Comments on: Sneaky language from the ACLU on yesterday’s passage of HR 2679 http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:01:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: 186k Per Second - Stuff Happens Real Fast » Does The Constitution Guarantee The Right to Recover Legal Fees? http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56178 186k Per Second - Stuff Happens Real Fast » Does The Constitution Guarantee The Right to Recover Legal Fees? Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:49:25 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56178 [...] Stop The ACLU has alot more info on bill HR 2679 [...] [...] Stop The ACLU has alot more info on bill HR 2679 [...]

]]> By: ACLU Alarmed Over Well Going Dry « Comments on ID and creationism http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56182 ACLU Alarmed Over Well Going Dry « Comments on ID and creationism Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:07:15 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56182 [...] More at Stop The ACLU. [...] [...] More at Stop The ACLU. [...]

]]> By: ACLU Alarmed Over Well Going Dry | Uncommon Descent http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56186 ACLU Alarmed Over Well Going Dry | Uncommon Descent Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:57:35 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56186 [...] More at Stop The ACLU. [...] [...] More at Stop The ACLU. [...]

]]> By: gfactor http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56173 gfactor Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:10:18 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56173 "Well gfactor, if the ACLU decides that getting paid is more important than defending the rights of the poor that will be their decision." Yeah. And our decision is that the poor are going to have to get someone to help them because we feel that the governmetn should be able to violate their rights for free. “Well gfactor, if the ACLU decides that getting paid is more important than defending the rights of the poor that will be their decision.”

Yeah. And our decision is that the poor are going to have to get someone to help them because we feel that the governmetn should be able to violate their rights for free.

]]> By: Jay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56177 Jay Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:55:26 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56177 Well gfactor, if the ACLU decides that getting paid is more important than defending the rights of the poor that will be their decision. Well gfactor, if the ACLU decides that getting paid is more important than defending the rights of the poor that will be their decision.

]]> By: kerwin_brown http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56184 kerwin_brown Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:02:33 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56184 From what I have seen the ACLU is more likely to infringe on religious rights than support them. They have sent letters to churches threatening them not to preach about political issues. I surely to not see anything in the First Amendment that limits a churches free speech. From what I have seen the ACLU is more likely to infringe on religious rights than support them. They have sent letters to churches threatening them not to preach about political issues. I surely to not see anything in the First Amendment that limits a churches free speech.

]]> By: gfactor http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56185 gfactor Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:12:20 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56185 "Why would they have to ask their clients to pay?" Uh, because people need to get paid. You know this right? "If they think it is worthy then they can pay for it pro bono from their donors." And there will be less cases they can take on, unless their clients pay. Ergo, the rich will have access to rights, while those of us who can't afford it won't. Next time a school district messes up, like in Dover, How well protected they are will depend on how rich the people there are. No matter how clearly the government is violating their rights. “Why would they have to ask their clients to pay?”

Uh, because people need to get paid. You know this right?

“If they think it is worthy then they can pay for it pro bono from their donors.”

And there will be less cases they can take on, unless their clients pay. Ergo, the rich will have access to rights, while those of us who can’t afford it won’t. Next time a school district messes up, like in Dover, How well protected they are will depend on how rich the people there are. No matter how clearly the government is violating their rights.

]]> By: Jay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56179 Jay Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:31:15 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56179 Why would they have to ask their clients to pay? If they want ME to pay for their ridiculous lawsuits I have a problem with it. If they think it is worthy then they can pay for it pro bono from their donors. Why would they have to ask their clients to pay? If they want ME to pay for their ridiculous lawsuits I have a problem with it. If they think it is worthy then they can pay for it pro bono from their donors.

]]> By: gfactor http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56180 gfactor Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:26:20 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56180 "They represent ALL clients PRO BONO" And they'll have to ask their clients to pay once fees are not longer provided for government violations of religious rights. So only the rich will have their religious rights protected. “They represent ALL clients PRO BONO”

And they’ll have to ask their clients to pay once fees are not longer provided for government violations of religious rights. So only the rich will have their religious rights protected.

]]> By: Glib Fortuna http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/comment-page-1/#comment-56181 Glib Fortuna Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:44:58 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/09/27/sneaky-language-from-the-aclu-on-yesterdays-passage-of-hr-2679/#comment-56181 "If the ACLU doesn’t get paid, its hte clients that will have to pay." Wrong, wrong, wrong. The ACLU has an enormous endowment and an operating budget of more than $140 million per year. They represent ALL clients PRO BONO and can continue to do so without using my money to do so. You are simply misinformed gfactor. “If the ACLU doesn’t get paid, its hte clients that will have to pay.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The ACLU has an enormous endowment and an operating budget of more than $140 million per year. They represent ALL clients PRO BONO and can continue to do so without using my money to do so. You are simply misinformed gfactor.

]]>