Who cares?
Duke lacrosse players
Anna Nichole Smith
Don Imus
Related Posts
Trackbacks & Pings
-
[…] Who cares? And Jay adds one more to the list. […]
-
Decision may be near on Duke case…
RALEIGH — The three defendants in the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case and their families arrived …
Comments
-
Well, I am greatly enjoying the “I-Man’s” public humiliation. He is such an arrogant jerk, and richly deserves the obloquy heaped on him from this incident. What goes around comes around.
-
I’m keeping tabs on the Duke case myself, mostly because I’m interested in what happens to Nifong after his complete and utter failure to serve justice versus his own retirement program.
Here’s a case the ACLU should be involved in Rabit.
Are they?
No.
-
Frankly, Anna Nichole Smith did interest me somewhat, but not with her being dead and all.
-
Komrad,
Ditto.
-
Frankly, Anna Nichole Smith did interest me somewhat, but not with her being dead and all.
All the interesting bits of her were artificial, anyway.
I actually do care about the Duke players. When a left-wing loonybin of a university faculty gang up, presume the guilt of accused students, and spin all kinds of wild social bloviation out from their asses, I want to see them reeling from their black eyes now. Because it’s probably too much to expect them to, you know, apologize.
-
Bloodspite:
Here’s a case the ACLU should be involved in Rabit.
Are they?
No.
I have harnessed the almighty power of The Google to find your answer. Go into the comments, look for postings by Daniel Bowles, President of the Duke University student chapter of the ACLU.
The Google knows all.
-
rabit,
The president of the local student chapter said some commendable stuff? Is that the ACLU’s commitment on this?
Seems to me “freedom from baseless prosecution” would be a high priority to a civil liberties organization.
But the three guys were only freed yesterday. Maybe later on the ACLU will mount a multi-billion dollar defamation suit on their behalf against Nifong.
-
I would howl with laughter but it’s not in me to do so.
Your link proved my point Rabit.
Even more troubling is the response of organizations traditionally considered strong defenders of civil liberties in the criminal justice system—the ACLU and the NAACP. I have thrice emailed both the North Carolina ACLU and the Duke campus ACLU, asking if they have an opinion on Nifong’s procedurally dubious photo ID lineup. Both the state and campus branches refused to comment. This position starkly contrasts with their ACLU counterparts in Maryland, whose website cites “eyewitness ID reform” as one of the organization’s 2005-2006 legislative priorities, since “mistaken eyewitness identifications are the overwhelming reason for wrongful convictions.”
So what did the bastion of freedom to assist these 3 boys accused of rape, assault and other charges?
They took out an Ad. In the School Paper.
Additionally, the ACLU@DUKE penned a letter to the Duke community describing in detail Nifong’s misbehavior and reminding the university community of the perils of presuming guilt. This letter, however, was not put in the newspaper–instead a letter by a student that brought up the exact same issues was published. As the ACLU@DUKE is not driven by publicity, we did not push the issue–but instead celebrated that the issue had been clearly stated within the university community.
Oh boy. Nothing like a good stiff letter in a school newspaper. That will really help them……while they were looking at prison time. They could sit in their cells and think “Gee, the ACLU@Duke was really there for me. They took out one whole advertisement in the school newspaper”
I’ll quote from one of the commenters
It is a great disappointment to me and others who “care” about the Bill of Rights that the ACLU has been completely absent in this investigation. Surely the ACLU has a position on the imposition of a gag order to prevent criminal defendants from supporting their innocence through counsel and witnesses after an unethical media barrage by a prosecutor. Surely the ACLU has a view about the Innocence Commission guidelines for photo lineups. And surely the ACLU has a view on whether warrants should contain information that is factually accurate.
When you checked the wonders of Google, did you actually read the link? heh.
The ACLU at work. Child molesters go free on the second offense, but teenage boys who are innocent of crimes go to jail.
Nice.
-
Imus? See redhead’s comment #1
Anna Nichole? Not worth consideration, dead or alive.
