Kindergarten and the Kafkaesque

[_ldsfaqs]

DarthJ......

I'm going to try and break it down even more clear, so your dunce brain can understand.

1. I/We (strawman again) have never claimed that the ACLU isn't involved in Civil Liberties NO MATTER THE PARTY AND IDEOLOGY. So, get that lie out of your brain.

2. What we are stating is the fact that they go against civil liberties which don't conform to their liberal agenda often, in fact makes them a primarily a liberal organization.

3. You want examples, do a simple Google search. I'm not your mother.

But, here are their "positions".

Positions [edit]
The ACLU's official position statements, as of January 2012, included the following policies:
Affirmative action – The ACLU supports affirmative action.[29]
Birth control and abortion – The ACLU supports the right to abortion, as established in the Roe v. Wade decision. The ACLU believes that everyone should have affordable access to the full range of contraceptive options. The ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project manages efforts related to reproductive rights.[30]
Criminal Law Reform – The ACLU seeks an end to excessively harsh sentences that it feels "stand in the way of a just and equal society". The ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project focuses on this issue.[31]
Death Penalty – The ACLU is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. The ACLU's Capital Punishment Project focuses on this issue.[32]
Free Speech – The ACLU supports free speech, including the right to express unpopular ideas, such as flag desecration.[33]
Campaign funding – The ACLU believes that the current system is badly flawed, and supports a system based on public funding. The ACLU supports full transparency to identify donors.[34]
Gun control – The ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right. This position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State".[35]
HIV/AIDS – The policy of the ACLU is to "create a world in which discrimination based on HIV status has ended, people with HIV have control over their medical information and care, and where the government’s HIV policy promotes public health and respect and compassion for people living with HIV and AIDS." This effort is managed by the ACLU's AIDS Project.[36]
Human Rights – The ACLU's Human Rights project advocates (primarily in an international context) for children's rights, immigrants rights, gay rights, and other international obligations.[37]
Immigrants' Rights – The ACLU supports civil liberties for immigrants to the United States.[38]
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights – The ACLU's LGBT Rights Project supports equal rights for all gays and lesbians, and works to eliminate discrimination. The ACLU supports equal civil marriage and adoption rights for LGBT couples.[39]
National Security – The ACLU is opposed to compromising civil liberties in the name of national security. In this context, the ACLU has condemned government use of spying, indefinite detention without charge or trial, and government-sponsored torture. This effort is led by the ACLU's National Security Project.[40]
Prisoners' Rights – The ACLU's National Prison Project believes that incarceration should only be used as a last resort, and that prisons should focus on rehabilitation. The ACLU works to ensure that prisons treat prisoners in accordance with the Constitution and domestic law.[41]
Privacy and technology – The ACLU's Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology promotes "responsible uses of technology that enhance privacy protection", and opposes uses "that undermine our freedoms and move us closer to a surveillance society".[42]
Racial Issues – The ACLU's Racial Justice Program combats racial discrimination in all aspects of society, including the educational system, justice system, and the application of the death penalty.[43]
Religion – The ACLU supports the right of religious persons to practice their faiths without government interference. The ACLU believes the government should neither prefer religion over non-religion, nor favor particular faiths over others. The ACLU is opposed to school-led prayer, but protects students' right to pray in school.[44]
Voting rights – The ACLU believes that impediments to voting should be eliminated, particularly if they disproportionately impact minority or poor citizens. The ACLU believes that misdemeanor convictions should not lead to a loss of voting rights. The ACLU's Voting Rights Project leads this effort.[45]
Women's rights – The ACLU works to eliminate discrimination against women in all realms. The ACLU encourages government to be proactive in stopping violence against women. These efforts are led by the ACLU's Women's' Rights project.[46]

Now tell me DarthJ..... Can you name which of the positions above ALONE (let alone actual cases) that actually in fact go against Civil Liberties?

Let me help you since you likely think like a liberal which many of these positions are.

