Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jobber of the Week

ACLU to help Rush Limbaugh

By Jobber of the Week, in Current Events

Recommended Posts

Jobber of the Week    0

Jobber of the Week
Posted
ACLU: Child rape = free speech issue.

But it sounds like it honestly is! I don't what you're arguement is except "It's about child rape, how can you not want to ban it because it's despicable?"

 

ACLU: Boy Scouts = hate group.

I don't know about that. I think it's appropriate they labeled themselves as a religious group to freely discriminate on religion and sexuality. That was a long time coming and should have been done.

 

What I don't like, is when they whine because they're being treated like a religious organization.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest MikeSC   

Guest MikeSC
Posted
Ok. Well, I can tell you've caught the rhetoric bug. That's nowhere near as bad as giving money to those commiting acts of terrorism.

It's not markedly better, either. But, hey, they're just little boys. They can probably fend for themselves well enough, right?

 

Of course, what if NAMBLA supported sex with young GIRLS? Do you think ACLU would support what is so clearly an EVIL act? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

But boys don't deserve protection, apparently.

Also, I never actually understood what the connection between these two is.

ACLU has defended and protected NAMBLA in court many times in the past.

If I just listen to O'Reilly, I get the impression that the ACLU stood up and said that the NAMBLA people have every right to fondle young children. My common sense knows it's not really that extreme.

This is the same ACLU that protests Christmas TREES as religious symbols --- even though they are NOT religious symbols whatsoever. They ARE extreme.

 

They ARE defending a group whose EXPRESSED purpose is statutory rape. There is no way to sugar coat it.

My best guess is there's a constitutional right to speech involved?

There's a constitutional right to promote violation of law?

-=Mike

...You want to fuck little boys, go ahead. But you SMOKE near them and you've just gone too darned far...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jobber of the Week    0

Jobber of the Week
Posted
Of course, what if NAMBLA supported sex with young GIRLS? Do you think ACLU would support what is so clearly an EVIL act? Somehow, I doubt it.

Stupid "what if"s like this make you lose credibility. If some guy was being charged with child pornography charges on little girls and was having his rights violated, I'm sure the ACLU wouldn't be afraid to step in.

 

But boys don't deserve protection, apparently.

 

Well, it helps when you have evidence instead of just sitting around hypothesizing.

 

This is the same ACLU that protests Christmas TREES as religious symbols --- even though they are NOT religious symbols whatsoever. They ARE extreme.

 

It's a Christmas tree. It promotes the Christmas holiday. Now, I'll give you that you have to have an incredibly weak spine in religious tolerance if you get offended with a Christmas tree. But it's not like it's somehow any less religious-linked than a menorah. And in legal church/state issues, that's all that matters.

 

The case I think you're talking about involved a state branch of the ACLU, not the focus of the whole. And Canada's already been here and done this and they didn't even need the ACLU to bother them about it.

 

...You want to fuck little boys, go ahead. But you SMOKE near them and you've just gone too darned far...

 

That's not it at all. A better analogy would be, "you have every right to talk about fucking little boys as you do to talk about snorting lines of coke. But if there's tangible evidence you've done these things, then there's a problem."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ace309    0

Ace309
Posted
Of course, what if NAMBLA supported sex with young GIRLS? Do you think ACLU would support what is so clearly an EVIL act? Somehow, I doubt it.

Stupid "what if"s like this make you lose credibility. If some guy was being charged with child pornography charges on little girls and was having his rights violated, I'm sure the ACLU wouldn't be afraid to step in.

 

But boys don't deserve protection, apparently.

 

Well, it helps when you have evidence instead of just sitting around hypothesizing.

Please stop supporting my political party, JOTW. It's better if you don't "help" this way.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Fire and Knives   

Guest Fire and Knives
Posted

On behalf of leftists everywhere, I have taken it upon myself to fire him, Tom. No worries.

