ACLU is seeking input from public

Creeker01 (anonymous) says...

Nonpartisan my Aunt Kiester.

Here's a Controversy for you:

Why did the ACLU change the "C" in its name from "Communist" to "Civil"?

August 22, 2008 at 2:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

AMEN TO THAT THOMAS!

Family court is the arm-pit of the universe for constitutional and civil rights violations.

August 22, 2008 at 3:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Constitutional law and civil liberties do not exist in the criminal enterprise /A/K/A/ family court. Family court as a legal venue has ceased to exist through blatant acts of corruption by that bastardized branch of the judiciary.

August 22, 2008 at 4:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NativeSon (anonymous) says...

so is the aclu

August 22, 2008 at 4:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Oz (anonymous) says...

Other then fixing the wrong you have done in America and TRUE injustices that really exsist like noted by Lilly and Thomas or answer the first question. I would say nothing and go away. Wow generally I guess your are not really liked are wanted here by a good many!

August 22, 2008 at 5:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

It is in the hands of the ACLU to change their image by tackling issues important to general public. If they choose to ignore the blatant violations of constitutional law and civil liberties by the family court then they become equally guilty with that system. Guilt by omission is not a lesser guilt.

August 22, 2008 at 5:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sgtpsycho (anonymous) says...

The old Soviet Union is re-forming. They should all be able to go home soon and get their jobs back.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, azclownz!

August 22, 2008 at 5:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

moonpie (anonymous) says...

Oh I have some for ya!
1/ please help the NAACP get the flag removed from where they agreed to have it moved way back when.
2/ see if you can help them with their young black men that are precarious sperm donors and end up in jail or worst dead by the age of 25.
3/ maybe help with the welfare state created by the government. Used to be a democratic thing but now it's both parties. This created the entitlment & dependent state. Meaning the more dependents we have the more we are entitled too.
4/ Maybe help the feds enforce our immigration laws in place and not write new "feel good" ones!

NOW THERE'S A START!

August 22, 2008 at 6:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

10216340 (anonymous) says...

Please, just go away. I don't care where.....just not here. I want to throw up whenever I hear those 4 letters said together.

The organization is as liberal as it gets so don't try to claim otherwise. If I happened to meet anyone working for that organization I would have to immediately go home and shower.....yuk!

August 22, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

I realize this will go against their mission statement lay down by their Marxist founders but let me think of a few issues.

The NRA would appreciate some help with second amendment issues. The basic right to defend your life, family and property from evil. The problem with that, Marxists don't believe in property rights, the family or your life so why would they want to support your second amendment rights.

August 22, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

trip...

What kills me about these Marxists is how they love money, property and power. They are so full of themselves and anyone who believes in that socialist bull needs their heads examined. I guess that is why they're call liberals.

August 22, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

WhoCares (anonymous) says...

tripsa/RW ... Is the following true???

Posted by sofa_king_what on August 20, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey guys- it's about tripsa. He showed up at my house and threatened my wife today, now he's on the run. He's got like 30 names he uses on this site. So in addition to being a possible felon, he's also just a plain old dork.

PLEASE, THIS IS REAL. DO NOT RESPOND TO: tripsa, evilgenius, jeff61, usna04, arch_dude, chascarolinagirl, tammie, and RW. They're the same person. He's been threatening my family. I'm signing off for now.

August 22, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

WhoCares...

This forum is an exercize in your skills to think. sofa_king is not that hard to figure out.

August 22, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DoaMM (anonymous) says...

You're gonna ask ME how to help you find someone to attack?! ACLU, you shove it where the sun don't shine! You are "Liberal-Leaning", you are against prosperity for EVERYONE, and you have no business stirring the pot everywhere you go!

Get out of my town, low-life bottom feeders. You're the same as lawyers but at least lawyers can play BOTH sides of the fence from time to time.

August 22, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nofear (anonymous) says...

Hello! This is either your fear or your ignorance talking. If you'd take a moment to actually expand your brain and read a little, you'd learn that the ACLU protects everyone's freedom. Yes, believe it or not, the ACLU has represented Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and a host of others who deserved representation at the time. Does it scare you that there actually might be someone other than the mostly white Good Ole Boy South Carolina legislature who cares what happens to your privacy, your body, and your country?

August 22, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tulane75 (anonymous) says...

