond to Ramadan. Has the ACLU brought this school district to court as it has hundreds of times when schools simply mention something involving Christianity or when a student reads her own Bible on her own time at recess or when a student chooses a religious theme for an essay topic? The ACLU has been silent. To the ACLU, the non-invasive, mere presence of anything Christian in school is far more “dangerous” than the actual, coerced undertaking of Islamic religious activities and beliefs in America’s public schools.

For those of us who have for years diligently observed the selective inconsistencies and overt hypocrisy of the ACLU, none of this comes as a surprise. Rather, it is a verification. For we know what motivates the ACLU and what is its ultimate goal. Long ago it decided to do what ever it takes to expunge America of its affinity to Christianity and strip our society of its Judeo-Christian touchstone and foundation. It expanded the context of separation of church and state to accomplish this goal, and a good-willed citizenry acquiesced for they did not wish to question what they assumed were the pure, constitutional motivations behind the ACLU’s campaign. Who wants to question an organization with beguiling head-banners such as American and Civil Liberties.

The ACLU has manipulated church/state issues and used it selectively when it furthered its own anti-Christian agenda. Evidently, separation of church from state is not the inviolable principle we were led to believe given the ACLU’s own brushing aside of it if standing in the way of Islamic desires. For, truthfully, nothing would give the ACLU more pleasure than forcing upon America — and its students — a multi-culturalism and multi-religionism that would effectively diminish the influence and identity of America as a Judeo-Christian society.

Why does this organization with the high-sounding, patriotic name have as its purpose the destruction of the Judeo-Christian, American belief system? It was founded by Roger Baldwin, an avowed communist, who knew that what prevents America from being taken over by communism are precisely its Judeo-Christian beliefs. A religious society will not give its allegiance to the state but to God only. It will support only that form of government that subscribes to In God We Trust, not one rooted in atheism, as is the communist state.

It was Baldwin who remarked how "America must follow the example of Stalin’s Soviet Union where greater freedoms exist than anywhere else in the world". Baldwin is dead, reunited with his patron saint Marx in the non-spiritual unknown where all dead communist believers congregate. But in the mid 60s, his organization was taken over by a caste of privileged elites who, though not economic communists per se, are heirs to his anti-Americanism and his goal of transforming America by using our own legal system to marginalize and demonize our Judeo-Christian ethos, undermine our penchant for local control, and eviscerate the traditions and values that have made America unique and thereby beyond the clutch of socialism.

The ACLU is led today by cultural marxists who will partner with Islamic forces if by so doing it can bring about legal decisions that demoralize the believing Christian community and sap their will to fight for their heritage. More so, in pushing Islam on the rest of us by granting them special rights not allowed the rest of society, the cultural and public face of America will change, be transformed. A transformed America, one no longer sure of who it is and what it is allowed to believe and express, is one so confused and weakened that it looses its will. That’s what the ACLU wants.

Hard as it is to believe, there are people here — an enemy within — who hate this country. They are not nationalists but trans-nationalists. Ironically, they come from those who have prospered here and now believe they are better than the average Christian of Faith who is White. Their loyalties are not to America but a cosmopolitan, very secular set of beliefs. Historic America stands in the way they wish to go — they want it gone and replaced with a totally different set of standards, which they will impose. Those harboring this pernicious mindset often gravitate to and find their natural home in the ACLU.

Most are wealthy and live and play segregated from minorities but champion any minority cause, no matter how odious and destructive, as a way to lessen the standing and comfort of the majority and its "corny" values. When looking at the cases and causes they select, most often it is that which will upset the average Joe’s apple cart. They love representing terrorists wishing to harm America, rarely loyal soldiers sacrificing to defend her. They remain immune, however, for most live a protected, gilded life.

ACLU lawyers specifically seek legal opportunities designed to upend that which we cherish and which makes us who we are: our traditions, habits, sexual discipline and our belief in parental rights and the integrity of the nuclear family. Repeatedly, they argue for the broadest allowance when it comes to supporting the "rights" of those wishing to challenge and undermine historic American norms but insist on the stingiest, most limiting parameters for those with traditional values. Case in point: They have spent years working to outlaw any form of prayer, even silent prayer, in schools when it involved a Judeo-Christian motif but are now utterly silent in a San Diego case (Carver Elementary Public School ) where the superintendent is granting a daily 15 minute prayer slot requested by Moslems that corresponds to that time of day when Moslems pray. It is an intellectual hypocrisy reflecting where their sentiments lie. They have chosen sides, and they are not on our side.