Duke University? Yeh this one concerns me big time. The ACLU? Please. If your not a terrorist, baby raper or certified scum bag they don’t care about your rights. Simply put these three men are; white, male and from upper-middleclass backgrounds, and their accuser is black. They have to be guilty. Even when all of her (the accuser) mutible stories didn’t come close to matching any of the evidence, Yep their guilty. Even when one of the accused has an iron clad alibi, Yep still guilty. Yeh, those Liberals care about civil rights alright, they care about taking yours away if you don’t fit into their ideals. Oh, I almost forgot. Liberals, like Lefty Subhuman Neo Hippie Duke Prof types, aren’t ever wrong and never appologize for any reason. Even when they are blatantly wrong on all levels. Even when their stupid morally bankrupt antics put the future of three innocent men in grave danger.
-
I report, you decide.
Seriously, I know nothing about this case. I could probably spend 30 minutes Googling up Duke University-related message boards and a few articles on Wikipedia to learn more real facts about this than 90% of the people commenting in blogs. It just doesn’t interest me all that much.
Commissar:
The president of the local student chapter said some commendable stuff? Is that the ACLU’s commitment on this?
I have no clue. I’m sure that whenever the ACLU takes a public stand, it’s by concensus of a number of their members. Consitutional law takes years to grasp and I’m sure the ACLU has many members who’ve been constiutional lawyers for decades. I doubt any university student has the qualifications or public relations skills to represent such an organization on any subject.
But that wouldn’t stop the many ACLU-haters like John the Marine or Bloodspite from mispresenting any quote out of context from a student ACLU chapter head as the entire organization, if it supports their fantasy that the 500,000 members of the ACLU, many who’ve studied the Constitution for decades, are somehow pro-criminal, pro-pedophile, pro-whatever. The lack of basic rational sense simply boggles.
Seems to me “freedom from baseless prosecution” would be a high priority to a civil liberties organization.
It certainly would be. I don’t think the ACLU is the sort of organization that quickly issues public statements on every hot-topic issue that pops up, nor do they tackle every case where faulty evidence puts innocent people in prison. There are other organizations that deal directly with that.
I think they tend to provide legal support to cases that involve what they feel is a misinterpretation of the basic points of the Constitution. What is free speech, freedom to protest, freedom of self-expression, right to privacy, etc. You know, where the judgement is based entirely on an interpretation of the Constitution. As far as I know, this is not that type of case.
But the three guys were only freed yesterday. Maybe later on the ACLU will mount a multi-billion dollar defamation suit on their behalf against Nifong.
I really don’t think the ACLU gets involved in these kinds of cases. Also, do you think the ACLU should be involved in this one just because it is high profile? Why not all the other cases that have gone underneath the national media radar every year?
But aside from that, I won’t comment on the case since I don’t know the facts.
Bloodspite:
When you checked the wonders of Google, did you actually read the link? heh.
Yes I did. You’re only quoting the beginning of the thread, not the comment by the ACLU student chapter president later on, which was kind of the whole point of that link.
Are you actually making an effort at getting your facts straight, or just not trying?
john the marine:
Wow! You know if you fed your post to semantic analysis software, it’d probably core dump trying to establish a connective logic between all those words.
-
Rabit,
You do realize I actually quoted the University ACLU President in that post?
*He* was the one who said
Additionally, the ACLU@DUKE penned a letter to the Duke community describing in detail Nifong’s misbehavior and reminding the university community of the perils of presuming guilt. This letter, however, was not put in the newspaper–instead a letter by a student that brought up the exact same issues was published. As the ACLU@DUKE is not driven by publicity, we did not push the issue –but instead celebrated that the issue had been clearly stated within the university community.Nice try but thanks for playing.
-
BloodSpite,
Why highlight that part of the sentence and not the whole sentence?
As the ACLU@DUKE is not driven by publicity, we did not push the issue –but instead celebrated that the issue had been clearly stated within the university community.
Now, if the ACLU did make an official statement, you’d accuse them of grandstanding on issues that aren’t really their concern. Regardless of what the ACLU does, your side always distorts facts to fit the same old propaganda. I bet if some person tried to save the human race from an extinction-causing catastrophe, you’re side would do everything possible to discredit this person as a fraud. Oh yeah, there’s Al Gore.
Why does it seem to any rational, clear-thinking person that your side hates all of the best virtues of the human race and just wants it all to end?
