Duh. I know that. I also know they don’t accept every case that comes up. I also know they “fish” for cases in States.
DavidB said:
Not really, but it could be interpreted like that. I’m not a fan of National Organizations like them.
0: I’m not a fan of National Organizations like [the ACLU].
Interesting, St. Zero. What sort of organization or institution would you recommend, then, for protesting (and providing the legal muscle to overturn) unconstitutional infringements of civil liberties? Or do you think that if everybody whose rights get trampled just writes a nice letter about it to the governor, that’ll fix it?
And of course the ACLU cannot undertake every case of civil liberties violation, and of course they devote extra attention to “flagship” cases that are sure to attract a lot of public attention and set important legal precedents. This does not mean—and neither does the one instance cited by Captain Smashy with absolutely no supporting evidence of any kind—that the ACLU is never interested in a case unless it’s a big media splash.
My own local affiliate handles dozens of cases a year on “little” issues for the “little” people, including things like suing a school with “zero-tolerance” policies to reinstate a student who was caught with an aspirin, demanding justice for people imprisoned for years without trial, requesting public access to police records in a case of alleged brutality coverup, etc. etc. etc. Go to the ACLU website and look through their press releases, and you will find literally thousands of such cases that never got “major media coverage”. (Which btw, Captain Smashy, is the type of support for an argument that most of us here at the Straight Dope use and expect others to use, rather than simply generalizing a sweeping conclusion from a single incident and then asserting “Think what you want, I know what happened.”)
We were discussing why GW signed it into a Holiday- and that above is my guess- as to a rationalization that MIGHT be given. Besides- you might practice peace on a “Ghandi” day, why not “love for your fellow man” on a Jesus day?
Why so hostile, bubba? Relax, de-stress. Take it easy. It is only a message board.
Is this a mistatement? Are you suggesting that Christianity get out of the charity business? I can’t believe any one could believe this.
I suspect he’s not arguing that Christianity get out of the charity business, but that government get out of the Christianity business…
If you want to complain to somebody, complain to the bill’s sponsor. Because by creating this bill, he put the governor in a pickle. If he signs it, not a soul would really care aside from the 3 people who pushed for it. (Them and the people who will search for ANY reason to discredit him when he becomes President.) But if he vetoes it, he may as well kiss his political aspirations goodbye.
Headlines: “Governor vetoes ‘Jesus Day.’”
Personally, I am happy there is a Christina in the white house. The media certainly like to rag on anyone who claims to love God.
Do you seriously think if John Ashcroft were irreligious he would’ve been skewered so much during the hearings?
The more Christians in public offcie the better, I say.
However, I am a minority opinion here and in the world, but just becasue something is the majority, doesn’t make it right. Go on and flame, I don’t care.
TXLonghorn said: “If my ‘neo-Nazi rhetoric’ was not OBVIOUSLY SATIRIC enough for you, please forgive me.”
Um… I got the satire. But you were referencing neo-Nazi rhetoric, weren’t you?
grienspace said: "Is this a mistatement? Are you suggesting that Christianity get out of the charity business? I can’t believe any one could believe this.
You’re taking me way out of context, grienspace. Check David B’s comment; he got it.
PunditLisa said: If you want to complain to somebody, complain to the bill’s sponsor. Because by creating this bill, he put the governor in a pickle. If he signs it, not a soul would really care aside from the 3 people who pushed for it. (Them and the people who will search for ANY reason to discredit him when he becomes President.) But if he vetoes it, he may as well kiss his political aspirations goodbye.
Not so, PunditLisa. He wouldn’t have to actually sign the bill, but rather let it die in committee. If the governor never signs it, it never becomes law. If he’s approached on why he didn’t sign it, there are many ways he could brush off the flak. I have no pity for the politician who wails, “I couldn’t help it—I was held hostage by special interest groups!”
vanilla: George W. Bush is the forty-third Christian president of the United States. What kind of a victory is this?
vanilla said:
A Christina? I thought his wife’s name was Laura?
Yeah. Religious types are so persecuted. :rolleyes:
That all depends on whether he still was vehemently anti-abortion, anti-church/state separation, anti-that black judge, etc.
Why?
