Good day, I’ll consider that a tap out.

“Then she does not speak for the national ACLU organization.”

I have to hit you on this one…so the leader of one of the largest offices in the nation can just say all manner of things that conflict with national and still keep a job for nearly three decades? HaaaaaaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaa…you can’t really belive this. We already know how the ACLU deals with apostasy.

I think you may want to regroup and reconsider whether you want to stick around here and continue getting your meatbrain handed to you.

Eliminate all mandatory sentencing laws”

Mr. Stephenson, these two supposed goals of the ACLU are contradictory. Do you bother to read this nonsense before you cut and paste?

I don’t think you know what “straw man” means…explain how you are applying the term to the excerpt you’ve chosen.

“Excuse me?”

Was your lip quivering here…was your chin getting all scrunchy and dimpled? Seems you can’t take it when someone points out your lack of ability to make one valid point in this game.

“you have to reach back 25 years to document a viewpoint that Jay claims the ACLU holds now.”

Ha! The source, Crusty Old Dorothy, still heads the ACLU of Northern California. I suppose you’ll try to convince me she’s “Come to Jesus” and repudiated her own viewpoint.

Once again — Jay used the quote to bolster his other rock-solid points. The entire argument DID NOT depend on that one accurate and highly applicable quote.

Please reread points 1) and 2) above…they still hold and you have no way to rebut other than to pout.

“…it seems to me that you don’t understand the appropriate conditions under which you’d demand a source…”
Excuse me? Explain to me why I need to pay the slightest attention to your “appropriate conditions under which [I would] demand a source”. Believe it or not, I don’t need your permission.

I’ll see if I can find a copy of the document you claim is Jay’s primary source. I find it interesting that you have to reach back 25 years to document a viewpoint that Jay claims the ACLU holds now. It’s also quite typical that Jay can’t produce his own primary sources. Is he utterly incapable of defending his own opinions?

Your incredulous demand indicates two things: 1) You don’t believe Jay that the ACLU would say such a thing and 2) that you would be troubled by such a statement. So, if Jay (or someone else here) were to produce a primary source, you’d have to believe him and you’d have to concede that his post assumes a level credibility you are unwilling to assign it sans the primary source.

This standard doesn’t make much sense anyway as the case that Jay has built is not dependent on this single quote, rather it was a peripheral element that bolsters his argument, but does not make or break it. That you have selected this one minor point to quibble about indicates that you cannot argue the big picture and would rather avoid the issue with intentional obscurantism and misdirection. This is the tactic of someone who knows he’s been drubbed but insists on sticking around looking quite toolish.

That said, you have set yourself up to be embarrassed. I have no problem with someone asking for a source. That is a common thing in a debate. However, it seems to me that you don’t understand the appropriate conditions under which you’d demand a source and, as demonstrated in an earlier attack on Jay, you move the goalposts when you don’t like the result (I am referring to your silly demand to see where the ACLU had made an argument in a legal brief when the assertion Jay had made had nothing to do with anything from a court filing, but what an ACLU rep was quoted as saying in a news story — you must know what I’m talking about).

Here’s your source:

Dorothy Ehrlich, “The ‘Criminals’ Lobby’ Dissents,” ACLU News, October 1981, p. 4

A publication OF the ACLU, BY the ACLU…primary enough for you?

I’ll understand if this is all too much for you to to take.

One would think that you don’t have that source… that you rely almost entirely on hearsay.