THAT WOULD BE BAD!

How can you run a DICTATORSHIP if you have Civil Liberties, like:

- freedom of assembly
- freedom of religion
- freedom of speech
- rights to due process
- right to a fair trial
- right to bear arms
- right to privacy

THESE ARE ALL BAD.

You can’t run an effective DICTATORSHIP when the people have these pansy things. Just ask Saddam or w bush.

Stupid Founders of the United States — they are all wimps.

BRING ON THE DICTATORSHIP!!!!

So, with a Democrat Congress backstopping and cheerleading the ACLU, expect reinvigorated efforts, under the heading of civil liberties, to use the pick-a-definition concepts of social justice, economic justice and racial justice to convince the worker…

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU When the Democrats had their victory in the elections the ACLU cheered! So did our enemies. Leading up to the elections the ACLU did not hide the fact that they wanted the Democrats in charge. The ACLU have a lot to c…

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU
When the Democrats had their victory in the elections the ACLU cheered! So did our enemies.
Leading up to the elections the ACLU did not hide the fact that they wanted the Democrats in charge. The ACLU have a lot to …

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU
When the Democrats had their victory in the elections the ACLU cheered! So did our enemies.
Leading up to the elections the ACLU did not hide the fact that they wanted the Democrats in charge. The ACLU have a lot to cheer…

When the Democrats had their victory in the elections the ACLU cheered! So did our enemies.
Leading up to the elections the ACLU did not hide the fact that they wanted the Democrats in charge. The ACLU have a lot to cheer about. They know that the libe…

They are all facts Jeff. Look em up.

I’m pretty aware of most of the issues that you raised, so I have no desire or need to research them at this point.

I did not mean to imply that they were without factual basis. But I do believe that some of them are exaggerated and others, while true, are not necessarily the bad/foolish/outrageous thing that you imply them to be.

As such, someone who disagrees with your interpretation of a significant number of the cited issues will not find any validity to your conclusion.

what has Jay not demonstrated sufficiently?

The following assertions were not accompanied by a link or supporting detail, so I cannot yet evaluate their merits.

The ACLU rely on activist liberal judges as their avenue of enacting their goals.

It violated its own policy in order to stymie the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court.

It led the fight to defeat the confirmation of Robert Bork.

The ACLU has opposed searches of all kinds whether they are profiled, random, or across the board.

The following all had reasonably strong responses in the comments.

They have called on their Democrat friends in Congress to shut down any attempt by the lame duck Congress to pass legislation that would further this program.

They have reason to cheer once again as the Democrats have every intention to block NSA legislation.

The ACLU expressed outrage when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 allowing us to harshly interrogate captured terrorists.

Now that the doors of Congress have been opened up to the ACLU’s buddies in CAIR

Sen. Patrick Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to create habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants.

Now, I readily admit that my list is no more detailed than Jay’s, so I certainly don’t expect to convince anyone of anything, and I don’t really have the time to re-open each individual discussion. My only goal is to illustrate that people with different perspectives will be entirely unconvinced by this amalgamation of assertions and implications.

I’m curious now…what has Jay not demonstrated sufficiently? He uses the ACLU’s own words and taken as a whole, it looks like he’s made a pretty compelling case. Shoot holes buddy.