I do have my suspicions.
-
The ACLU’s job is to defend people who can’t afford to put up their own defense. Asking why it didn’t do anything is like complaining that the state didn’t dispatch a public defender for the lacrosse players.
-
Rabit
Face it, your digging a hole with this one and there’s no way out.There is no distortion of facts.
By your own admittance and declaration, the ACLU is to be the bastion of freedom, and the herald of civil rights. They are the protectors of civil liberties.
Fact: They sent no representation to court to help these boys.
Fact: They sent no monies to help these boys.
Fact: Aside from a single school newspaper they have lifted not one finger for these men.
Fact. From the ACLU Website:
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.On the first count: Equal protection was not served. The boys were paraded in the national spotlight, while accusers name and identity were withheld until this very week. Up until the case really started falling apart, the men involved were raked through the mud, two of them were booted out of school (have since been invited back) and a third, who graduated was fired from his job.
On the Second Count: Due process was not served by any definition of the words. This is the DA who:
# ordered the police to conduct a lineup that blatantly violated city procedures—even though the police already had conducted a lineup, which had yielded no results;
# refused to meet with defense attorneys who said they possessed evidence to prove their client’s innocence—violating both the state bar’s ethical canons and common sense;
# secured a court order to obtain DNA samples solely on the basis of group membership—and then ignored the results when they didn’t fit his theories;
# made numerous prejudicial (and misleading) public statements despite the state bar
On the Third Count: The accusers right to privacy was honored…the defendants not. Please see Count One, and the Judge’s gag order regarding the Accuser’s information. Meanwhile 88 Members of the Duke faculty applaud the rape accusations
Bottom line? Not a Minority group, well off, and no way for them to make money on the trial.
Any one of the three precludes the ACLU’s intervention.
(In regards to your suspicion that they don’t take those “type” of cases for those reasons I refer you again to the American legion link I provided you in the past. The entire reason for the bill to halt payments to disinterred third parties is specifically due to the payouts given ACLU for their trials.)
The ACLU is not moved. Instead, it is out there every day bringing lawsuits on behalf of known terrorists planning or already guilty of committing acts of terrorism against innocent U.S. civilians.
Unlike the Duke case, where the deprivations to the boys involve civil rights matters firm and already settled in decades of case law, the claims by the ACLU on behalf of the jihadists are mostly spurious and flimsy. And not to mention Pedophiles That link is the Washington Post, Rabit.
Or how about Defending Nazi’s…who burn down the Atlanta ACLU Headquarters Or the Nazi Skokie case
Lets not forget their defense of the Ku Klux Klan either.
Remember the Central Park jogger rape and assault case in New York City during the early 1990’s? When the civil rights industry and leftists, now silent, were demanding that the mob of black men accused of the vicious and cruel crime leading to a white girl being millimeters from death be spared anymore investigation so that “the boys could continue with their young lives and proceed on with their future.”
They were innocent. DNA evidence proved them innocent. And the ACLU represented them.
Yet where oh where, in light of DNA evidence, was the ACLU a year ago?
Keep telling me that the ACLU has the best for America in its agenda.
I’m waiting for fact, not fiction. Please. Spare the zoophytic spin. Talk of twisting words when you can’t event admit thatby your explanation of the ACLU they should have represented these men.
And stood by with their fingers up their noses instead.
Please spare me the right versus left breath. I’m a centrist, so right versus left arguments are both a waste of time with me, as well as pointless. It’s an argument for you to use when you have no argument, no fact, and no basis to defend your rationale.
-
Bloodspite,
Have you ever, like, considered that you don’t know the facts? I mean, you said earlier that the ACLU was removing crosses from cemeteries but when I went to that link, there was no mention of any cemetary. It was just a cross made out of two pipes sitting on public land. There was never any cemetery there.
No disrespect, but that was a pretty serious error on your part and I think if I were you, I’d say “Hmmmm, maybe I’m not getting good information from my news sources. Perhaps I’ll use Google, Snopes.com, and maybe Wikipedia for corroborative details next time.”
See, I know nothing about most things but I’m a pro at finding information on the internet and making connections, and it’s a great challenge and incentive for me to debate people who are much more entrenched in the subject that I am.