The ACLU makes everybody mad at some point, but don't let your dislike of the ACLU confuse you about the constant need to guard our individual rights.

Even though there is not much left of our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, basic rights are still worth the fight.

Did you know that the ACLU represented Oliver North in connection with his convictions, later reversed? Here is a link:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...

August 22, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

berthelot (anonymous) says...

Yeah, we don't want none of them "civil liberties" here in South Carolina. We are doing just fine with the Patriot Act and FISA. I gave up a few extra constitutional rights the other day just for fun.

Nope, you can just pack up and go back to where you came from because our ignorant knee jerk reactions will ALWAYS be the same: The ACLU is a bunch of whiny baby liberal nutzos that only defend child rapists and terrorists.

As my friend RW so eloquently stated above, you are a "pathology" on society and should move to Pakistan. Of course he is pointing out that you are "the study of disease"... wait, that doesn't make sense at all. Pathology? Must been looking for that other P word. Hmm. Well, we didn't learn it in South Carolina public schools along with some other choice vocabulary that is only reserved for liberals. Yeah, thats right! Liberals. We don't need any of them liberal words. We are doing just fine here, rotting in our own heap of neo-conservative horse poo, thinking that the republican leadership still has some connection to really being "conservative", and DEFINITELY has the good of freedom, liberty, the constitution, and the future of our country as its top priorities.

Now go provide some "free legal assistance" to "those who can't afford it" or who's "constitutional rights" that our "forefathers sacrifices and shed blood for" are being "trampled on".... whaaaa! Haha, Sissy liberals.

August 22, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Southern_Cousin (anonymous) says...

Firstly, apologies to the ACLU for the ignoranance on this site. No wonder it has taken you so long to get to Charleston. If you were aware of some of the local provincial attitudes, I bet you had to be dragged here kicking and screaming.

I would like you to investigate the inequality in women's wages in the Charleston tri-county area. Many employers, including Chas County, treat educated women like clerks.
And they pay them like clerks, too. While this is not 100% across the board, there are alot of women in Charleston being denied equal pay for equal work.

This probably comes as "no surprise", considering the provincial attitudes.

August 22, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

onevoice (anonymous) says...

I will enter this idea on behalf of the guy's who be saggin', since they can't write or type because their pant's may fall down. "City council wants to go against the constituion and make it illeagle to wear our pant's baggin' and saggin'"

August 22, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BerkeleyCo_Mom_of_3 (anonymous) says...

WTF??? Can't they leave well enough alone? Why do they need to go looking for issues? Is it not f'ing obvious what issues exist already? I say they need to go crawl under a damn rock and face their own issues, like how f'ed up they are. there are too many f'ing whiners in this country who won't live up to their responsibilities and if they had f'ing common sense in the first place they wouldn't find themselves in precarious and alarming situations.

ACLU -- Anarchist Communist Losers Unite!

August 22, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Newt & Southern...

In order to operate the ACLU needs facade. That is obvious as the day is long.

Lawyers have been fighting for civil rights long before the ACLU came along?

Again, why doesn't the ACLU fight for our second amendment rights? Isn't the right to defend your life, family and property with a firearm a basic civil right?

August 22, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

tripsa,
It is hard not to seem elitist in SC, you really don't have to have a very high tower, just above the basement would make you an elitist here (note to others, I am from SC, lived most of my life here (except in germany in the Army and 3 years in Atlanta, so in my book it gives me the right to make this statements).

August 22, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

"ACLU, please investigate the rapid decline of the white middle class man. They are dying off like flies!"

Bravo!

August 22, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

Note to others.....why do you guys have every apposing viewpoint communist? You sound like the McCarthy hearings and is really absurd! I guess you got to make everyone as extreme as you are, but on the other end of the spectrum.

August 22, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

The right to defend your life, family and property is one of the most basic fundamental rights and is the foundation for all the other rights we have yet the ACLU will not defend this basic civil liberty:why?

Come on you liberals I want to hear something really lame from you guys.

August 22, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

tripsa
I guess that you do not believe that all people, whether there the victim class or not, should have rights....
cypress_jones
You have to bring up the most extreme cases.....BTW, they were just defending the first amendment rights and not promoting the organization, no matter how vile and disgusting the group is. While I don't agree with this, they are just following their founding principles.

August 22, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BerkeleyCo_Mom_of_3 (anonymous) says...

CB...you deserve A LOT of beer for that post!! OUTF'INGSTANDING!!!