Affirmative Action - Against Civil Liberties (race based selection over-riding qualification based)
Abortion - Against civil Liberties (removes the right of a child)
Criminal Law Reform - Against civil liberty (because criminals let out to early and liberty of innocents is then infringed.)
Campaign Funding - Against civil Liberties (anyone should be allow to donate how and what they want)
Gun Control - Against civil Liberties (do I need to explain this one?)

Anyway, I could go on..... I'm bored with you.

So, tell us again how this is "not" a primarily liberal organization?

[_EAllusion]

Campaign Funding - Against civil Liberties (anyone should be allow to donate how and what they want)

The ACLU sided with the majority in Citizens United, has consistently opposed campaign finance reforms that have restricted donations, and generally does not oppose people's freedom to donate money to political causes. They simultaneously favor as a matter of policy public financing of elections which you have confused with the very restrictions of the free flow of campaign donations they've fought.

While Republican president George W. Bush was signing Republican presidential nominee John McCain's campaign finance reform act into law that allowed for stepped up restrictions on political donations, here is what the ACLU was saying:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/letter- ... m-act-2001

[_ldsfaqs]

Ya, but that's relative, they waffle on the issue...

Campaign funding – The ACLU believes that the current system is badly flawed, and supports a system based on public funding.

Clearly a "public funding" position is not within purview of true freedom.

Although, I'm curious the different ways they would take that.
For example myself. I think the entire system needs to be changed which in a way might be similar to public funding, but in the private sector. I think a system is put into place where the best and brightest are nominated and then go through a refining process, and then people vote. I think it should all be done entirely as a public service by the media. Every candidate should have public full bios, so we know exactly who we are voting for, reasonable media time to get their messages and views out so we can know them, etc.

Entirely take the money out of the game. Money has too much of a corrupting influence, and we too often have to pick from the lessor of two "imperfects", or the people who are really best for the job don't get known because they don't have the money/connections. So, I guess my version is not "public funded" but is media funded, thus privately funded by the media. I mean the media already spend tons of time and money on politicians, thus they could also give them a voice, and fully cover their bios for the public.

[_Brackite]

Campaign Funding - Against civil Liberties (anyone should be allow to donate how and what they want)

The ACLU sided with the majority in Citizens United, has consistently opposed campaign finance reforms that have restricted donations, and generally does not oppose people's freedom to donate money to political causes. They simultaneously favor as a matter of policy public financing of elections which you have confused with the very restrictions of the free flow of campaign donations they've fought.

While Republican president George W. Bush was signing Republican presidential nominee John McCain's campaign finance reform act into law that allowed for stepped up restrictions on political donations, here is what the ACLU was saying:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/letter- ... m-act-2001

Ironically, some of the individuals on the far left (such as Kevin Graham) hate the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_U ... Commission

[_Darth J]

Ya, but that's relative, they waffle on the issue...

Campaign funding – The ACLU believes that the current system is badly flawed, and supports a system based on public funding.

Let us summarize: you asserted without having the slightest idea what you're talking about that the ACLU is opposed to anyone being allowed to donate how and what they want. You then learned, to your surprise, that the ACLU was supporting the majority in Citizens United, which is one of the most sweeping decisions in U.S. history on broadening the right to contribute to political campaigns. Now you have changed your assertion to saying rather than they oppose civil liberties, they "waffle" because they support campaign finance reform, which you do, too, and they believe that public funding of campaigns is a valid way to do that.

So, no matter what the ACLU does, they are a liberal ideology group. Why? Because you say they are a liberal ideology group.

Therefore, I hereby proclaim that Republicans support cannibalism. My evidence for this claim is as follows: I say they support cannibalism.

Clearly a "public funding" position is not within purview of true freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

Although, I'm curious the different ways they would take that.
For example myself. I think the entire system needs to be changed which in a way might be similar to public funding, but in the private sector. I think a system is put into place where the best and brightest are nominated and then go through a refining process, and then people vote. I think it should all be done entirely as a public service by the media. Every candidate should have public full bios, so we know exactly who we are voting for, reasonable media time to get their messages and views out so we can know them, etc.

Just to clarify: as a self-described conservative Republican, who insists that the ACLU is opposing our civil liberties, you think the Equal Time Rule is a great idea and in no way infringes on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Awesome.

