ACLU, Anti Christ & Pro NAMBLA

[VOLT]

Heres a silly comic of some clear ACLU thinking =)


HTTP://www.therightwingarmy.com/liberalsareidiots/aclunambla.jpg

[VOLT]

Not to mention, removing "God" from the pledge. The cross of state seals...

[Oi_Ve]

The ACLU did not support NAMBLA! The workers in it's office did not get a kick off of defending petophiles! Attornies often get partnered with people whom they don't agree with, but the fact is that they chose that job and now they have to go through with it. NAMBLA needed defending, the ACLU more or less was obligated to step up. But just because they defended them doesn't mean they support them! Oi ve.

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

I'm sick of this anti-christian bullshit! We christians are a ====ing 86% majority damn it! It's time we took control. Why do you think that the OFFICIAL motto of the US, adopted by congress, is "IN GOD WE TRUST" You atheist Bastards need to pull your heads out of your asses!

[Count Rugen]

I'm sick of this anti-christian bullshit! We christians are a ====ing 86% majority damn it! It's time we took control. Why do you think that the OFFICIAL motto of the US, adopted by congress, is "IN GOD WE TRUST" You atheist Bastards need to pull your heads out of your asses!
John 11:35

[Madcowhunter]

Jesus Wept?

[Zerstörer]

*Applause for Master Chief* Nicely put!

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

John 11:35

Jesus Wept. What Point are you trying to make by citing this verse?


Arguing on the internet is to Debate as sex with a hooker is to making love

Then why the hell do you do it so frequently?

[Oi_Ve]

I'm going to say this one more time and hope that somebody grasps it:

the ACLU does not support NAMBLA. They defended them, but unless you can show some proof that the people who worked the case liked the idea of trying to prove a child molestor innocent that doesn't mean they supported them. Support means they donated funds to NAMBLA while it was in operation, supporting means they bought trucks for NAMBLA members to use to carry children. It means they bought the candy the members used to lure children in. They defended them, not supported them.
Also, a defensce attorney assumes innocence, yes, but then again their usually only looking at evidence that proves their clients innocence, like they should be. However, I doubt very seriously if you asked a defense attorney if he agreed with his clients actions (in say, a murder) that he would.
Now do some of the higher ups in the ACLU think NAMBLA was justified? Maybe, I'm not them. I wouldn't be surprised. However, is the ACLU about to come out and say that they disliked doing their jobs? No. This is politics, you dont ever say 'I take back my past actions'. We all know what happens then.
The ACLU is not criminal. Is it a benevolent organization? Hell no. Is it out to protect the rights of people? No, no intrest group is. Has it done some good in the past? Yes.
In regards to the 86% of America being christian. That's a polled number, but the number of real, practicing christians is less. Also, that would be a good point, if this was a democracy. Welcome to the wonderful world of Republicanism, where the minority has just as just voice as the majority. However, I am interested in knowing what you meant by 'taking control'. Lastly, I think Mr. Rugen was citing the Bible, saying that Jesus wept, in response to the previous post. As if saying 'Jesus is crying right now due to that last post'. It's a pretty common technique.

[Count Rugen]

You couldn't be more wrong, Master Chief. The job of a lawyer is to defend those that are being tried or sued, as is NAMBLA. The ACLU doesn't defend NAMBLA's ideals, only the right to have those ideals. What many supposed conservatives don't seem to understand these days is, even though you may find something vile doesn't mean it doesn't deserve full access to the law.

Now, I find NAMBLA disgusting. They are vile and wretched people that I would have a hard time not commiting violent acts against if ever they were in my presence. That said, I can still understand the difference between defending their right to speak and endorsing their speech. Why can't you?

It's so easy to get simpletons riled up, isn't it?

by the way, 86% of Americans aren't Christian. The presentation of that "fact" shows a severe lack of understanding where the use of polls is concerned. 86% of people believe in a "god" or a "higher power". Depending on who you asked you would get a much smaller number of actual Christians. After you discount Muslims and jews who answered in the affirmative you'd then have to strike the Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Seventh Day Adventists, Methodists, probably 50% of the Baptists, the Mormons and the Pentecostals you'd probably get a number closer to 2% of Americans that are Christians, the rest are pretenders. The rest like to write vile things on message boards using the type of language that might make my Lord "weep".