There are many in the ACLU who have rebelled against their Christian upbringing and see Christianity as the ultimate enemy, and there are many who are not Christian and adhere to a sociology that views society through the singular prism of minority versus majority: minority good, majority bad. Though they have become wildly successful and wealthy — due to the tolerance of America’s majority class — they still see themselves as a minority and find nobility in any cause brought by a non-white or a non-Christian and insist on portraying America’s majority group as racist and one that “must be brought down."

Right after 9/11, an old-time, keen observer of the American political scene remarked: “Now that they’ve attacked us, we’ll soon be giving them special rights, a form of religious affirmative action”. I disagreed, saying there is no domestic historical sin or guilt for which we must make atonement." I forgot about the ACLU. Its loathing of mainstream America spurs it to do the unconscionable.



http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/the-aclu-enemy-of-america-and-christianity/




bounty44 -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/9/2017 12:34:38 PM)

"State leader quits ACLU after daughters were ‘visibly frightened’ by men using women’s restroom""

quote:

The African-American woman who leads a state chapter of the ACLU has resigned, citing her own daughters' “frightened” reaction to biological males using the women's restroom.

The organization's increasing focus on legislating the transgender lobby's concerns pushed Maya Dillard Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, to tender her resignation.

“I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered,” she wrote.

“My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer,” she continued.

In a statement, she said that the ACLU has become “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights.”

The “hierarchy of rights” the ACLU chooses to defend or ignore, she wrote, is “based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities."


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/state-leader-quits-aclu-after-children-were-visibly-frightened-by-transgend#pq=VvitsT





bounty44 -> RE: FOX: Trump bad for gun sales (4/9/2017 12:35:54 PM)

"ACLU: 'Communism is the Goal'"

quote:

The ACLU remains one of America's most powerful secular-socialist political pressure groups. It relentlessly tramples underfoot the First Amendment, which guarantees sweeping and absolute liberty for all Americans -- including government employees -- to freely exercise their faith both publicly and privately without fear of reprisal: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Examples of its constitutional abuses are manifold, but one of the most recent involves an ACLU assault against a group of Christians in Santa Rosa County, FL. Liberty Counsel represents those Christians.

An ACLU-crafted Consent Decree has been used as a weapon to threaten school district employees with fines and jail time for merely praying over a meal, and for exercising -- even while away from school -- their sincerely held Christian faith. You read that right. The ACLU is literally seeking to criminalize Christianity.

In August of 2009, Liberty Counsel successfully defended staff member Michelle Winkler from contempt charges brought by the ACLU after her husband, who is not even employed by the district, offered a meal prayer at a privately sponsored event in a neighboring county.

Liberty Counsel also successfully defended Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman against criminal contempt charges, after the ACLU sought to have the men thrown in jail for blessing a lunch meal served to about 20 adult booster club members.

Under the Consent Decree teachers are considered to be acting in their "official capacity" anytime a student is present, even at private functions off campus.

Liberty Counsel describes this unconstitutional decree:

"Teachers cannot pray, bow their heads, or fold their hands to show agreement with anyone who does pray. Teachers and staff cannot 'Reply' to an email sent by a parent if the parent's email refers to God or Scripture. Teachers either have to delete such references from the original email or reply by initiating a new email. Teachers and staff are also required to stop students from praying in their own private club meetings."

During witness testimony, Mrs. Winkler sobbed as she described how she and a coworker, who had recently lost a child, literally had to hide in a closet to pray.

Although the case continues, on Monday the ACLU suffered a tremendous setback while freedom took a significant step forward. Federal District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers granted in part a Preliminary Injunction in favor of Liberty Counsel's twenty-four Christian clients.

Judge Rodgers concluded that even though "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy," one aspect of the Consent Decree -- its attempt to prohibit school employees from fully participating in private religious events -- is so flawed that it must be immediately halted.

The Court thus enjoined the School Board "from enforcing any school policy that restrains in any way an employee's participation in, or speech or conduct during, a private religious service, including baccalaureate" pending a trial on the merits.

"Progressives" are nothing if not consistent. As they gain confidence, they invariably rush across that bridge too far. They engage wild-eyed efforts to "fundamentally transform America" to reflect their own secular-socialist self-image.

I'm certain that both the bare-knuckle spirit of the American people and Liberty Counsel's enduring 92 percent win record against the ACLU will maintain a durable safeguard - an "impenetrable wall of separation" if you will - between our constitutionally guaranteed liberties and a subversive "progressive" agenda built upon the distinctly un-American creed: "Communism is the goal."


http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2011/03/25/aclu_communism_is_the_goal/page/full/




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625