ACLU asks Supreme Court to hear Va. alcohol ad ban

Clear Thinker wrote:

<quoted text>

Part 2

Frankly, you disappoint as an adversary and my interest in continuing is diminishing. I don’t know if you’re really as ignorant as you present yourself, or if you are just a rigid ideologue who is incapable of thought beyond the narrow confines of your ideology…or both.

I really dislike wasting my time explaining the obvious to either the native or willfully ignorant, so this is it.

In spite of their amusing proclamation on the Tax Form (where they said in all caps “THE ACLU’S OBJECTS SHALL BE SOUGHT WHOLLY WITHOUT POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP.") the ACLU is a completely leftist organization. Soros, MoveOn, and the others were brought up because they’re involved with the ACLU through Grassroots Campaign, Inc, which the ACLU employs.

And that was just the result of skimming over a simple Tax Form. I have no doubt there are many other easily found tie-ins with those and other leftist organizations and individuals.

In all honesty, unless you’re able to bring more intellectual challenge to the table than you have I’m pretty much through with this conversation.

Joe McCarthy was right wrote:

<quoted text>
Part 2
Frankly, you disappoint as an adversary and my interest in continuing is diminishing. I don’t know if you’re really as ignorant as you present yourself, or if you are just a rigid ideologue who is incapable of thought beyond the narrow confines of your ideology…or both.
I really dislike wasting my time explaining the obvious to either the native or willfully ignorant, so this is it.
In spite of their amusing proclamation on the Tax Form (where they said in all caps “THE ACLU’S OBJECTS SHALL BE SOUGHT WHOLLY WITHOUT POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP.") the ACLU is a completely leftist organization. Soros, MoveOn, and the others were brought up because they’re involved with the ACLU through Grassroots Campaign, Inc, which the ACLU employs.
And that was just the result of skimming over a simple Tax Form. I have no doubt there are many other easily found tie-ins with those and other leftist organizations and individuals.
In all honesty, unless you’re able to bring more intellectual challenge to the table than you have I’m pretty much through with this conversation.

A typical, cowardly way out for an arrogant bully who can't meet his own demands to document claims, refrain from personal attacks, or argue facts with facts.

And you want a more intellectual challenge?? Really? Why? You haven't shown any degee of intellect thus far. Besides, it's a pretty good bet that I have more years of college education than you have at all (sorry, your repeated grades don't count.)

You are correct about one thing, however...we are through here.

Clear Thinker wrote:

<quoted text>
A typical, cowardly way out for an arrogant bully who can't meet his own demands to document claims, refrain from personal attacks, or argue facts with facts.
And you want a more intellectual challenge?? Really? Why? You haven't shown any degee of intellect thus far. Besides, it's a pretty good bet that I have more years of college education than you have at all (sorry, your repeated grades don't count.)
You are correct about one thing, however...we are through here.

Haha. Well, you’re welcome. I thought I’d give you a chance to hide your embarrassment over being outed as a lying, ignorant fake. Baldwin not a communist? Haha!

P.S. You really should reconsider your argumentative style. In spite of what you may believe, pedantry is no substitute for intelligent, informed argument.

:^)

Waldo of Galena wrote:

...I personally can not have one drink because for some reason. I will drink until I kill myself.

I know why!

Alcohol is tasty!

Waldo of Galena wrote:

Wheather or not what I said was directly about the article my thought are still rational and valid. I can feel heads spinning.

They are all probably drunk!

lily boca raton wrote:

<quoted text> Yeah, you rightwingers love that authoritarianism stuff don't you? Police state, laws for everything. You can't control your self so you want the government to control you? What a loser.

I thought liberals wanted government to control everything?? It's the rightwingers who want big government and nanny type laws now? When did this change? It must have happened during one of my blackouts!

Boozehounds Drink Free wrote:

<quoted text>Your proposal to create more spying Big Nanny Government is nauseating to Americans.

Especially nauseating to those who have had too much to drink!

R-R-R-RALLLFFFFF!

It is obvious that Clear Thinker and Joe McCarthy aren't drinkers, otherwise they'd be arguing about more important things, like who peed on whose foot in the bathroom!

I am especially disappointed in Clear Thinker who, despite all those years of college education, never passed Heavy Drinking Techniques 101. He must have gone to BYU.

Joe McCarthy was right wrote:

<quoted text>
Haha. Well, you’re welcome. I thought I’d give you a chance to hide your embarrassment over being outed as a lying, ignorant fake. Baldwin not a communist? Haha!
P.S. You really should reconsider your argumentative style. In spite of what you may believe, pedantry is no substitute for intelligent, informed argument.
:^)

Does the ACLU have Communist roots? Was co-founder Roger Baldwin a Communist?
No, Roger Baldwin was not a communist. Like many of his contemporaries, he observed and wrote about the social and political issues in the early years of the Soviet Union, but later he wrote, "The Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, a traumatic shock to me, ended any ambivalence I had about the Soviet Union, and all cooperation with Communists in united fronts."

Baldwin renounced communism after WW2, and purged the ACLU of communists when he learned more about how the Soviet Union worked in reality.

But dishonest right-wing Red Scare nincompoops like you never bother to tell the whole story.

Why is that?

Never mind, we all know.

Throughout the organization’s history and particularly during the McCarthy era, the ACLU, its members, staff and founders have been accused of being communists. The ACLU has no political affiliations and makes no test of individuals' ideological leanings a condition of membership or employment. Members and staff of the national ACLU and its affiliates may be Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Federalists, Libertarians, or members of any other political party or no party at all. What the ACLU asks of its staff and officials is that they consistently defend civil liberties and the Constitution.

"

Conan the Grammarian wrote:

<quoted text>
Does the ACLU have Communist roots? Was co-founder Roger Baldwin a Communist?
No, Roger Baldwin was not a communist. Like many of his contemporaries, he observed and wrote about the social and political issues in the early years of the Soviet Union, but later he wrote, "The Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, a traumatic shock to me, ended any ambivalence I had about the Soviet Union, and all cooperation with Communists in united fronts."
Baldwin renounced communism after WW2, and purged the ACLU of communists when he learned more about how the Soviet Union worked in reality.
But dishonest right-wing Red Scare nincompoops like you never bother to tell the whole story.
Why is that?
Never mind, we all know.
Throughout the organization’s history and particularly during the McCarthy era, the ACLU, its members, staff and founders have been accused of being communists. The ACLU has no political affiliations and makes no test of individuals' ideological leanings a condition of membership or employment. Members and staff of the national ACLU and its affiliates may be Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Federalists, Libertarians, or members of any other political party or no party at all. What the ACLU asks of its staff and officials is that they consistently defend civil liberties and the Constitution.
"

“Nincompoop?” hahaha! Way to get yourself taken seriously,“Conan.”

Speaking of dishonesty, you're guilty of an obvious attempt to blur the truth. Baldwin was very clear about his far left politics,and his purges weren't about renouncing the concept of Communism, but what he felt Communism had become.

Yet, even today the ACLU wrote on its tax return (their caps)“THE ACLU TODAY REMAINS AS FOCUSED AS EVER ON THE OVERARCHING GOALS SET BY ITS FOUNDERS NEARLY 90 YEARS AGO.” If the ACLU were really not a leftist organization, why would they specifically refer to the original leftist goals of the founders 90 years ago?

You're welcome to respond to my posts #20and #22, which go a little deeper into the subject.

As for your ridiculous claim that “the ACLU has no political affiliations…” are you serious? Any honest review of the list of organizations affiliated with the ACLU show a heavy tilt to the left.

I don't think anyone with a username like yours should expect to be taken seriously by anyone.

I've spent enough time dealing with people like you to know that debate with you is pointless, because you are nothing more than a ideology dispenser. Enjoy disseminating your silly Red Scare propaganda. America left you behind decades ago.

Conan the Grammarian wrote:

I don't think anyone with a username like yours should expect to be taken seriously by anyone.
I've spent enough time dealing with people like you to know that debate with you is pointless, because you are nothing more than a ideology dispenser. Enjoy disseminating your silly Red Scare propaganda. America left you behind decades ago.

Haha. Well, that was easy. Your hiding behind your shield of ad hominems makes it clear that you came to battle with no arrows in your quiver.

P.S. Speaking of usernames, I bow to your extraordinary talent exhibited in the creation of your own impressive username, Conan the Grammarian.
:^)

Joe McCarthy:
Clear Thinker did exactly what you asked of him, and stuck it to you.
In regards to the ACLU reducing restrictions on sex offenders, let me bring something to your attention. Of all people listed as sex offenders in the U.S., I've seen a statistic (in more than one place) that only 8% of them are dangers to society (that is, ultimately, convicted rapists and pedophiles. The remaining offenders were convicted of public indecency (which includes quite a few who simply stopped on the side of the road to relieve themselves-who hasnt done that at some point in their life), people convicted of sexual contact with a miner at a young age (I read a particular case where a boy was either 11 or 12 and played 'doctor' with a 10 year old), sexual harrasment (that is of other adults, but I also recently heard of an 8 year old boy who pushed a 6 year old girl on the playground, and the area he happened to touch her was her chest), and last, but not least, statutory rape-in many cases, the most blown-out-of-proportion charge that there is. Why do I explain this one so thoroughly? It's because I was charged with it. My girlfriend is 15. I'm almost 19. her dad found out that her and I had sex and decided he'd press charges. Not saying it wasnt a dumb thing for me to do, but where I come from this 'crime' carries a manditory prison sentence of 9 months, as well as putting a felony on your record....all for CONSENSUAL sex(something that most U.S. states cant seem to agree on where the age of consent line should be drawn. 16 here, 17 there, 18 over here, this many years age difference here, that many there-so what is it people? a 16 year old crosses a border and suddenly becomes mentally incapable of consenting to sex?). Worst part was that it was my first time. She took my virginity. I assure you that I did nothing to coerce her or convince her to do something she didnt want to. We chose to do it together. She has told everyone that she is not a victim, and that she hasnt been wronged in anyway. To these laws, that doesnt make any difference. I love her with all my heart, and that matters to me. Any day now, the police will be calling and asking for me to turn myself in. I know who I am, and I know I had a great relationship before the law stepped in and knocked me off my feet. She's a bit younger than me...but she is no little girl. I can tell you that I dont prowel around elementry schools and junior high's waiting to leap on unsupecting children-I just fell in love with a girl thats a couple years too young for me. Pass your own judgements about my situation if you wish. But to show you how out-of-whack these laws are getting, look at california. an 18 year old can be charged with statutory rape for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend-no joke.
My point is that these laws have gotten way out of hand. I'm sure many of you have seen the movie JAWS. You may or may not know that after that movie came out, thousands of sharks were killed for no apparant reason by fisherman and concerned members of communities. They believed they were doing a publice service. All they did was cause a negative impact on the enviornment. One horrible sex offense comes onto the news, where an innocent child is violated and murdered, and the public goes into a panic. Laws get passed, people speak out against any and all sex offenders-even those who really dont pose a threat to children. The laws get even crazier as time goes on.
Bottom line, pedophiles should have severe restrictions and be kept away from childre. Rapists should be watched closely and only be allowed to go to certain places at certain times. over-prosecuted youth and adults alike, should not be thrown into the same melting pot as those two horrible offenders. All that serves to do is make it a little easier for the real bad guys to hide behind the rest of us.
Sorry for being so outspoken. Just figured it was neccesary to make my point on the whole 'sex offender' issue.

In regards to the ACLU reducing restrictions on sex offenders, let me bring something to your attention. Of all people listed as sex offenders in the U.S., I've seen a statistic (in more than one place) that only 8% of them are dangers to society (that is, ultimately, convicted rapists and pedophiles. The remaining offenders were convicted of public indecency (which includes quite a few who simply stopped on the side of the road to relieve themselves-who hasnt done that at some point in their life), people convicted of sexual contact with a miner at a young age (I read a particular case where a boy was either 11 or 12 and played 'doctor' with a 10 year old), sexual harrasment (that is of other adults, but I also recently heard of an 8 year old boy who pushed a 6 year old girl on the playground, and the area he happened to touch her was her chest), and last, but not least, statutory rape-in many cases, the most blown-out-of-proportion charge that there is. Why do I explain this one so thoroughly? It's because I was charged with it. My girlfriend is 15. I'm almost 19. her dad found out that her and I had sex and decided he'd press charges. Not saying it wasnt a dumb thing for me to do, but where I come from this 'crime' carries a manditory prison sentence of 9 months, as well as putting a felony on your record....all for CONSENSUAL sex(something that most U.S. states cant seem to agree on where the age of consent line should be drawn. 16 here, 17 there, 18 over here, this many years age difference here, that many there-so what is it people? a 16 year old crosses a border and suddenly becomes mentally incapable of consenting to sex?). Worst part was that it was my first time. She took my virginity. I assure you that I did nothing to coerce her or convince her to do something she didnt want to. We chose to do it together. She has told everyone that she is not a victim, and that she hasnt been wronged in anyway. To these laws, that doesnt make any difference. I love her with all my heart, and that matters to me. Any day now, the police will be calling and asking for me to turn myself in. I know who I am, and I know I had a great relationship before the law stepped in and knocked me off my feet. She's a bit younger than me...but she is no little girl. I can tell you that I dont prowel around elementry schools and junior high's waiting to leap on unsupecting children-I just fell in love with a girl thats a couple years too young for me. Pass your own judgements about my situation if you wish. But to show you how out-of-whack these laws are getting, look at california. an 18 year old can be charged with statutory rape for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend-no joke.

My point is that these laws have gotten way out of hand. I'm sure many of you have seen the movie JAWS. You may or may not know that after that movie came out, thousands of sharks were killed for no apparant reason by fisherman and concerned members of communities. They believed they were doing a publice service. All they did was cause a negative impact on the enviornment. One horrible sex offense comes onto the news, where an innocent child is violated and murdered, and the public goes into a panic. Laws get passed, people speak out against any and all sex offenders-even those who really dont pose a threat to children. The laws get even crazier as time goes on.

Bottom line, pedophiles should have severe restrictions and be kept away from childre. Rapists should be watched closely and only be allowed to go to certain places at certain times. over-prosecuted youth and adults alike, should not be thrown into the same melting pot as those two horrible offenders. All that serves to do is make it a little easier for the real bad guys to hide behind the rest of us.

Sorry for being so outspoken. Just figured it was neccesary to make my point on the whole 'sex offender' issue.

Thank you Justin. You make it clear that you have a personal stake, and you make good arguments. I agree that our sex offender laws need a major overhaul. However, it's clear to me that you are unaware that your circumstances have in this case likely clouded your judgment on who is sticking it to whomever.

In my post #16, I clearly said that I wasn't defending "Remember", even agreeing that he was wrong. But the debate moved from there to discussing the ACLU itself. "Clear Thinker" made some statements which I factually refuted, and he refused to discuss the matter further.

McCarthy was right wrote:

Thank you Justin. You make it clear that you have a personal stake, and you make good arguments. I agree that our sex offender laws need a major overhaul. However, it's clear to me that you are unaware that your circumstances have in this case likely clouded your judgment on who is sticking it to whomever.
In my post #16, I clearly said that I wasn't defending "Remember", even agreeing that he was wrong. But the debate moved from there to discussing the ACLU itself. "Clear Thinker" made some statements which I factually refuted, and he refused to discuss the matter further.

Thank you for understanding my point. I need to get my word out there while I still have time.

And my apologies for jumping down your throat, I later read the full thread between you and Clear Thinker.

Justin wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for understanding my point. I need to get my word out there while I still have time.
And my apologies for jumping down your throat, I later read the full thread between you and Clear Thinker.

Good luck!

McCarthy was right wrote:

<quoted text>
Good luck!

Thank you.