Just wondering, ldsfaqs, but in this aristocracy you envision, who would decide who the best and the brightest are to merit nomination as a candidate, and who would oversee whatever this refining process would be?

You know, since it's the ACLU that hates democracy, whereas you love freedom and want to preserve free elections.

Entirely take the money out of the game. Money has too much of a corrupting influence, and we too often have to pick from the lessor of two "imperfects", or the people who are really best for the job don't get known because they don't have the money/connections. So, I guess my version is not "public funded" but is media funded, thus privately funded by the media. I mean the media already spend tons of time and money on politicians, thus they could also give them a voice, and fully cover their bios for the public.

So when you say this, you are a conservative standing up for freedom, but when the ACLU says this, they are liberals trying to destroy the Constitution.

[_ldsfaqs]

You completely perverted what I've stated DarthJ, but what's new.

I'm not promoting a "fairness doctrine" dorkwad! That's a completely different subject.
And those who nominate these people are the people. It starts local, state, then federal. Each level the people are both getting to know who their candidates are through the media, and then the people vote for them.

ALL I have stated is that when there are "elections" that the media outlets be required to give some media time to each candidate so the people can actually learn and know who the candidates are, their beliefs, their skills etc. so they can be judged.

This is no different than what already occurs in High Schools, or in "Debates", or in the media already itself. The only difference is that money is taken out of the game, and people are given time to give their views and to know them.

While it IS a form of "fairness", it's not the same thing as the fairness doctrine.

Let me put it this way. If you've actually been a voter, haven't you noticed that for many of the offices and people you are voting on locally, you can almost not find SQUAT on who these people are? And many of the ones you can, it's not satisfying or enough information to judge?

I find that to be a serious problem. My plan would eliminate those problems.

[Guest]

DarthJ......

I'm going to try and break it down even more clear, so your dunce brain can understand.

Ldsfaqs, I note that you have called me stupid several times now. This must mean that you want to compare our respective intelligence and understanding of constitutional law.

I received my juris doctor from the University of Utah College of Law in August 2000. Where did you go to law school?

1. I/We (strawman again) have never claimed that the ACLU isn't involved in Civil Liberties NO MATTER THE PARTY AND IDEOLOGY. So, get that lie out of your brain.

Speaking of straw man, feel free to copy and past where I said otherwise.

2. What we are stating

"We"? Who is this "we" you keep purporting to be the spokesman for?

is the fact that they go against civil liberties which don't conform to their liberal agenda often, in fact makes them a primarily a liberal organization.

Yes, you are indeed stating that. Again and again and again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

3. You want examples, do a simple Google search. I'm not your mother.

And I will borrow your reasoning, and hereby announce that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were homosexual lovers. If you dispute that, it is up to you to prove it is not true.

But, here are their "positions".

Why is "positions" in scare quotes? Are you implying that there are not really the ACLU's positions?

/laundry list of a complex, divergent range of political and legal issues that apparently are supposed to be self-evident bêtes noires

Now tell me DarthJ..... Can you name which of the positions above ALONE (let alone actual cases) that actually in fact go against Civil Liberties?

Let me help you since you likely think like a liberal which many of these positions are.

Affirmative Action - Against Civil Liberties (race based selection over-riding qualification based)

That's not completely accurate. The U..S. Supreme Court has indeed held that affirmative action that essentially amounts to a quota system and/or reverse discrimination violates equal protection. University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978); Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. ___ (2009)

Affirmative action that considers racial diversity a small plus among many other factors has been held not to violate equal protection if the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 (2003)

So the ACLU does have some good faith basis in arguing that depending on how it is tailored, affirmative action does not violate the civil liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. However, whether affirmative action should be enacted is a political question. Whether any given method of affirmative action is constitutional is a legal question. I don't agree with affirmative action, and affirmative action law is probably going to be gutted when the Supreme Court issues a ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas. I also agree that politically, affirmative action is to the left of the spectrum. However, I am not bearing my testimony that the ACLU is true, nor saying that I agree with all of their positions (as not all of their affiliates agree with all of their positions, either). I am challenging your assertion that in the aggregate, the ACLU is pursuing a "liberal" agenda (which as far as I can tell still means the failure to impose fundamentalist Christian value judgments on society as a whole).