August 22, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Sure anyone can burn a American flag and the ACLU will be there faster than a New York minute to defend your right to free speech if you call that free speech.

Again, my question is the second amendment. Why doesn't the ACLU defend this basic civil right? Is there something wrong with protecting your life, family and property with a firearm?

August 22, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

jonsey,

Don't know enough about that case to comment, but I am sure the right winged press has set you straight.

August 22, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Newt...

That doesn't answer my question. If I can recall, the chief counsel for the ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsberg and 3 other liberal judges voted against this ruling. Is there something wrong with protecting your life, family and property with a firearm?

August 22, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lou9 (anonymous) says...

They need to change their name to the Atheists Communists Lunatics Union. Then they can get the hell out of the country.

August 22, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...

SC doesn't really want to be free. They want a conformist society which supports the established power structure. Most people here resent any expression of free speech or diversity. They aren't free and they don't want anyone else to be either.

As James L. Petigru said in 1861, "SC is too small to be a sovereign nation and too large to be an insane asylum."

August 22, 2008 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Newt:

I realize that 4 conservative judges and one moderate voted in favor of our second amendment rights. That wasn't my question. My question is: why doesn't the ACLU defend our second amendment rights? What is wrong with protecting your life, family and property?

If you're not going to answer the question then I think I know the reason why. It's that mission statement of the ACLU. You have a nice day.

August 22, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bigwhip (anonymous) says...

They are looking for suggestions? I have a great one for them........GO AWAY. The ACLU is a poison, a cancer that is eating at our Constitution.

August 22, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

I am redneckdisgustic, I hate their personalities, the close-mindedness, the way they speak, their obnoxiousness, (not insinuating CB is a redneck, but just making the point that we all got hate something).

August 22, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iceman1978 (anonymous) says...

There are two issues that I would like the ACLU to take up.

Issue One: I'd like for them to fight for the rights of teachers in South Carolina. I'm sure many of you remember what took place at Brentwood Middle School?

I believe that teaching is one of the most thankless and under-appreciated of all professions. Just reading the stories of those affected by what took place really makes you wonder how they do it. I'd like for the ACLU to take up the issue of teachers having the right to work in a safe atmosphere where they don't have to constantly deal with abuse from the class and a lack of support from those higher up the chain.

Issue Two: Work to address a change in sentencing policy for non-violent drug offenders. It doesn't sit well with me that we have non-violent individuals whose only crime is drug possesion who are taking up prison space which I believe should be used to lock up violent offenders first. Drug possesion is against the law and I'm not advocating that we don't enforce it, but what I would say is that a non-violent offender should be placed on house arrest first. Put the rapist, the murderer, the robber and the gang banger in prison.

August 22, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Newt:

I think we know the answer. Marxism is against life, family and property and the right to defend these is a contradiction. This façade of civil liberties is nothing but a phony store front to give legitimacy to their anti-American activities. Their real hatred is towards the working people of this country. The people who go out and work for everything they have and want to defend. The second amendment is their first line defense against the low life's in this world.

August 22, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...

Surely the huge amounts spent by the NRA on the gun issue cover that part of the Civil Rights spectrum. They have a large legal fund. The number of organizations standing up for free speech and their resources are much more limited. It's interesting that South Carolinians value gun ownership so might higher than their right to vote or free speech.

I don't share the confidence of others that a semi automatic shotgun can hold off the local SWAT team, SLED and the US Army. I doubt even a battery of mobile artillery would last very long. The idea that we can check the power of an oppressive government with personal firearms is some kind of fantasy.

As for shooting a home invader in the dark, I really doubt most people could do that. It's difficult for trained police officers on patrol to kill people. It takes months to prepare soliders to kill people in the context of a war and with the support of a military command structure.

The world is not a cartoon.

August 22, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

I agree Jane:

This organization is as phony as a three dollar bill, which reminds of a joke.

A counterfeiter screw up one day and printed a bunch of 18 dollar bills. Not wanting to do it again, he decided to try and pass off these bills. He saw this ACLU lawyer hanging outside his storefront , so he thought to himself what the hell. He went up to the lawyer and ask if he had change for 18 dollar bill. The ACLU lawyer looked in his billfold and ask; what do you want 3 sixes or 2 nines.

August 22, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

wj...

I was waiting for something lame. Are you in the closet right now with your keyboard?