And you can be very deeply entrenched in a subject and have ALL your facts wrong. This is why I rarely ever post or read comments on left-wing blogs. What’s the point if everyone is saying the same thing?
So, yes, the ACLU defends the constitutional rights of KKK and Neo-Nazis. The Constitution doesn’t read: “Congress shall make no law in respect to the right of people to peaceably assemble…unless we don’t like you.” What would be the point of even having a law if someone could arbitrarily revoke it for someone they don’t like?
I’m a centrist
Are you sure about that? A centrist is someone who looks at both sides with skepticism. You use the same right-wing talking points uncritically that people on the right repeat over and over again, without spending 5 minutes to try to corroborate with credible sources. Try it sometime, be a Sherlock Holmes.
Oh, by the way - that article on the ACLU supporting neo-nazis to burn down their headquarters? Look again, at the very top and very bottom of the article. It’s called satire. It’s from The Onion.
-
ACLU hater? You bet. They were founded by a Communist and have been attacking America since the early 20th century. The numerous instances above listed by bloodspite (there are others) are the reason I hate them. They like to sue the Boy Scouts, defend terrorists and Pedophiles. They crusade against such horros like Nativity displays, Crosses on a hill top and other imminent threats to our freedoms. Sorry, rabit their track record is the most damning evidence against them. You, like the Duke Prof’s can’t admit your wrong on this one. You yourself stated that you don’t know anything about the case:
Seriously, I know nothing about this case.
and also confessed your ignorance about the ACLU itself:
I have no clue. I’m sure that whenever the ACLU takes a public stand, it’s by concensus of a number of their members.
but still seem to know what they are all about:
I don’t think the ACLU is the sort of organization that quickly issues public statements on every hot-topic issue that pops up, nor do they tackle every case where faulty evidence puts innocent people in prison. There are other organizations that deal directly with that.
I think they tend to provide legal support to cases that involve what they feel is a misinterpretation of the basic points of the Constitution. What is free speech, freedom to protest, freedom of self-expression, right to privacy, etc. You know, where the judgement is based entirely on an interpretation of the Constitution. As far as I know, this is not that type of case.
as far as you know? You’ve already established that you know little or nothing about the ACLU. Based on which I’m supposed to just except your supperior moral, but totally ignorant, insights. No, thanks buddy I’ll trust my own instincts on this.
Oh, yeh how about this little gem of utter stupidity:
Why does it seem to any rational, clear-thinking person that your side hates all of the best virtues of the human race and just wants it all to end?
Why does it seem that whenever you lefty types have no knowledge or anything resembling an inteligent point you resort to the most rediculous hyperboli. The above statement by you rabit is not only dumb beyond belief it has nothing to do with the topic. Show me where, me, or any one else, opined that they hated the best virtues of the human race? In short; put down the bong hippie and remove your head from your behind.
Wow! You know if you fed your post to semantic analysis software, it’d probably core dump trying to establish a connective logic between all those words.
Why don’t you buy a dictionary and look those words up? While your at it dig out your old grammar text and review. Then my above post won’t mystify you so much.
-
They were founded by a Communist and have been attacking America since the early 20th century.
The ACLU’s early activity was mostly about protecting black people who were about to be lynched, and fighting segregation. If that counts as hating America, I don’t want to know what you think loving America is.
-
I’d hardly call the Mt Soledad National memorial “Two pipes in the ground”
Again nice try, but I specifically mentioned the Mt Soledad memorial in my previous posts regarding the ACLU.
You saw the Onion link? Good. At least I know your actually paying attention.
You may and or may not be a pro at finding information, but in this case, you lost. The ACLU fornicated the canine in a big big way. Even I would have applauded them for sticking up for these gentlemen.
As it stands, they’re current action shows that they are that much more biased for big wins, for big money, that has nothing to do with anyone’s civil liberties except in such cases as it will benefit themselves, not the selfless service of a noble person on a crusade to help defend the American public.
-
Do you have a link that doesn’t come from a website that thinks that even people who win civil rights cases against the government shouldn’t be compensated for their legal expenses?