Abortion - Against civil Liberties (removes the right of a child)

The two questions you are begging here are whether an unborn child has any rights under the Constitution, and if so, whether those heretofore unknown rights supersede the right of a mother to make intimate personal decisions about having a baby without governmental coercion. Also, there not a single court case in the history of the United States that has held that a woman has an unlimited right to an abortion, in particular when the fetus is independently viable. That part of the holding in Roe v. Wade.

You also have not explained why classical liberalism would favor the government making intimate, metaphysical decisions about when life begins and whether to carry a baby to term, instead of the person who has to have that baby inside her. However, since the limits on government interference with extremely personal, private reproductive choices are a liberal issue, I guess Republicans are liberals, too, since there are in fact pro-choice Republicans running around out there.

E.g.,

http://www.republicansforchoice.com/

http://www.gopchoice.org/

Criminal Law Reform - Against civil liberty (because criminals let out to early and liberty of innocents is then infringed.)

Here, you are mistakenly implying that a crime victim has a right to any particular sentence, and since there are thousands of state and federal criminal statutes with varying penalties (including the Federal Sentencing Guidelines), your assertion is so vague as to be completely devoid of meaning. You are also implying that it somehow violates civil rights for the penalty for a given crime to be proportionate to the severity of the crime, when in fact that is exactly what the 8th Amendment requires.

For example, former federal judge Paul Cassell (whom I had as a professor in law school and also appeared in front of in a federal drug trafficking case), ruled in 2004 that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional because they led to disproportionate and absurd sentences.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/5950 ... tml?pg=all

Paul Cassell is a member of the Federalist Society and a former United States Attorney, and was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush. Professor Cassell is about as conservative a lawyer as one is likely to find. And one of the cases that solidified for him that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines needed to be reformed was when he had to sentence a defendant to 55 years in prison for selling less than $400 of marijuana to an undercover officer while in possession of a firearm. That sentence, which Cassell had no choice but to impose under federal law. This was a substantially greater sentence (as in, several decades longer) than if that defendant had committed any number of violent crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weldon_Angelos_case

Anyway, ldsfaqs, I believe you were vaguely babbling about something that you don't have the slightest understanding or awareness of.

Campaign Funding - Against civil Liberties (anyone should be allow to donate how and what they want)

As EAllusion explained, you are 180 degrees wrong.

Gun Control - Against civil Liberties (do I need to explain this one?)

I guess you missed upthread where I already addressed this with examples of numerous ACLU affiliates representing the Second Amendment rights of clients.

Anyway, I could go on..... I'm bored with you.

So, tell us again how this is "not" a primarily liberal organization?

Probably because you have raised numerous different issues, and a grand total of one is on the liberal side, and probably because not only do you not know the difference between a political issue and a legal issue, you are not aware that there is a difference.

[_Darth J]

You completely perverted what I've stated DarthJ, but what's new.

I'm not promoting a "fairness doctrine" dorkwad! That's a completely different subject.
And those who nominate these people are the people. It starts local, state, then federal. Each level the people are both getting to know who their candidates are through the media, and then the people vote for them.

ALL I have stated is that when there are "elections" that the media outlets be required to give some media time to each candidate so the people can actually learn and know who the candidates are, their beliefs, their skills etc. so they can be judged.

This is no different than what already occurs in High Schools, or in "Debates", or in the media already itself. The only difference is that money is taken out of the game, and people are given time to give their views and to know them.

While it IS a form of "fairness", it's not the same thing as the fairness doctrine.

Let me put it this way. If you've actually been a voter, haven't you noticed that for many of the offices and people you are voting on locally, you can almost not find SQUAT on who these people are? And many of the ones you can, it's not satisfying or enough information to judge?

I find that to be a serious problem. My plan would eliminate those problems.

What you have now said twice is precisely what the Fairness Doctrine is. And the president who killed that Fairness Doctrine that you advocate was that great champion of the liberal left, Ronald Reagan.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... s+Doctrine

The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.

Between the 1940s and 1980s, federal regulators attempted to guarantee that the broadcasting industry would act fairly. The controversial policy adopted to further that attempt was called the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine was not a statute, but a set of rules and regulations that imposed controls on the content of the broadcasting media. It viewed radio and television as not merely industries but servants of the public interest. Enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the fairness doctrine had two main tenets: broadcasters had to cover controversial issues, and they had to carry contrasting viewpoints on such issues. Opponents of the doctrine, chiefly the media themselves, called it unconstitutional. Although it survived court challenges, the fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987 by deregulators in the FCC who deemed it outdated, misguided, and ultimately unfair. Its demise left responsibility for fairness entirely to the media.

The fairness doctrine grew out of early regulation of the radio industry. As the medium of radio expanded in the 1920s, its chaotic growth caused problems: for one, broadcasters often overlapped on each other's radio frequencies. In 1927, Congress imposed regulation with its passage of the Radio Act (47 U.S.C.A. § 81 et seq.). This landmark law established the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), reestablished in 1934 as the Federal Communications Commission. Empowered to allocate frequencies among broadcasters, the FRC essentially decided who could broadcast, and its mandate to do so contained the seeds of the fairness doctrine. The commission was not only to divvy up the limited number of bands on the radio dial; Congress said it was to do so according to public "convenience, interest, or necessity. "Radio was seen as a kind of public trust: individual stations had to meet public expectations in return for access to the nation's airwaves.

In 1949, the first clear definition of the fairness doctrine emerged. The FCC said, in its Report on Editorializing, "[T]he public interest requires ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views, and the commission believes that the principle applies … to all discussion of issues of importance to the public." The doctrine had two parts: it required broadcasters (1) to cover vital controversial issues in the community and (2) to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints. In time, additional rules were added. The so-called personal attack rule required broadcasters to allow opportunity for rebuttal to personal attacks made during the discussion of controversial issues. The "political editorializing" rule held that broadcasters who endorsed a candidate for political office had to give the candidate's opponent a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Enforcement was controversial. Complaints alleging violations of the fairness doctrine were to be filed with the FCC by individuals and organizations, such as political parties and unions. Upon review of the complaint, the FCC could take punitive action that included refusing to renew broadcasting licenses. Not surprisingly, radio and TV station owners resented this regulatory power. They grumbled that the print media never had to bear such burdens. The fairness doctrine, they argued, infringed upon their First Amendment rights. By the late 1960s, a First Amendment challenge reached the U.S. Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 89 S. Ct. 1794, 23 L. Ed. 2d 371 (1969). The Court upheld the constitutionality of the doctrine in a decision that only added to the controversy. The print and broadcast media were inherently different, it ruled. In the broadcast media, the Court said, "it is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount… it is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here."

Although the fairness doctrine remained in effect for almost two more decades following Red Lion, the 1980s saw its abolishment. Anti-regulatory fervor in the administration of President ronald reagan brought about its end. The administration, which staffed the FCC with its appointees, favored little or no restrictions on the broadcast industry. In its 1985 Fairness Report (102 F.C.C.2d 145), the FCC announced that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. Moreover, technology had changed: with the advent of multiple channels on Cable Television, no longer could broadcasting be seen as a limited resource. Two years later, in August 1987, the commission abolished the doctrine by a 4–0 vote, intending to extend to radio and television the same First Amendment protections guaranteed to the print media. Congress had tried to stop the FCC from killing the fairness doctrine. Two months earlier, it had sent President Reagan the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. [1987]), which would have codified the doctrine in federal law. The president vetoed it.

President Reagan's Veto of the 1987 congressional bill to establish the fairness doctrine as law did not end the controversy, however. Even into the mid-1990s, proponents continued to call for its reinstatement.

[Guest]

(Yes, I am aware that the Fairness Doctrine is about issues and the Equal Time Rule is about candidates. Ldsfaqs' grand idea looks more like the Fairness Doctrine than the Equal Time Rule to me.)

[_Darth J]

By the way, Ldsfaqs, under your schema, the Green Party candidate would've course receive just as much media exposure as the Republican Party candidate. Right?