August 22, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ysillyme (anonymous) says...

Dear ACLU~
I only have one mission for you to undertake: change affirmative action to affirmative extinction. And to think, I could have had a V-8.

August 22, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Newt:

So I assume it is the position of the ACLU that civil liberties end with your right to defend life, family and property and the rights of the criminals starts with the lost of those rights?

Well let's hope that you will never need a firearm or are you one of those liberals that has a firearm but doesn't believe anyone else should have one?

You have a nice day.

August 22, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

DoaMM (anonymous) says...

tripsa - it's "dagnabit"...get it skrait...

August 22, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

Posted by RW on August 22, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"ColdBeer,

When you nuke the left's arguments you are always going to be called names!! This proves you won the debate!! The left has been so discredited they are almost pitiful! They are having convulsions about the half-wit they have nominated.The ACLU really wants to stifle free speech they disagree with! **&^^%%$ CHOKERS!"

Rw, This proves that you never win agruments because all you do is call name.

August 22, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BerkeleyCo_Mom_of_3 (anonymous) says...

wjhamilton --

"As for shooting a home invader in the dark, I really doubt most people could do that. It's difficult for trained police officers on patrol to kill people. It takes months to prepare soliders to kill people in the context of a war and with the support of a military command structure."

I'll pass you my address, we can be the example, but I have two words for your ass...BODY BAG. (My shotgun or rifle don't miss much in close range, my glock 33 on the other hand might be tricky...but it holds more ammo.)

If you are going to shoot someone in your home, make damn sure they have broken all the way in, if not drag them in and shoot them again! Second, If you are going to shoot them, shoot to kill. Don't stop until they are dead. who the eff wants to be sued by some f'ing lazy ass criminal.

NOT I!! Your ass will be dead!

August 22, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JLWDALFAN (anonymous) says...

the aclu is a joke organization. They are only in it to stir up trouble. Kind of reminds me of the other group naacp.

August 22, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iceman1978 (anonymous) says...

If someone were invading my home I would use any means necessary to protect myself, even if it meant using a weapon. Would I feel bad? Possibly, depending on the outcome. My hope would be that if I'm awake and they're at the door I can go into the hallway with a gun in one hand and the cell phone in the other and that the threat of force would make them leave. I wouldn't feel guilty about it though.

When someone invades your home you have to be prepared to defend yourself by any means necessary. Here's what you know and don't know:

You know this person has invaded your home.

You don't know if they're armed.

You don't know what their intentions are, only that they are not good.

You also know that you have an obligation and a legal right to protect yourself and your family.

Self-defense is a fundamental right. If you don't even have the right to defend yourself what do you have?

August 22, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jeff61 (anonymous) says...

Posted by Jane on August 22, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Newt- a slimy cold blooded reptile with no brain to speak of. Short squat legs and it's belly drags the ground as it crawls. Usually found living amongst the animal dung left behind in the dark dank forest and and muddy streams. They produce a highly toxic poison thru their skin. It is highly recommended that humans have no contact with newts due to the poison they excrete.

OUCHHHHH .... LOL

August 22, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GreenvilleGirl (anonymous) says...

Here's what I think the ACLU should concentrate on:

Enforce deportation of illegal immigrants. Enforce conviction of employers hiring illegals and people housing illegals. Illegals should not have the right to WIC, disability, social security benefits, any public insurance funds or benefits, housing subsidies, medicaid, medicare, medical services at public hospitals, tax refunds, scholarships, public schools and public colleges. If they want to come into the U.S., fine, but they need to come in legally, with appropriate screening.

Protection of our right to bear arms. However, anyone possessing a firearm without a license should be sentenced to 5 years in prison, no exceptions. Amnesty for relinquishing an unregistered gun should be allowed on March 31th and September 30th each year.

Class action lawsuit against SC state legislators for failure to represent the people who elected them due to misappropriating funds for special interests rather than the best interests of the people of SC. Any government employee, including legislators, should forfeit their job if they are convicted of DUI, child pornography/abuse/molestation, criminal sexual conduct, the list goes on.

Change law in SC regarding convicted child molesters; penalty should be death.

Establishment and enforcement of automatic/mandatory sentences for criminals convicted of: Criminal sexual assault; embezzlement of funds; criminal domestic violence; DUI; pedophilia; child abuse; 1st degree murder, felony DUI.

SC needs a fierce three strikes law.