 

K.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest MikeSC   

Guest MikeSC
Posted
Of course, what if NAMBLA supported sex with young GIRLS? Do you think ACLU would support what is so clearly an EVIL act? Somehow, I doubt it.

Stupid "what if"s like this make you lose credibility. If some guy was being charged with child pornography charges on little girls and was having his rights violated, I'm sure the ACLU wouldn't be afraid to step in.

Their history makes the assumption a rash one on your part to make.

But boys don't deserve protection, apparently.

 

Well, it helps when you have evidence instead of just sitting around hypothesizing.

OK, I'll go real slow here:

 

THEY DEFEND A GROUP WHO ADVOCATES FUCKING LITTLE BOYS.

 

Nothing you can say can justify that.

This is the same ACLU that protests Christmas TREES as religious symbols --- even though they are NOT religious symbols whatsoever. They ARE extreme.

 

It's a Christmas tree. It promotes the Christmas holiday. Now, I'll give you that you have to have an incredibly weak spine in religious tolerance if you get offended with a Christmas tree. But it's not like it's somehow any less religious-linked than a menorah. And in legal church/state issues, that's all that matters.

EXCEPT --- and Spider Poet can back this up --- THE TREE IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY A CHRISTIAN SYMBOL.

 

It is Pagan. No part of the Christian faith has trees as a major part of the ceremony.

 

Since you OBVIOUSLY don't know squat about Christianity, refrain from discussing it.

...You want to fuck little boys, go ahead. But you SMOKE near them and you've just gone too darned far...

 

That's not it at all. A better analogy would be, "you have every right to talk about fucking little boys as you do to talk about snorting lines of coke. But if there's tangible evidence you've done these things, then there's a problem."

They're not defending a group that only DISCUSSES fucking little boys.

 

They defend a group that DOES it.

-=Mike

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jobber of the Week    0

Jobber of the Week
Posted
Their history makes the assumption a rash one on your part to make.

 

You just don't like to cite cases or evidence, do you? You simply want to jump to conclusions and make assumptions, and I'm getting tired of it. This is a very poor debate because it's fueled by your opinion of how the ACLU thinks with nothing to go on but assurances that you're right.

 

OK, I'll go real slow here:

 

THEY DEFEND A GROUP WHO ADVOCATES FUCKING LITTLE BOYS.

 

Nothing you can say can justify that.

 

Give a listen to this one:

 

PEOPLE CAN ADVOCATE FUCKING LITTLE BOYS AS MUCH AS THEY WANT NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT REVOLTS YOU OR ME. IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH.

 

If Michael Jackson wants to tell a British journalist that he thinks sleeping with young boys builds trust, then go ahead, Michael, and tell away! And take the public ridicule and stigma that comes along with that! You have the freedom to talk about one of our country's biggest taboos and make a reputation for yourself as a freakshow.

 

But at current writing, no judge or jury has convicted him of being a child molestor, and that's what really matters.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BX    0

BX
Posted

The ACLU will defend anyone if they think they can make a legal point, which is why they take on clients like NAMBLA, and even Rush Limbaugh.

 

Representation obviously doesn't imply approval. If it did, the legal system in this country would have fallen apart 200 years ago.

 

Edit: I remember the time Bush waved at Stevie Wonder.

 

Good times.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest MikeSC   

Guest MikeSC
Posted
Truly, let us put this away and make a random picture display anyway. I hate the subject and Mike really has no response other than "look what you're talking about."

 

With that in mind...

 

bush.jpg

JOTW, talking to a brick wall can be tiring.

 

So, I'll also end it.

-=Mike

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kkktookmybabyaway    0

kkktookmybabyaway
Posted

Oh dear God. Rush played a clip of him talking during that speech (if it indeed was the same speech, and I think it was) -- the audio is funnier than the visual, if you can believe that.

 

Kerry has a "Get the hell off the stage and let me talk you big fat lush" look about him in that pic...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Go To Topic Listing Current Events
×