-
Considering that “link” is the American Legion, whose members are of all races, creeds, backgrounds, demographs, and political backgrounds…I’ll say no.
However feel free to check any of these
-
Sorry bugled the last link
-
Honestly, I don’t know what the American Legion is. All I know is that the page you link to rants about the need for the Public Expression of Religion Act, which repeals provisions that in civil rights cases in which the government loses, the government must reimburse the plaintiff for legal expenses.
At any rate, yeah, I’m familiar with the Mt. Soledad case - I just didn’t remember it by that name, only by “That case from San Diego that took 17 years to resolve.” It’s not a cemetery but a memorial, an important distinction since while at a cemetery crosses identify individual soldiers who were Christian, at a memorial the cross is a public expression of religion.
-
Perhaps Rabit got confused with the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial.
In 1934, J. Riley Bembry gathered a couple of his fellow World War I veterans at Sunrise Rock place the Mojave Cross up on a privately owned area of the Mojave Desert. The purpose was to honor the service of World War I veterans. Together they erected the cross, in honor of their fallen comrades. The memorial has been privately maintained ever since, with small groups still occasionally meeting to remember the nation’s veterans. President Clinton, as one of his last acts, issued an executive order incorporating the area in the Mojave National Preserve. The ACLU seized on that fact to file a federal suit to remove the cross in 2000. A district court ruled for the ACLU and awarded it more than $40,000 in attorney fees.
In 1996, the 9th Circuit ruled that a 51-foot lighted cross – also a war memorial – on city parkland in Eugene, Ore., was a religious symbol that violated the Constitution. The ruling reversed a lower court that sided with voters who passed a referendum to keep the cross in place.
“Whether it’s the federal Constitution, federal property, state property – it doesn’t matter,” said Peter Eliasberg, an ACLU attorney fighting to remove the Mojave cross.
As you can see from the bolded words above….it also apparently doesn’t matter what the public voters want in Oregon, or in San Diego either to the ACLU.
It’s all about what the ACLU wants…not the public….not the voters of those cities. Them. And the money they can win from their cases.
The American Legion is a group formed of military veterans, for military veterans.
The distinction between them and Veterans of Foreign Wars, is that the Legion doesn’t require participation in combat for membership.
In regards to ACLU awarded money, I give you the Senate Committee of the Judiciary Testimony of Mr. Rees Lloyd former ACLU attorney, and former volunteer attorney for the late Cesar Chavez, the founder and president of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
Although most Americans remain unaware of it – and are outraged when they learn of it – Courts are awarding taxpayer-paid attorney fees to the ACLU and others literally in the millions of dollars annually, against towns, school boards, cities, counties, states, which extorts surrender by those elected agencies in Establishment Clause in terrorem litigation………….
………The enormity of the threat of imposition of fees by courts should not be discounted. For but a few examples:
• In its Establishment Clause lawsuit against San Diego to drive the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park, the ACLU received some $950,000 in attorney fees when the City settled rather than risk even more attorney fees being awarded in the litigation.
• In the Ten Commandments Case in Alabama, the ACLU and sister organizations received $500,000 in attorney fees.
• In Washington State, the ACLU received $108,000 from the Portland School board in a case brought for an atheist to prevent the Boy Scouts from recruiting in the schools on non-class time.
• In Illinois, the ACLU brought suit against the Chicago Schools to drive the Boy Scouts out of the schools, and the Department of Defense to drive the Boy Scouts off military bases as sponsored troops. The Chicago schools quickly kicked out the Boy Scouts and settled $90,000 on the ACLU to avoid even larger court-awarded fees. The DoD entered a partial settlement, and the case continued, resulting in a Federal judge finding that the DoD aid to the Boy Scout Jamboree, supported by every U.S. President since its inception, is in fact a violation of the Establishment of Religion Clause. ACLU is seeking attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act in that case.
• In Nebraska, a Federal judge overturned a referendum in which 70 percent of the voters voted to define marriage as a union of a human male and female, and imposed attorney fees of some $156,000.
• In Los Angeles County, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-to-2 to remove a tiny cross from the County Seal when the ACLU threatened to sue over it (but not over the Roman Goddess Pomona whose figure dominated the Seal). The County will spend approximately $1 million to remove the cross from all flags, seals, badges, etc. The rationale for the three who voted to surrender to the ACLU: The threat of an even greater amount ordered in attorney fees to the ACLU if the County fought and lost.
• The City Council of Redlands voted, unwillingly, to remove the cross from its City Seal when the ACLU threatened lawsuit. The sole reason given for the vote: The fear of a court-awarded attorney fees to the ACLU being imposed on limited taxpayer-funds needed for city services. Redlands cannot afford to change all of the seals as L.A. County is doing. Therefore, among other things, Redlands is calling in all employees who have badges, police, fire, emergency services, et al., and drilling a hole through the Cross-on the badges to comply with ACLU’s demands.
• In the Mojave Desert WWI Veterans Memorials case, the ACLU pleaded for fees under both the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and EAJA, and ultimately received some $63,000 in attorney fees under the EAJA.A recent case exemplifies, I believe, the abuse and exploitation of the Civil Rights Act attorney fee provisions for pure profit by the ACLU, and the ACLU’s use of the Civil Rights Act to terrorize local elected bodies.
That case is the now famous “Dover Intelligent Design Case.” There, the ACLU sued the Dover school board after it voted to include information pertaining to the Intelligent Design theory along with Darwinian theory in science classes.
The ACLU was represented by a cooperating, pro bono law firm.
Whatever one thinks of the intelligent design theory or the merits of the case, the attorney fee outcome should be carefully considered. The judge ruled that the teaching of Intelligent Design theory violates the Establishment Clause. The court then awarded the ACLU $2-million in attorney fees to be paid by the school board from taxpayer-funds needed for the schools.
The court imposed this massive attorney fee award on the taxpayers and schools even though the pro bono law firm representing the ACLU declared that in fact it waived all attorney fees. Thus, the $2 million is pure profit for the ACLU, and pure punishment upon the School Board that dared to defy the ACLU’s demands.
The ACLU added to this set of facts the following: The ACLU announced to the media after its victory over the school board that it was only going to demand that the school board pay it $1 million instead of $2 million. The ACLU stated it was doing so because the school board members who had voted for the teaching of Intelligent Design theory had been removed from the school board in elections and replaced by school board members acceptable to the ACLU.……There are more than 80,000 gravesites at Riverside National Cemetery now, almost all with a Cross-or Star of David or other religious symbol. We fear for them, too. The ACLU has said it would not sue the grave markers because that is a matter of “family choice.” That, constitutionally, is utterly specious: If the religious symbol is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause because it is on Federal ground, as the ACLU otherwise insists, no person can “choose” to commit an unconstitutional act. Further, who would have dreamed the ACLU would file a lawsuit against the solitary cross honoring WWI veterans in the middle of the Mojave Desert to which one has to drive to be offended?….”
The Mojave Cross is 275 miles from civilization. Yet the ACLU wants it removed. The Mt Soledad cross is in San Diego.
That being said, I will admit to finding no other memorials under attack by the ACLU.
However it still does not justify their lack of support for these 3 men, which was the point of my tirade that Rabit decided to divert the argument to crosses again instead of admit that the ACLU dropped the ball.
The ACLU had a time and a purpose once. In maybe 1968….or 1956.
But not here and not now.
-
Honestly, I don’t know what the American Legion is.
….
Damn. This country has fallen harder and farther than I’d have thought was possible.
Have you heard of the Boy Scouts? They’re good lads, too.
-
The ruling reversed a lower court that sided with voters who passed a referendum to keep the cross in place.
The reason the US has a constitution is that there are some things it doesn’t make sense to defer to public opinion on.
-
bloodspite:
You saw the Onion link? Good. At least I know your actually paying attention.
Nice try, Bloodspite, but you’ve been pwn3d. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone on the right misreading The Onion as fact, but you seriously couldn’t have read this part and believed it.
The Carver case is one of several controversial legal battles with which the ACLU has been involved this judicial year. In State of California v. Tubbs, the organization defended the right of a San Francisco art gallery to display a piece of performance art in which innocent passersby are shot to death by gunmen.
