"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut
(perhaps
just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.

Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully
picks
it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
rights or religious freedom.

Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre
things
as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such
causes
that could hardly be termed far-left.

Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march

Thus, I am correct.

Only partly.

Even a blind hog finds a acorn occasionally.

I'm guessing you've gotten to know a lot of blind hogs in a way that few can
understand.

but
you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is
that
they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe
group
of
kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's
leftist
agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while
actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise
march.

Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps

Yes, indeed they are.

...deliberately going out of their
way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are
interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to
fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when
really
then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda.

It's not me they are fooling, but they do manage to pull the wool over the
eyes of the illiterati.

Why would the ACLU go to all the trouble of establishing their organization
just to pull the wool over the eyes of the illiterati?


However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
leading
the prayers.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend
school
without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them.

Perhaps.

Mm.

But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil
liberties.

You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.


or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our

Who is "our" here?

preeminent and most jealously guarded civil liberties. That's the problem
with the ACLU, it only considers a "civil liberty" to be something that
forwards their leftist-socialist/collectivist agenda. They are wrong.

Or it could be that the right wing agenda is all about reducing civil
liberties in puruist of a narrow agenda.

the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
civil liberty to own a gun.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties.

Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to
park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you
might well expect the ACLU to disagree.

Once again, it's the
collectivist/socialist/leftist agenda at work to the denigration of
individual civil liberties that makes the ACLU dangerous and wrong.

Or the right-wing agenda of "more guns and more jesus" is a threat to civil
liberties and the ACLU is just doing their job taking an objective approach
to issues regardless of whether or not Scott Weiser has sent them death
threats.

or the rights of the unborn

Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard
to
what happens to the unborn.

Perhaps. And yet they see no nuance.

You are starting to undersatnd the ACLU.

Don't you think Holocaust survivors were mad as hell to see the ACLU
defending the right of Nazis to march through their streets?

Their position seems to be one of
supporting abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, including the
instant before birth without any consideration for the life of the unborn
child. That's rather less than "some consideration" for the unborn.

I don't think that's quite their position.

and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their
leftist
agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent.

Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties,
not
sure.

Evidently you are confused about the concept of civil liberties. Civil
liberties embrace ALL of the rights and liberties that individuals enjoy,
not just some sub-set that fits into a liberal-socialist agenda that they
can try to twist into some "collective" civil right.

Take your finger off the trigger...that's it...relax Scotty...just place the
gun on the table...that's it.....

Fact is that there is
no such thing as a "collective" civil right. All civil rights are
individual
in nature and applied to individuals. Thus, the infringement of any
individual civil liberty is as bad as the infringement of any other
individual civil liberty. All must be protected with equal vigor. The ACLU
however, doesn't believe in protecting ALL civil liberties, they pick and
choose a select set of civil liberties to defend that happens to forward
their leftist-socialist agenda.

They have an agenda to be sure, but it's clearly not leftist-socialist.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
leading
the prayers.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.


But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil
liberties.

Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
things like religion and private property.


You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.

"Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk all
day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.



or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our

Who is "our" here?

Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.


the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
civil liberty to own a gun.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties.

Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear arms.


Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to
park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you
might well expect the ACLU to disagree.

Hyperbolic amphigory.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
leading
the prayers.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.

No it doesn't.

But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening
civil
liberties.

Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
things like religion and private property.

Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.

How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.

You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be
made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.

"Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk
all
day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

And that's the place for it. Not in a school where other children are
required to be. There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)

or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the
government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our

Who is "our" here?

Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.

Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.

the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and
the
civil liberty to own a gun.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil
liberties.

Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear
arms.

Nope, that too.

Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to
park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you
might well expect the ACLU to disagree.

Hyperbolic amphigory.

Try to see how it is more than that.

It's a bit like the situation with the gum.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
leading
the prayers.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.

No it doesn't.

If they don't comport with the Constitution, they aren't protecting "civil
liberties."


But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening
civil
liberties.

Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
things like religion and private property.

Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.

How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.

I didn't say they threatened private property, though I suspect they do by
interfering with land transfers (think Wal-Mart) and perhaps by supporting
restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private land found in land use
codes, I said that they did not SUPPORT private property rights. There's not
a chance in hell that the ACLU would, for example, take up my case against
the State of Colorado for the unlawful appropriation of a right of way
across my land by the legislature.

And yet the issue of unlawful eminent domain takings is certainly involved
with "civil rights," since the right to own private property and be
compensated when the state appropriates it, is a fundamental civil right.


You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be
made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.

"Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk
all
day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

And that's the place for it.

Well, the point is that neither you nor the government gets to decide that.

Not in a school where other children are
required to be.

That they are required to be there does not mean that they have a right to
be protected from displays of religious beliefs by other students who choose
to freely exercise their First Amendment rights.

There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)

Hardly.


or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the
government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our

Who is "our" here?

Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.

Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.

If they don't, they are socialist asses.


the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and
the
civil liberty to own a gun.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil
liberties.

Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear
arms.

Nope, that too.

But they absolutely refuse to defend the right to keep and bear arms, which
is a civil liberty. As I said, they are a biased, hard-left group with a
socialist agenda.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/12/05 3:52 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
leading
the prayers.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.

No it doesn't.

If they don't comport with the Constitution, they aren't protecting "civil
liberties."

Nonsense.

But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening
civil
liberties.

Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
things like religion and private property.

Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.

How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.

I didn't say they threatened private property, though I suspect they do by
interfering with land transfers (think Wal-Mart) and perhaps by supporting
restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private land found in land use
codes, I said that they did not SUPPORT private property rights. There's not
a chance in hell that the ACLU would, for example, take up my case against
the State of Colorado for the unlawful appropriation of a right of way
across my land by the legislature.

Perhaps because defending civil liberties doesn't necessarily equate to
defending Scotty Weiser's world view.

And yet the issue of unlawful eminent domain takings is certainly involved
with "civil rights," since the right to own private property and be
compensated when the state appropriates it, is a fundamental civil right.

I'm not sure that Scotty Weiser's right to control his private property
usurps all other rights.

You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be
made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.

"Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk
all
day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

And that's the place for it.

Well, the point is that neither you nor the government gets to decide that.

Who gets to decide?

Not in a school where other children are
required to be.

That they are required to be there does not mean that they have a right to
be protected from displays of religious beliefs by other students who choose
to freely exercise their First Amendment rights.

I disagree.

There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)

Hardly.

Oh well. Keep on shrieking.

or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the
government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our

Who is "our" here?

Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.

Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.

If they don't, they are socialist asses.

And that's pretty much what your serious mental health issues boil down to.

Anyone who disagrees with Scotty Weiser is a socialist ass.

the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and
the
civil liberty to own a gun.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil
liberties.

Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear
arms.

Nope, that too.

But they absolutely refuse to defend the right to keep and bear arms

Good for them. I've never made a donation to the ACLU, but you are making a
good case for it.

which is a civil liberty

Only if you are nuts.

As I said, they are a biased, hard-left group with a
socialist agenda.

You've done nothing to substantiate your silly claim.