Kindergarten and the Kafkaesque

[_Darth J]

DarthJ.....

I would like to point out a small "reality check" for you.

The ACLU primarily operating and engaging in and under liberal ideology and actions in the VAST majority of their actions, and the fact that they can "sometimes" engage in actions that would support a conservative position, DOESN'T SOMEHOW MEAN THEY AREN'T A LIBERAL IDEOLOGICAL GROUP!!!

Friggen mental reject!

Are you going to claim Obama's actually a "conservative" because he sometimes DOES or SAYS the "rare" conservative thing???
Are you claiming that liberals really "aren't" liberals when they do or believe the rare conservative thing?

Do you even understand basic logic???

I would like to learn more about the factual basis for the assertion that the ACLU is a liberal ideological group. Thanks in advance for giving me some links.

Also, ldsfaqs, given your understanding of how vertical and horizontal stare decisis work, I would appreciate your explaining to me why the ACLU would be litigating in hundreds of cases in multiple jurisdictions to establish case law that is inconsistent with the liberal socialist liberal communist liberal leftist liberal communist liberal socialist agenda they wish to impose upon society through case law.

Again, thanks in advance for your insightful, informed response that is sure to follow.

[_EAllusion]

No governing document, and no natural rights theory, will be any match for the majority opinion issuing from a generation raised according to the "all guns are evil" principle.

See the despicably manipulative and politicized children's cartoon The Iron Giant for this idea writ large on the big screen as propaganda aimed a young, unformed, uncritical minds.

Heh. That's pretty insane even for Droopy. But it does give space to mention that The Iron Giant is a brilliant film.

The gun motif is about people having the freedom to choose who they are. And for The Iron Giant it represents a choice between being a literal weapon and agent of destruction that he seemingly was built to be or a hero that acts for the good of all. It's not trying to portray a general anti-gun message. It also contains a classic anti-conformist theme that is very tightly written for a family film. That is the opposite of encouraging submission to the collective.

[_Darth J]

Ten bucks says Droopy hasn't seen The Iron Giant, but is repeating what a George Will-esque columnist said.

I mention George Will because he voiced similar ludicrous criticisms of E.T.

[_ldsfaqs]

Now that I'm older and more learned, it's amazing the amount of liberal ideology that I can clearly see from various Movies and TV shows of the past and in the present.

Liberals have been programing us for a long time. Only those who explore and learn all things see the programing, the rest have become liberals.

Your ignorance people is not our crazy.....

[_EAllusion]

Ten bucks says Droopy hasn't seen The Iron Giant, but is repeating what a George Will-esque columnist said.

The weird thing is that Brad Bird's films tend to be filled with themes that should resonate with a conservative Mormon. But I guess a film that has a beatnik as a good guy and a McCarthyesque government agent as a bad guy is a bridge too far for the Droops.

[_ldsfaqs]

And DarthJ.....

As to the ACLU, it's really simple. It's because it claims to be a "non-partisan" organization, and thus there ARE some conservatives in it.

However, it is primarily dominated by liberals, and the vast majority of their actions are liberal based and against actual freedom etc..

The ACLU was Founded in 1920 by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles.
Every single one of these individuals were left wing radicals and/or big socialists, marxists, liberals.
They were not "conservatives"!!!!

Further, one of their biggest ideological "clients" is the Separation between Church and State, for which you can't get more ANTI-FREEDOM that that.

Fighting against science based Creationism to be taught with regular evolution theory right or wrong is not based in "freedom".
Primarily supporting nearly all other liberal pet peeves while primarily going against conservative views on the same subjects is not "conservative".

And stop quoting the "100" #, you're just making that crap up.

[_Darth J]

And DarthJ.....

As to the ACLU, it's really simple. It's because it claims to be a "non-partisan" organization, and thus there ARE some conservatives in it.

However, it is primarily dominated by liberals, and the vast majority of their actions are liberal based and against actual freedom etc..

See: fallacy of composition

The ACLU was Founded in 1920 by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles.
Every single one of these individuals were left wing radicals and/or big socialists, marxists, liberals.

See: genetic fallacy

They were not "conservatives"!!!!

See: false dilemma

Further, one of their biggest ideological "clients" is the Separation between Church and State, for which you can't get more ANTI-FREEDOM that that.

See: false premise

http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingth ... ation.aspx

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

Do you know who James Madison was? You have given me no reason to believe that you do.

Fighting against science based Creationism to be taught with regular evolution theory right or wrong is not based in "freedom".
Primarily supporting nearly all other liberal pet peeves while primarily going against conservative views on the same subjects is not "conservative".

See: begging the question; proof by assertion

And stop quoting the "100" #, you're just making that crap up.

ACLU defense of religious practice and expression

[_Gadianton]

I had cap guns growing up but my conservative, right-wing TBM parents were never stupid enough to allow me to take a cap gun to school. My mom was even opposed to the realism of one of my cap gun pistols I had that she let me buy with my allowance. I had a BB-gun rifle by the time I was in second grade, and I loved to shoot it in our back yard. My Mom had no problem with that, but she really didn't like that cap-gun pistol with fake silencer I had. It shot those hard plastic caps as opposed to the cheaper strips of paper. There was a story going around at that time about a cop who shot a kid dead for pulling a realistic cap gun, that was part of it, but in addition, she didn't like the role play; a sliencer is really only needed for one thing. Had i ever taken a cap gun to school, I'd never see one again.

As far as lego guns, I made dozens if not more lego guns growing up but never would have taken one to school. Further, just a few days ago a friend of mine, and engineer, showed me some lego guns he made that are amazing. They cost him several hundred in parts he had to order throughout the world, and shoot either 2's or 4's. I was impressed. However, if the student's lego gun shot projectiles, then it's obvious why he's in trouble.

Now, perhaps the cap gun in the story wasn't realistic or shown in a way that's alarming or the lego gun didn't shoot projectiles. But we don't know the facts of the cases from the story because in the typical Droopy-style editorial, the fixation is on the Left interpreting a harmless toy as a weapon of mass destruction. There are no doubt cases where teachers and schools over-react, but there is not enough information to say either way from what's presented in these cases by the Droopy bloggers.

[_ldsfaqs]

DarthJ, calling every argument simply a fallacy without any actual rebutal is intellectually lazy.

For example, the fact that the ACLU "primarily" supports liberal causes is not some "fallacy" it's simple fact and reality.

Yes, I'm well aware of Madison, the primary driver/creator of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, the first two you liberals so hate, but at least the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers are practically the Conservative Bible, in response to the anti-federalists a.k.a. liberals in our day.
So, what's your point about James Madison???

I'm guessing that you think he was some big proponent against church and state mixing?
Well, that would be UTTERLY FALSE..... what you are not understanding is that there is a difference between his and ALL other founders views of having religion "control" government, and completely BANNING it from being a part of Government and the Public Square as ANY PERSON who has views CAN ALSO be a part of government and the Public Square.

That is real freedom..... Banning peoples beliefs from the public square is completely anathema to Madison and ALL the founders.

Please read these two articles....

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesar ... asp?id=105

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... -liberty''

Preventing state religion was the views of the founders and is the view of all of us.
But there isn't a single founder who wouldn't be appalled at the complete "removal" of religion from the Public Square, because that act goes entirely against the principles of freedom.

Anway, what was your point?

And again, while it's true the ACLU does promote "some" conservative style ideals, it more so goes against them. Just look over their issues Platform. A good portion of them are clear liberal ideology. Just because some conservatives are in the institution doesn't make it NOT a "left leaning" institution and ideologically based.

Further, the fact that many of it's actions directly go against it's own charter and platforms, and instead support the liberal agenda is clear. I know liberals can be for civil rights, but more often than not they are for liberal civil rights, not conservative civil rights. by the way, your "religion" example is a straw-man. Religion is not simply a domain of conservatives. So, the fact that the ACLU does a lot of religious cases doesn't somehow make it not liberal.

Is it really so hard to comprehend?

[_EAllusion]

The ACLU has taken on hundreds of cases defending people's right to express and promote their religion in the public square. Here's a list to start:

http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religi ... expression

The ACLU is a staunch supporter of the free exercise clause.

That's a distinct issue from using the government as an apparatus to promote a particular religion, which is what is in question with establishment cases that involve separate of Church and State. That you get to preach in public doesn't mean you get to use public school teachers to proselytize to a captive audience of children.

For someone who constantly likes to call people liars, it should be noted that David Barton is a serial liar known for taking quotes out of context or flat making them up in a surprising number of cases. He's a leading light in the liars for Jesus movement in the religious right. Just skimming the link I saw several. It's a time-consuming process to respond. The question you should ask, is why should he be taken at face value, but other sources you can handwave away as lying? How do you tell the difference? I say this as a person knowing which side is disingenuous, but what process have you used to sort this out?