Bill O'Reilly - ACLU Dangerous and Fascist

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-12 08:25pm

I lost the time but I'll eventually post a review and refutation of major points from O'reilly's new book, "Who is Looking Out for You?"

When he started out and wrote the Factor he wasn't so bad and was pretty reasonable, but he just turned foaming at the mouth about this secularist shit, and acted like the Fathers and Framers wanted us to be spiritual which is without basis and is an appeal to authority anyway.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-01-12 08:31pm

Glocksman wrote:Even a liberal a scholar as Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law (he was Gore's counsel during the 2000 election saga) agrees that the 2nd is indeed an individual right.

Of course if anyone wants to continue this discussion, feel free to split this off from the main thread.

By and large the lower federal courts have chosen to interpret the Second Amendment as being a collective right, and the Supreme Court has lent its tacit support to that conclusion by refusing to rule in the matter. The ACLU is about maintaining the constitution as defined by the document itself and its interpretation by the courts. You're not going to get very far ramming your head directly against the law. It has to be changed by degrees.

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2004-01-12 09:00pm

Glocksman wrote:Addendum:

I didn't mean for it to sound as if the ACLU is telling me that I can't own a gun. They're not.

What they are saying is that I have no constitutionally protected right to own one.

They're wrong.

What do they mean by an 'unlimited' right?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-01-12 09:06pm

By and large the lower federal courts have chosen to interpret the Second Amendment as being a collective right, and the Supreme Court has lent its tacit support to that conclusion by refusing to rule in the matter.

Recent decisions in the lower courts have been split both ways, but I agree that the SC is notorious for ducking this issue.

The ACLU is about maintaining the constitution as defined by the document itself and its interpretation by the courts.

Huh?

The ACLU hasn't been afraid in the past of challenging existing interpretations from the courts. Hell, right now the judicial consensus outside of a few state courts is that Gays & Lesbians have no right to get married, yet the ACLU is in there plugging away.

The ACLU is also fighting against the death penalty in all circumstances, despite it being cleary contemplated ('nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law') in the Constitution.

They don't seen reluctant to challenge the existing interpretation when it suits them to do so.

You're not going to get very far ramming your head directly against the law. It has to be changed by degrees.

Considering the SC retreats from 2A cases like a vampire from a cross, you are indeed correct.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-01-12 09:11pm

h0rus wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Addendum:

I didn't mean for it to sound as if the ACLU is telling me that I can't own a gun. They're not.

What they are saying is that I have no constitutionally protected right to own one.

They're wrong.
What do they mean by an 'unlimited' right?

My guess is that they mean a right that is subject to no restrictions.

The problem is that practically speaking there is no right that does not have any restrictions on it, even the rights outlined in the First Amendment.

There are limits to your right to free speech, and your right to choose your religion doesn't protect you from arrest and conviction for murder if your religion of choice is Aztec human sacrifice and you gut a 12 year old virgin while practicing said religion.

The use of the phrase 'unlimited' in this instance is a red herring.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-12 10:11pm

The rights guarenteed in the Bill of Rights more or less are relevant until they violate other unalienable rights, namely the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You can't practice the religious rites of killing someone because that takes away an unalienable human right. The Bill of Rights are civil rights, and are understood to be inferior to human rights.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2004-01-12 11:02pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The rights guarenteed in the Bill of Rights more or less are relevant until they violate other unalienable rights, namely the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You can't practice the religious rites of killing someone because that takes away an unalienable human right. The Bill of Rights are civil rights, and are understood to be inferior to human rights.

You're right in principle, but I always find it risky to quote the Declaration in a conversation about the Constitution, since the former is a manifesto written by some people who had just started a rebellion and the latter is the basis of our government.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-12 11:27pm

Human rights' relation to civil rights is a very, very common ethical concept.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-01-13 09:30am

Iceberg wrote:Evil Secular Conspiracy? I'm all over that.

Unfortunately, I can't add more to my sig.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-13 09:59am

Thinkmarble wrote:
Bob McDob wrote:I think people gave up on the ACLU when it supported the Man-boy Love Association.
If one is in the bussiness of defending liberty one cannot only the people one like.
And just to finish off with a quote:
"Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently", even if this men is a slime bag, a fascist or even a conservative.

How about a rapist of children? That is not a right.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-01-13 05:24pm

Rogue 9 wrote: How about a rapist of children? That is not a right.

What the ACLU did, was defending the right of a minority to speak up against the opinion the mainstream of the society.
And that is right.

And yes, it is right to defend the freedom of speech (eventhou you have not shown that this was actually was the ACLU did ) of an convicted rapist of children.

There are limits to the freedom of speech, but these are far, and they should be.
Someone who makes propraganda for legalizing sexual relationships between adults and small children is still inside these boundaries, even if he is an child rapist.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-13 05:31pm

I'm not very familiar with the case, but from the way Bob said it, I got the impression that the ACLU defended their activities, not speech. If I got the wrong impression, then I retract my statement. However, the sickos involved (in the MBLA, not the ACLU) should still spend a very long time enjoying the government's hospitality.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-01-14 02:05am

I did web search to check if my memory did morph, and it did.