Oh, come on. Can’t he just be plain anti-that judge. Why does it have to be “anti-that black judge”. I’ll agree that it was kind of mean spirited to wait until it got to a floor vote to skewer the guy, since Senators from the judges home state can block a judicial nomination very early in the process, but it doesn’t make him a racist just because the judge that he didn’t like is black.
I think it is pretty racist to think that a white guy can’t dislike a black guy just because he doesn’t like the guy.
Well, yes, actually; he’s invited Ms. Aguilera to perform.
Christian is hard to type really fast.
TXLonghorn said:
I was using it merely as a descriptive term (because I didn’t remember the judge’s name). You immediately knew who I was talking about, didn’t you? If he had been a redhead, I’d have said, “that redheaded judge” instead.
Can you please indicate anywhere you might have found any indication that I said he is a racist? Or, better yet, apologize for implying that I did.
vanilla said:
And it’s apparently even harder to type answers to the questions I posed, eh?
It’s OK David- I’LL say it- I think Ashcroft is a racist. There are many reasons. And we discussed them in a thread devoted to just that- which is where this belongs- IMHO.
While the basic point here is certainly valid–“Practicing Christian elected President of the United States” is not exactly a stop-the-presses scoop–most if not all of the first several Presidents were Unitarians or Deists or suchlike heathens.
OK David B, sorry for making that post so vague as to imply that you are calling Ashcroft a racist. :o
But there are plenty of people who think Ashcroft is racist, with one of the reasons being his treatment of “that black judge,” Judge White.
Sorry Smashy, I just now saw this.
I was in the middle of this, and he is telling the truth. When the FBI started investigating this, the FWPD backed off. It never went any further, so there were no charges or anything. This all happened about 10 years ago.
The situation was that we had a fairly large group of friends, mostly Punk rocker’s and a few bikers(I was somewhere in-between the two). The Fort Worth Gang unit decided that some how we were a gang, although they never could say what the name of our “gang” was, and and what we were doing that was illegal. they would follow us, harras us.
One of my friends got pulled over in a dark parking lot by a bunch of plain closed gang unit cops and questioned at gun point. He was the one who went to the FBI. He worked for Smashy’s fathers security company at the time, and when his smashy’s dad called them to ask why they were harrasing one of his men, they told him that he was being investigated for gang activity and “witchcraft”…I’m not kidding here, they actually said that.
They wound up arresting me for agg. assault with a deadly weapon, and when I asked who I assaulted, they told me they didnt know…really…The left me in cuffs over-night, and would even let me take a dump. They never once asked me about the case I was being charged with, just other people in the “gang”. I did tell them my friend had gone to the FBI, you should have seen their faces. They almost wrecked the car. When it finally came to trial, I was aquitted and the judge ordered my record wiped. however, I was out two grand worth of legal fees, and since at the time I was working for smashys dad doing security, my liscence was revoked and I couldnt work for two years(at least at that job), and I did security for my rent, so I lost my home.
It was a really crappy time. It really all happened, and no, there is no way to prove it. If we could have proved it, I probably would have been able to find a lawyer that would take the lawsuit against them. I couldnt. Texas really sucks sometimes.
Oh, and, Welcome to the board Smashy.
bdgr, whether your incident happened or not (and I have no reason to doubt your word), Smashy’ assertion that “[The ACLU] will only butt in when they are absolutely assured of getting major media coverage” is demonstrably false. A quick search of the ACLU website will reveal their presence in dozens of cases that never receive media coverage.
Well, I have a little more faith in the ACLU then Smashy does, but the incident left kind of a bitter taste in mouths of most of our friends who were involved in this. At the time, we all thought that ACLU would be there for us since they had done so much in other situations. We were kind of shocked at the reaction we got, but then again, it was this situation, and the local office here in the DFW area of the ACLU. Maybe the treatment we got was not the norm, or maybe things would go differant today. Although I don’t neccesarily agree completely with Smashy’s opinion of them, I can see why he is still rather skeptical of them.
And although I believe the ACLU is a good thing in general, due to past experiances I wouldn’t count on them being there if I needed them today.
I guess I should have responded to David B, although the claim may be “fairly ridiculous-sounding”, it did really happen.