Rapists should have to undergo mandatory emasculation.

Men who have multiple children by multiple women and are not current with their child support should have to undergo vasectomy if they are more than 30 days late. Women who have multiple children by multiple men and receive welfare and WIC monies should have to undergo tubal ligation.

Take away state requirement for automatic appeal in death sentences. All first degree murder convictions should carry death sentences.

Anyone selling drugs to children under the age of 16 should be sentenced to 20 years in prison without the chance of parole. All assets should be seized and sold at auction. Proceeds should go into prison fund to help offset cost of housing criminals.

DUI convictions should have an automatic one year suspension of license and forfeiture of automobile and personal property in automobile at time of arrest. All persons found guilty should have to spend a minimum of 30 days in jail and pay a $5000 fine.

All convicts should be required to do hard labor. They can do the work that the illegals are doing. If they try to escape, they should be shot.

Leave the confederate flag alone. It's fine where it is.

August 22, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iceman1978 (anonymous) says...

GreenvilleGirl, I agree with you except for the part on appeals with regards to the death penalty on convicted murderers. I think that they should be able to have an appeal if new evidence is discovered which might prove that they were innocent.

Totally agree with the rest.

August 22, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iceman1978 (anonymous) says...

I can tell you how Norway deals with illegal immigration. They use the medical system to root people out, in addition to primarily going after the employers.

First of all, if you don't speak Norwegian (Bokmal and Nynorsk) you don't get a job. All job applications are in Norwegian and all interviews are conducted in Norwegian. There would be no such thing as press one for (fill in the blank) If you don't speak the language you can't function there. Being bi-lingual is a plus since you might be dealing with people from other countries. Everyone speaks English for the tourists, but visiting and working are different.

If you go to a hospital or medical office you show a health care card. They have universal coverage so everyone's medical records are available to any provider, no matter where you go. If you don't have a health care card, a passport and visa will do since it shows you're there as a tourist. A tourist will still recieve treatment..no questions asked and they won't charge you.

If you have no legitimate reason for being in the country they will give you enough treatment so that you're well enough to fly because after that you're in the hands of immigration/customs and on the first plane home.

They also don't have the anchor baby clause. No other industrial nation is foolish enough to do that. Getting rid of the anchor baby clause would make a huge difference.

August 22, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iceman1978 (anonymous) says...

Jane, "of the jurisdiction" means citizen. I don't understand how they could misinterpret that.

August 22, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

iceman1978 (anonymous) says...

Jane, We lack strong leadership. I had just posted on the thread about McCain and Obama that we need candidates who are like Barry Goldwater, Teddy Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy.

August 22, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

I wouldn't take the ACLU as a joke, you need to take the them seriously and their position on the second amendment. The ACLU mission is no different from any other socialist organization. The ACLU seeks legitimacy to take up causes of the down trodden only lends cover to their real intentions. It makes for good politics and PR to represent Oliver North, Rush Limbaugh or some civil right issue. An organization can compromise their strategy but not it's principles or objectives. That's why they will never take the position of defending the second amendment. The second amendment was placed into the bill of rights for the express purpose of defending life, family, property, and the freedoms we have if tyranny comes back to our shores. This is in direct contradiction to their objectives of the ACLU other wise they would have pick up the cause of the second amendment a long time ago. It doesn't take too much to figure out that Karl Marx had a real problem with family, the right to property and human life.

August 22, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Good night y'all

August 22, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

scienceguy (anonymous) says...

The ACLU protects the rights of people. It does not take away the rights of people. Additionally, the ACLU can not either prosecute people or create legislation.

My understanding is that the South Carolina ACLU was trying to take some steps to increase the due process protections afforded litigants in family court, but I may be mistaken in this. Maybe Lilly knows.

I do know that the ACLU does not limit itself to protecting the rights of "liberals." For example, see http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11....

August 22, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

scienceguy (anonymous) says...

I knew I read something about this. Go to http://parentsrights.blogspot.com and
http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/200....

August 22, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoelaces (anonymous) says...

Hey ACLU!!!!! How about waging the battle against waging insignificant and ridiculous battles....just go away.