But since you’re not serious about truth, there’s no point further in me arguing further with you. You will endlessly post links to false information attempting to prove a point you have no real interest in researching. Therefore this will be my last post on this thread, but since I’m in a quoting mood, I’ll quote something else.
Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”
Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!
and…
I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don’t need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we’re fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That’s not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I’ve had enough. How about you?
and…
I’ll go a step further. You can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged. This is a fight I’m ready and willing to have.
and…
That was George Bush’s moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he’d regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq—a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn’t listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn’t scare the **** out of you, I don’t know what will.
and…
George Bush doesn’t have common sense. He just has a lot of sound bites. You know—Mr.they’ll-welcome-us-as-liberators-no-child-left-behind-heck-of-a-job-Brownie-mission-accomplished Bush.
and…
Bush has set the all-time record for number of vacation days taken by a U.S. President—four hundred and counting. He’d rather clear brush on his ranch than immerse himself in the business of governing. He even told an interviewer that the high point of his presidency so far was catching a seven-and-a-half-pound perch in his hand-stocked lake.
I’ll give you three guesses of where these quotes are from.
No, it’s not Michael Moore. Sounds a lot like him, though.
Nope, not Greenwald. Too much passion.
Wow, not me, but thanks.
It is Lee Iacocca, the famous former president of Ford and chairman of Chrysler.
Another famous businessman is a Bush hater, too, named Donald Trump.
Go ahead, call them moonbats.
-
Nice straw argument Rabit.
It doesn’t change the fact the ACLU did not represent these men.
It doesn’t change the fact that I used 1 Onion link versus The Washington Post, SFGate, American legion and the ACLU Home page.
It doesn’t change the fact that the ACLU did the things I listed above.
It doesn’t change Rees Lloyd’s testimony to the Senate Committee of the Judiciary.
It doesn’t change the facts which I have presented you and you are still unwilling to acknowledge.
And again with the left versus right arguments /sigh. Pointless.
If I’m a Right Hawk, why do I support abortion ?
Why do I support Gay Marriage?
Thanks for playing again Rabit. But the topic of this thread or debate wasn’t “Whose a Bigger Moonbat” or “Who can Bash Bush”
Just because I find it funny I’ll mention this point, but won’t debate it.
I don’t care if you bash Bush.
I’m on the record for Hanging Gonzo
I’m on the record for saying Bush hosed the war
I’m also on the record for supporting Impeachment of said President provided it’s done in a legal, and ethical manner.I don’t care about parties, Rabit. I care about the Law and my country. The rest is just redtape, labels and various assorted bullshit people to use to try to twist words to make their own point.
I quote an ACLU attorney, you call him an estranged rogue. You quote CEO’s, and challenge me to call them moonbats. Methinks I sense a double standard here.
I give you W.E.B. DuBois from “Souls of the Black Folk”
He who controls the terms of a debate…controls the debate……One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. We must not remember that Daniel Webster got drunk but only that he was a splendid constitutional lawyer. We must forget that George Washington was a slave owner . . . and simply remember the things we regard as creditable and inspiring. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect man and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth
The truth, Rabit, is what I seek. No matter who it comes from.
-
I’m really enjoying this new theme in our politics, where left-liberals defend super-rich tycoons as unbiased authorities on the direction our country should take. Lee Iacocca, Donald Trump, and George Soros — the rich shall lead us to a better place, eh?
This is the Argumentum ad Crumenam, to which I had thought progressives believed themselves immune.
-
Rabit, Bloodspite,
If you use up to 4 (as many as 4, fewer than 5, but ‘less-than or equal-to’ FOUR) links, Wordpress should not moderate your comment.
I mean to say, I just now bumped up the limit on my WP control panel.
Link on!
-
The ACLU’s early activity was mostly about protecting black people who were about to be lynched, and fighting segregation. If that counts as hating America, I don’t want to know what you think loving America is.
Oh, of course loving America involves hating black people. Which of course I supported rhetorically with my above post. For crying out loud grow up. What next? Are you going to accuse me of setting the Chicago fire?
Bipartisanship in Dover
Even if there is a link, who cares?
Men are from Montana, Women are from …
Expect a bllodbath
The Bush Four-Step