Basically the NAMBLA was accused of having incited the murder and rape of a 10 year old. The family of the 10 year old filed suit* and the ACLU decided to defend because the NAMBLA never did advocate rape but only the legalization of "consensual" relationships.

Still, I still think that their defense of the NAMBLA was correct, because a positive verdict would (to my knowledge) only be based upon the fact that they spread an idea which is sick.
AFAIK they never advocated criminal action (advocating a change of law is different then advocating the breaking of law).

To bring forth an (probably bad) analogy:
Can an organisation with the aim of legalisation of drugs of any kind be hold responsible for the fact that people (even members of this organisation) take, buy and/or sell drugs ?

* to be specific a 200 million dollar wrongfull death law suit

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-14 02:18am

If the organization fosters and derives its primary means of existence through criminal activity, then yes. Do you take down the mob if you can, or do you just pick off petty grunts when they are actively caught in crime?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-14 03:08am

I did web search to check if my memory did morph, and it did.

Basically the NAMBLA was accused of having incited the murder and rape of a 10 year old. The family of the 10 year old filed suit* and the ACLU decided to defend because the NAMBLA never did advocate rape but only the legalization of "consensual" relationships.

Still, I still think that their defense of the NAMBLA was correct, because a positive verdict would (to my knowledge) only be based upon the fact that they spread an idea which is sick.
AFAIK they never advocated criminal action (advocating a change of law is different then advocating the breaking of law).

The problem with that is of course that there's no such thing. A minor, especially one that really is a child, can't possibly give meaningful consent. And I'm sure those perverts damn well know that or they wouldn't spend so much time trying to create half assed rationalizations (see the patkelly incident).

I'm not at all familiar with what NAMBLA does, but I can tell you that any one that advocates and rationalizes pedophilia is treading a very, very fine line.

To bring forth an (probably bad) analogy:
Can an organisation with the aim of legalisation of drugs of any kind be hold responsible for the fact that people (even members of this organisation) take, buy and/or sell drugs ?

A better analogy would be advocating "consensual" murder. They're lobbying for the legalization of a total fiction in order to allow their sick perversion free reign.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-01-14 10:11am

Rogue 9 wrote:If the organization fosters and derives its primary means of existence through criminal activity, then yes. Do you take down the mob if you can, or do you just pick off petty grunts when they are actively caught in crime?

Then please show that the NAMBLA drives "its primary means of existence through criminal activity".

Advocating the change of a law is not the same as breaking the law.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-01-14 10:19am

@Stormbringer
I'm probably dense, but what's the point of your post aside from that they are sickos ?
An opinion I agree with by the way.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-14 11:19am

Thinkmarble wrote: Then please show that the NAMBLA drives "its primary means of existence through criminal activity".

Advocating the change of a law is not the same as breaking the law.

a federal charge of RICO conspiracy could apply here. One could argue that they are conspiring to commit illegal acts. Pretty thin but i have seen pols go down for less.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-14 11:42am

Thinkmarble wrote:@Stormbringer
I'm probably dense, but what's the point of your post aside from that they are sickos ?

That what they're lobbying for doesn't exist; what they're asking to be legalized is rape.

The whole point of legalized age consent is that children can't give meaningful consent for sexual activities. Therefore, all their bullshit rationalizations aside, there is no such thing as consensual sexual relationship with a minor.

Thinkmarble wrote:An opinion I agree with by the way.

As does any person with any morals at all.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-01-14 11:56am

Stormbringer wrote: That what they're lobbying for doesn't exist; what they're asking to be legalized is rape.

People are allowed to hold opinions which are wrong, stupid and sick.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-14 12:14pm

Thinkmarble wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: That what they're lobbying for doesn't exist; what they're asking to be legalized is rape.
People are allowed to hold opinions which are wrong, stupid and sick.

Yes they are but when you advocate putting those ideas into practice then you have real problems. They can say all they want they don't promote rape but the simple fact is they do and they can't simply wash their hands of it so easily.

It's no different than hate groups promoting the murder of gays or racial or religious minorities as a good thing. They flat out advocate something morally and legally wrong. Of course most of them have to good sense at least to be aware of the consequences but some don't and the organizations helped create that person.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-01-18 10:31am

Stormbringer wrote: Yes they are but when you advocate putting those ideas into practice then you have real problems. They can say all they want they don't promote rape but the simple fact is they do and they can't simply wash their hands of it so easily.
It's no different than hate groups promoting the murder of gays or racial or religious minorities as a good thing.
They flat out advocate something morally and legally wrong. Of course most of them have to good sense at least to be aware of the consequences but some don't and the organizations helped create that person.

So you claim that the NAMLA has helped to create a rapist ?
Then prove it.