August 22, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Mr. Scienceguy:

As you well know, scientific socialism was founded by Karl Marx. The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin and William Foster both die in the wool Marxists. Their mission statement was quite clear in the 1920s and they are very protective as to where their organization was heading. It's easier to corrupt the intent of our founding fathers than it is to change, alter, or modify the organizational goals of the ACLU. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the chief counsel for the ACLU and also a supreme court justice appointed by Bill Clintoon. As I noted earlier in this tread, she and 3 other supreme court justices voted against this second amendment ruling. The ACLU can not and will not defend a citizen's second amendment right. This conflicts with the concept of self-reliance and the role of the government. First, what is the individual defending? He's defending his right to life. Without the right to life, all other rights don't exist. Second, is his family. The single most important unit in his life. Third, his right to property. It is fruit of his labor and no criminal or government has a right to it. Fourth and final is the freedom and liberties our forefathers and soldiers are now fighting for. The ACLU does not subscribe to any of these principles.

August 22, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MP (anonymous) says...

The ACLU is now the American Criminal Lover's Union. It used to mean American Communist Lover's Union but that is pretty much a lost cause with the collapse of the USSR.

They want to know what I would desire them to focus on? Focus on getting the 'ell out of town.

August 22, 2008 at 8 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

auger (anonymous) says...

Outstanding! Buy a building, start your business, and then ask the potential customer, ..... er', what product should we be selling here?

August 23, 2008 at 5:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

auger (anonymous) says...

Outstanding! Buy a building, start your business, and then ask the potential customer, ..... er', what product should we be selling here?

August 23, 2008 at 5:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RTC (anonymous) says...

I went to their website. It says if you take their survey it will leave a longterm cookie on your computer.
Sorry, but I am very afraid of the Cookie Monster.

August 23, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jammer (anonymous) says...

look through the local govt job employee lists and watch the unqualified nepotism in command positions roll out in front of you

start with the county your in

August 23, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

scienceguy (anonymous) says...

What people fail to understand is that the ACLU is reactive rather than proactive. It needs a plaintiff and a deprivation of a right before it can take action. And as the case discussed hereinbelow indicates, the plaintiff can be anyone or anything-- even a church.

______________________________________

Tabernacle Baptist Church v. East Point, 1:06-CV-00936-JOF (N.D. Ga. 2006)

Baptist Church Denied Zoning Variance

A small Baptist church interested in buying a building in East Point was denied a permit by the zoning board. The building, previously used as office space and a daycare center, is zoned as commercial property. Under the zoning code, churches and other places of worship are allowed in the area, however, a church may not occupy a building previously used as commercial space.

Because the church planned to occupy the existing building rather than tear it down and build a new one, its permit application was denied. The church believes this provision in East Point's zoning code violates its free exercise of religion.

The ACLU of Georgia filed a complaint on April 19, 2006 that asserted violations of the United States and Georgia constitutions and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). The city of East Point has since repealed the ordinance and churches are now allowed to occupy buildings that were previously used for commercial purposes. The parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations for the other remaining portions of the case. (John Hinchey, King & Spalding; and Maggie Garrett, ACLU/GA)

August 23, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Mr. Scienceguy:

I understand the window dressing, the PR, and the imagine the ACLU needs to be a legitimate organization for the liberals. Again, my question is on the second amendment and why the ACLU will not go to task on this basic fundamental right. The right to a firearm to protect life, family and property.

First, the right to life is your most basic right. Without the right to life all other rights don't exist. Second, is the family because without the family you can not have life. Third, is the right to property. This is the fruits of your labor that gives the family and life meaning. No criminal or outlaw government has a right to take these away. To take away the second amendment you forfeit the above.

I know the reason why the ACLU will not defend the individual's right to a firearm. It's time for you to be a little honest with yourself.

I know I'm a high school drop out and you're a college educated liberal but maybe that is the contradiction between us more than anything else.

August 23, 2008 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lillycollette (anonymous) says...

Posted by scienceguy on August 22, 2008 at 5:13 p.m.
Quote: "The ACLU protects the rights of people. It does not take away the rights of people. Additionally, the ACLU can not either prosecute people or create legislation. My understanding is that the South Carolina ACLU was trying to take some steps to increase the due process protections afforded litigants in family court, but I may be mistaken in this. Maybe Lilly knows."

The ACLU did file an amicus brief in favor of appointing counsel in some cases such as the termination of parental rights.

HOWEVER, the ACLU willfully, wantonly and recklessly ignores the 800 pound gorilla of-crimes committed in the family court by officers of the court. Their failure to address these issues is ipso facto a denial of individual rights.

August 23, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stephaniem (anonymous) says...

the ACLU is a good organization....it protects people's rights.

The patriot act is a bad thing and most people in the south support it along with RICO laws. If the RICO laws were created during the civil rights movement, MLK would still be in jail.

August 23, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

a_set_love (anonymous) says...

...Your top priority ought to be "Protecting the rights and civil liberties of law abiding citizens"....

(Hope you don't mind the quote, ColdBeer)

I am particularly amazed by the times crooks and perverts are defended "Pro Bono" .... (means I as a lawyer won't charge or get paid for providing my service)..... only to come back later and quietly sue the cases opposing side for costs.

Nice way to look good in the media and get rich at the same time.

August 24, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

scienceguy (anonymous) says...

Lilly:

I believe that the South Carolina law against Barratry would preclude the kind of activity you suggest should be pursued by the ACLU. The organization needs plaintiffs before it takes action. Those plaintiffs have to approach the ACLU.

You seem to have some good ideas as well as some possible Due Process violations of your own. Why don't you approach the ACLU for assistance?

From my perspective, indigents who are facing a year in jail should receive appointed counsel, regardless of whether the incarceration is based on "Civil Contempt" or some stupid act of vandalism (for example). So, on that point, I would have to say that the South Carolina ACLU is not totaly corrupt as you suggest. Howerver, I do note that there were some New York Times articles that were linked to http://parentsrights.blogspot.com that discussed the reason the national ACLU took over the South Carolina ACLU. I do not believe this was covered locally.

August 24, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cplpunishment (anonymous) says...

Stop making it hard for hard working productive citizens to get a fair beark! Then fight the real estate battle when you get the hell out of Charleston!

August 24, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

scienceguy (anonymous) says...

Riptide:

While you may "know the reason why the ACLU will not defend the individual's right to a firearm," I am neither a member of the ACLU, nor do I have any access to its policy makers or their decision-making process. Therefore, I have no idea why the ACLU appears to ignore the Second Amendment and your comment about my "being honest with [my]self" makes no sense.

I can speculate and I suspect that the ACLU does not get involved much in Second Amemdment issues because the NRA has done such an outstanding job of insuring that gun show exhibitors can legally sell machine gun conversion kits, freeway snipers can legally purchase machine guns, and crimainals can legally purchase armour piecing bullets. Still, if you think your Second Amendment Rights have been violated, I suggest that you contact the ACLU for some assistance. That is what Rush did when he had his little problem with the illegally purchased prescription medications and the questionable prescription for Viagara. (Why would a divorced "Christian" man purchase a couple of hundred Viagara pills right before a vacation with his buddies to Carribean sex trade capital Domincan Republic anyway? Curious folks will never know, thanks in part to the ACLU, "defender or the guilty and the innocent.")

Obviously, in comparison to you, I am both liberal and educated. But, so what? If I lived in Boston I would be considered both semi-literate and moderate at best. (This is the "real reason" some of our northern friends do not move back home--wer'e easy pickin's for their schemes.) More important, you obviously have enough sense to navigate the Internet to gather information. Therefore, you do not have to rely on Rush and Pat Robertson for all your information

August 24, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Mr. Scienceguy:

A little research into the ACLU's founders, the progressive movement, the various socialist parties, labor movement, the sixties radicals, etc. can tell you a whole lot why they wouldn't be in favor of the second amendment. Now what sane liberal would want an armed citizenry when the entire liberal agenda is marching towards total government.

After reading your post I suspect you've never been to a gun show, don't know anything about our gun laws, never served in the military, never been shot at, never been a victim of a crime or even handle or shot a BB gun.

My only contact I had with a ACLU lawyer was when I was involved in lawsuit over a property rights issue. After I lost the lawsuit to the plaintiffs, it wasn't until years later when I found out that both my lawyer and the plaintiffs lawyers were members of the ACLU. That's what these people are all about. They like to see a person work all his life just so they can take it away from you and give it a couple of deadbeats.

As far as you carrying the water for the ACLU, it's no big deal to me. Somebody's got to do it.

August 24, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

scienceguy (anonymous) says...

Riptide:

I have not served in the military. But, I am a gunowner, have been a hunter (though not for years), have been a fisherman for over forty years, have been a victim of crime, have been to gun shows (even one gun and knife show), and know a great deal about our gun laws. I am hardly a "water carrier" for the ACLU. I have tried to answer your questions and merely pointed out what the the ACLU does. The best thing our State could do to avoid paying these folks a whole boatload of money is to stop passing unconstitutional laws and to stop depriving folks of their constitutional rights. If you dod not understand this comment, I think you will in the coming months as the suits began to be filed. When that happens, I hope you will blame the lawmakers, not the ACLU.

August 24, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Your moniker scienceguy implies either you interested in science or you might be a scientist. Either way science is a discipline that deals with facts. The ACLU was founded by Marxists and their agenda is socialism. That is a fact. They are part of the liberal left wing, the same left wing that supported North Vietnam and their aggressive war on the south. Before you start, I realize we're the bad guys and they are the good guys. So you don't need to go there.

So the NRA is defending vendors selling machine guns conversion kits? Is this for people holding a class III license or without one? Freeway snipers do they hold class III licenses too?

Maybe you can help me, I have a copy of our constitution and also the bill of rights. For the life of me, I can not find the separation of church and state or this ruling in regards to abortion?

The ACLU doesn't fool me for a second and for me to think that they are concern about my constitutional rights, you got to be kidding.

August 24, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

scienceguy (anonymous) says...

Gun dealer Brian Borgelt says he doesn't know how his store ended up arming the Beltway sniper suspects with a deadly accurate $1,600 military-style carbine. http://community.seattletimes.nwsourc...

August 24, 2008 at 11:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

scienceguy (anonymous) says...

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf...

August 24, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Riptide (anonymous) says...

Mr. Science...
So you're not carrying the water for the ACLU? You own guns and yet you show me a website of the biggest anti-second amendment website there is, the Brady Center. The article from the Seattle Times noted for their liberal bias about guns and other social issues writes a story on a gun store owner that had a gun stolen by the beltway sniper who by the way was a Muslim who worship a religion noted for being peaceful by most liberals.

This article shows me of a gun store owner who not only is irresponsible and a sloppy businessman but only represents 1% of the gun store owners in this country that are negligent in their business practices according to this article. The BATF like most federal agencies fail to do it's job and of course they blame it on the NRA and republicans: how convenient. Also in the article it points out that the guns from this store were involved in 52 crimes yet the article doesn't say how these weapons were obtain. The article has a lot of anti-gun bias but we shouldn't be too concern with that.

Most if not all gun control liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, would like to see a gun free American. That is a fact. They place emphasis on the gun owners, gun retailers, gun manufacturers, the NRA, conservatives, instead of the criminals. Life is a game of percentages and like most things, they're going to be some bad eggs. It's the law of averages. We have one bad gun store owner and a federal agency BAFT failing to carry out it's duties ( what a shock). After an incident like this the gun control liberals will gather their allies and initiate more gun control laws when it was obvious the BATF fail to do it's job with the existing laws on the books. The liberals are great when it comes sensationalizing a news story. They will take an exception to the rule and make it to be perceived as the general event. Rosy O'Donnell made a statement that all gun owners are criminals. Obviously that's an irresponsible statement but a lot of people took her seriously. The liberal media is better at it. They can take an exception to the rule and generalize it for mass consumption and make the people believe that responsible gun owners, conservatives, gun manufacturers, the NRA, etc. are the problem and not the criminal. Meanwhile we have a criminal in front of a judge with 10 counts against him. During the plea process 5 counts are dropped and guess which ones are dropped? Anything that has to do with a firearm. You got to love liberals.

August 25, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

scienceguy (anonymous) says...

Riptide:

My point was simply that the N. R. A. was doing a pretty good job of protecting the Second Amendment Rights of American citizens and that may be one reason that there is little need for the ACLU to get involved in this area.

If people take either Rush or Rosy seriously, I would say they have a problem. Both of them are clowns--provocateurs--who say outlandish things to get viewers. Lord help us when policymakers turn to either of them for guidance.

The Brady Center may be a liberal organization in regards to its policies. But, much of its statistical information is taken directly from either Justice Department or ATF publications. Is it that you do not like the conclusions the Center reaches or is it that you dispute the accuracy of the statistics?

As far as I am concerned, you can keep your guns and I will keep mine. But, I think that folks in New York--who subsidize South Carolina through their federal taxes--have a legitimate complaint when they learn that most of the weapons being used in crimes in their state were originially purchased in the South.

August 25, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )