The Observation Deck

To say the ACLU only defends liberal causes does nothing but prove the ignorance of comments made about the ACLU. If you actually look at the cases the ACLU takes, you'd quickly realize they're an equal opportunity offender.

Or if it were true that they have to defend more "liberal" cases, does that just mean that the conservatives like bulldozing over people's Constitutional rights more often and therefore the ACLU has to come to their defense more often?

Kind of a pickle it puts you in doesn't it?

The only pickle I see is the position you find yourself in. You said I made a false statement but can't back it up. I am waiting for a specific example...
Bottom line, conservatives when in the small minority, don't tend to call in for help when their feelings are hurt.

Ryan, you wouldn't even accept the specific, narrow, examples if I posted them. Arguing with you is about as affective as arguing with a rock. You have a very, out of the mainstream viewpoint which you have no intention of ever changing.

So my bigger question is, why take the effort?

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Ryan, you wouldn't even accept the specific, narrow, examples if I posted them.

The real question is CAN you back up your accusations or just call names and change the rules?

You are the one that started questioning me and flat out stated

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Wow, you almost had my support here all the way up until you made this baseless, false, and utterly incorrect statement.

I am still waiting for you to back up those bold big words...

Sitting and patiently waiting like

Bryan Schwegler wrote:a rock

.

Ha, ok, you're right, I'm just make it all up.

See you after the rapture.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Ha, ok, you're right, I'm just make it all up.

Getting out of denial is the first step, congrats!

Here you Ryan -
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Took me 2 minutes to find.

Sharon,

I am not sure you read what I wrote. A 1969 case where a wacko kkk member is allowed free speech is no where near an example of what i asked for. I would like to see if you can find an actual example, recent times would be even better...

Glad to see you participating.

Ryan

You asked for conservatives. I'm very sick again and I wanted to show they've always defended conservatives. Even ones who sound like whack jobs, like hmmmm, perhaps, teapartiers?

Sorry to hear you are sick but what i was asking for was a case where the aclu was defending a conservative where it was forcing the majority to change to meet the needs of the minority like in this case. I couldnt find anything...

http://www.acluohio.org/docket/#CriminalJustice

No more restrictions Ryan. This guy was talking about his religious beliefs and the state tried to deny his first amendment rights.

If you spend at least ten minutes on there you'll find a lot.

Sorry sharron you are missing my point. Maybe reread the posts. Have a good night...

sharon kinsella wrote:You asked for conservatives. I'm very sick again and I wanted to show they've always defended conservatives. Even ones who sound like whack jobs, like hmmmm, perhaps, teapartiers?

* Roy pops his head in the thread
Your example regarding a member of the KKK is invalid. They are not conservatives, no matter how much you may want to believe it.
The KKK is a group of democrats...

This is from the 1866 Pennsylvania gubernatorial race. Hiester Clymer (D) versus James White Geary (R) suggests that a vote for Clymer is for the white man while a vote for Geary is for the ‘negro’.

A similar poster comes from about 10 years later:


In 1868, the KKK in South Carolina put out "hit cards" listing who they needed to kill. These cards had the pictures of 50 blacks and 13 white Republicans on one side, and their names on the back. They were members of the South Carolina legislature.

To be fair, the Democrats back then were not the same as the Democrats now, there was a change in the party structure during Civil Rights.

But then again, you are right, the KKK are not conservative. They are extremists. I don't think it's fair to conservatives OR liberals to group them with such hateful people.

Thealexa Becker wrote:To be fair, the Democrats back then were not the same as the Democrats now, there was a change in the party structure during Civil Rights.

Despite 2/3 majorities in both the House and Senate in the 1960s, the Democrats could not have passed the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if it had not been for the 80+% of House/Senate Republicans who voted in favor of those bills.

Both bills, by the way, were originally tried by Eisenhower in the late 50s and both were held up by committee leaders who happen to be Democrats.

Now, in spite of this, I'll still agree with you, Democrats then were different from Democrats now.
Back then, Grover Cleveland was a Democrat. A man who said: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation [$10,000 in seed purchases for drought-ridden counties in Texas] in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

Sounds more like a 'wack job teapartier' to me.

Today, a man like Dennis Kucinich can call himself a Democrat and get away with it because people don't seem to know any better. Back then, I suspect he would be labeled a Fabian Socialist.