Of course, the "conservatives" (whatever that's supposed to be these days) will always think they've got a hold on Christianity, but what they really worship is the American flag. That's not Christlike in any way.

[LiberalsAreBabyKillers!]

You couldn't be more wrong, Master Chief. The job of a lawyer is to defend those that are being tried or sued, as is NAMBLA. The ACLU doesn't defend NAMBLA's ideals, only the right to have those ideals. What many supposed conservatives don't seem to understand these days is, even though you may find something vile doesn't mean it doesn't deserve full access to the law.

Now, I find NAMBLA disgusting. They are vile and wretched people that I would have a hard time not commiting violent acts against if ever they were in my presence. That said, I can still understand the difference between defending their right to speak and endorsing their speech. Why can't you?

It's so easy to get simpletons riled up, isn't it?

by the way, 86% of Americans aren't Christian. The presentation of that "fact" shows a severe lack of understanding where the use of polls is concerned. 86% of people believe in a "god" or a "higher power". Depending on who you asked you would get a much smaller number of actual Christians. After you discount Muslims and jews who answered in the affirmative you'd then have to strike the Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Seventh Day Adventists, Methodists, probably 50% of the Baptists, the Mormons and the Pentecostals you'd probably get a number closer to 2% of Americans that are Christians, the rest are pretenders. The rest like to write vile things on message boards using the type of language that might make my Lord "weep".

Of course, the "conservatives" (whatever that's supposed to be these days) will always think they've got a hold on Christianity, but what they really worship is the American flag. That's not Christlike in any way.









You are lost, my friend, you are lost, and you just sound stupid. Things that make jesus weep are when you people murder babies (abortion) because you're too damn lazy to avoid sex, Jesus weeps when he sees people trying to let totalitarianism exist in the world, he weeps when you turn a country of great ideals and morals founded on his beliefs into a den of theives full of child molestors that don't have to have madatory minimums, gays ====ing eachother up the ass and klling American values, drugies ruining their and other peoples lives by their habits, when he sees a damned owl and damned trees taking precedent over humans, when he sees queers being allowed to parade around in drag, and be protected while a public nativity set is illegal, and the ten commandments, and saying "Under God" in the pledge. When you monsters defend americas enemies, and islam, who has millions of radicals, but you call christians radical religious zealots, when he sees cyberporn being defended, when he sees imcompetent mayors and governors who cause hundereds to die dump the blame on our righteous president, WHEN HE SEES LIBERALS AND ALL THEIR UN AND ANTI CHRISTIAN VIEWS AND ACTIONS, THAT WHEN JESUS WEEPS YOU SANCTIMONIOUS SON OF A BITCH! You and your absolutely bigoted statment that only 2% are real christians, and you call us bigots. and by the way moron, in my book of Geography updated through 2001, it says 86% profess to be followers of Jesus christ, 2% jews, 10% atheist bastards, and 2% other, Other stats show a few points flowing between other and christian by a margin of about 5, but the others are consistent and they prove my point, yes there are pretenders, Jehova's Witnesses, radical small denominations, and liberals come to mind. Which side do you think portrays all these things. And if all we worship is the american flag, then why are we always called radically religious? You have sunk to a new low with that post.

[Oi_Ve]

islam, who has millions of radicals, but you call christians radical religious zealots,

please tell me where you found your proof that there are millions of islamic radicals.
Does anyone here actually believe the Crusades were benevolent? Jesus is not happy with you killing off Muslims, or, if He is, then you sound a lot like another group of people you claim to be acting in the name of God. Islam isn't your enemy, its not a rival of christianity, and Jesus certainly isn't weeping because people defend honest and true islam which teaches non-violence towards non-Muslims. He is crying when a Christian will use His name as an excuse to do unspeakable things. He does cry when radical Muslims blow up buildings in the name of God and when they twist the meaning fo the word 'jihad'.
Oh, and I believe there is a mandatory minimum for child molestors in VA. I can't speak for your state, but there are some states with minimum sentencing.
And I hate to say this, but defense attornies who defend a child molestors do not have to agree with their clients actions, Master Chief. You're ludicrous if you actually think that the whole ACLU actually supports, defends and harbors child molestors.
Also, by accepting a case involving child molestors, the ACLU creates precedent. By doing a high profile, clearly uphill battle, the ACLU gets the publicity they need and when the case is decided then precedent is set. ACLU doesn't have to get involved in a case where the lines aren't quite so easily distinguished. But if they do support child molestors then how come they have not taken a case defending it since NAMBLA.
Point is: don't go blaming the people for the decisions of their leaders. Do you actually think that people want to protect a child molestor? Come on, get serious.

[Oi_Ve]

All i ask the ACLU to do is to do it right, to defend ALL free speech, not just the free speech that aligns with their agenda.

Hey something we agree on!


I dunno how riled up are you at the moment?

Was the gauntlet just thrown back?


Bullsh*t. No other word ot describe it. A large majority of this country still has Christiuan values, even if they aren't practicing christians.

what would you say is a christian value?

[Wadi66]

Your rights end where mine begin. Mine end where yours begin. NAMBLA does not have the "right" to infringe on the rights of others. To argue that their rights are being denied, is to argue that others rights are either less important or do not exist. Total rights, as communists would like us to follow, will lead to savagery among the populace. How convienant.

[Count Rugen]

Bullsh*t. No other word ot describe it. A large majority of this country still has Christiuan values, even if they aren't practicing christians.
What Christian values? The only Christian value is love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as well, everything else is something American "Christians" invented to fire up the ignorant so they could win elections.

How about this incredibly hard piece of logic? An atheist can have so-called "Christian values" but that doesn't make him a Christian. So, saying that 86% of Americans are Christian is ignorant. Making that the basis of your argument is even more ignorant. And saying that people shouldn't have the full protection of the law because they aren't a Christian group is the most ignorant thing of all. I'd take it past ignorant and call it treasonous, but that's just me. I love my country.

By the way, I came up with the worshipping the flag part by reading the bible. Would Christ want you to worship a country? Would Christ have you put a country above all else? Well, some of these "conservatives" (I put it in quotes because I can't think of a single true conservative on this site) put their love of country above all else, and that goes against the first commandmant.

[shotdrops286]

Thou shalt not kill, steal etc Honor thy mother and father etc are all christian values as well as values we should all have. Im an atheist and about as far right as you can go being an atheist. Even i try and follow christian values not for the religous aspect but for the moral ideaology.

[Count Rugen]

Thou shalt not kill, steal etc Honor thy mother and father etc are all christian values as well as values we should all have. Im an atheist and about as far right as you can go being an atheist. Even i try and follow christian values not for the religous aspect but for the moral ideaology.
So every other religion believes in killing and not honoring your mother and father? Every other religion believe in stealing?
Those ideals aren't exclusive to Christianity.

[shotdrops286]

I never said they were exclusively christian values.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Does anyone here actually believe the Crusades were benevolent? Jesus is not happy with you killing off Muslims,

Seeing as how you're the educator Oi_Ve, why not educate us as to the REASON for the crusades? It sounds to me as if you're suggesting Christians, vis-a-vis the Crusades, are as guilty of murder as the militant Islamo-facists of today, which is absolute malarkey.

So, go ahead, put the Crusades into perspective would ya.

[Goose]

I think some might say the Crusades were basically Christianity's response to several hundred years of attacks by Muslims.

I'm still waiting for someone to say the Crusades were Bush's fault.

[Oi_Ve]

Seeing as how you're the educator Oi_Ve, why not educate us as to the REASON for the crusades? It sounds to me as if you're suggesting Christians, vis-a-vis the Crusades, are as guilty of murder as the militant Islamo-facists of today, which is absolute malarkey.

So, go ahead, put the Crusades into perspective would ya.

There are several reasons for the crusades, despite what you'll read in any one particular text. However, I'm going to assume you're looking for this answer:

Islamic Ottoman Turks were attacking, robbing, and killing Christian piligrims on their way to Jerusalem. Therefore Urban II declared a "Holy Crusade"
(quoted because those were his actual words) on the Ottomans, mustered up the major powers of Europe at the time and waged war against their Muslim neighbors.

Was that the answer you're looking for?

[Oi_Ve]

I think some might say the Crusades were basically Christianity's response to several hundred years of attacks by Muslims.

I'm still waiting for someone to say the Crusades were Bush's fault.

Well someone obviously hasn't seen the woodcut that portrays the devil whose face looks suspiciously like Bush's (I'm kidding)
The Crusades were not the response of Christianity to Muslim attacks. It was an excuse to get people's minds off of their horrible standards of living, ignore Urban II's explotation of his position, and unite them against a horrible un-Christian foe.
Were the Muslims justified in all their attacks? No. Of course there were foriegners in their territory and not many of you guys seem to be favorable for illegal aliens. Is killing the solution to immigration problems? No. However, the Muslims were also pulling a Rome/Alexander/Babylon/Persia/Aztec and just conquoring nations for the wealth and power. It wasn't in the name of Allah. But the Pope convinced people that killing Muslims was His will. I don't think a benevolent God would agree with exterminating other religions in His name. Self defense is not in the name of God, its to protect you. I don't like the idea of people trying to justify their actions by saying its God's will is all.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

The crusades were in response to the attack on Jerusalem, which at that point was held by Israel.

I won't comment on the intentions of Urban, because I wasn't there and I sure as hell can't read his mind.

What I will say though, is that instead of affixing blame to Christianity for defending a city that is dear to them and Judaism, one should look at the consequences and ask:

In this case "Had the ottoman's attacked Jerusalem, would the crusades have occured?"

"Had Saddam lived up to his word, given at the cease fire of Desert Storm, would his country have starved, would the US have attacked him?

"Had the Taliban turned OBL over, would the US have invaded Afghanistan"

It's called responsibility, who instigated the situation which lead to the consequences?

I'd wager that not many people know what precipitated the Crusades, but they sure as hell know all about the "Christians" that murdered all those muslims in the Crusades.

Afix blame where it is due, most of the time, the instigator is responisble.

[erichthewebguy]

You couldn't be more wrong, Master Chief. The job of a lawyer is to defend those that are being tried or sued
Noone forced the ACLU to take the case. Noone ever forces a lawyer to take a case. An attorney would be remiss at best, and guilty of malpractice at worst, if he or she took a case and represented a client that he or she did not fully support. Is that preschool enough?


The ACLU doesn't defend NAMBLA's ideals
See above.


What many supposed conservatives don't seem to understand these days is, even though you may find something vile doesn't mean it doesn't deserve full access to the law.
It is a guaranteed right for everyone to have equal access to the courts. That much is true. However, your representative before the courts (your attorney) is representing your ideals. See above.


Now, I find NAMBLA disgusting. They are vile and wretched people that I would have a hard time not commiting violent acts against if ever they were in my presence.
Something we agree upon! :icon_surp


That said, I can still understand the difference between defending their right to speak and endorsing their speech. Why can't you?
If people stood outside your door and hurled insults against you, your family, and your children, under the heading of the First Amendment, would you let them get away with it? If the answer is yes, I want your home address! Just kidding.


It's so easy to get simpletons riled up, isn't it?
Apparently so, you seem quite riled up!


by the way, 86% of Americans aren't Christian. The presentation of that "fact" shows a severe lack of understanding where the use of polls is concerned. 86% of people believe in a "god" or a "higher power". Depending on who you asked you would get a much smaller number of actual Christians. After you discount Muslims and jews who answered in the affirmative you'd then have to strike the Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Seventh Day Adventists, Methodists, probably 50% of the Baptists, the Mormons and the Pentecostals you'd probably get a number closer to 2% of Americans that are Christians, the rest are pretenders.
The definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ and his teachings. You have exposed your lack of knowledge about many religions. Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Seventh Day Adventists, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons and Pentecostals all follow the teachings of Christ. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


The rest like to write vile things on message boards using the type of language that might make my Lord "weep".
Does that include you?


Of course, the "conservatives" (whatever that's supposed to be these days) will always think they've got a hold on Christianity, but what they really worship is the American flag. That's not Christlike in any way.
That's pretty judgemental. Are you also racist?

[erichthewebguy]

I neevr heaard christ advocate beating ANYONE...
Exactly. In fact, I seem to remember a little something about "Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone"