Desperately Seeking Susan and other bored Filipino Housewives

Terri Hatcher rambled hysterically and incoherently. This is understandable, because she gets paid good money to have her character, Susan Meyer, act like a helpless airhead. The whole point of “Desperate Housewives (yes, there actually is one),” is to show that rich, hot women actually have problems. Of course this is untrue, but it makes the average American feel better about themselves.

Some people have better things to do than watching Eva Longoria and Terri Hatcher traipse around like an older but still hot version of “Girls Gone Wild.” Those people are heterosexual females and homosexual males, and I respect their right to be bored with a television show that is basically a 60 minute “Summer’s Eve” commercial.

Regarding hot women, apparently some jealous people feel that they should be seen, but not ever heard. The Desperate Housewives are all the rage, and apparently that rage is now being directed at them by a Filipino group demanding justice.

Terri Hatcher’s character remarked that we should bomb all Filipinos and send them back to wherever they come from, which according to my extensive research, is the Filipines. Ok, I made the bombing part up. Teri Hatcher’s character, in a state of hysteria, asked her doctor if he got his degree from the Filipines. This was meant to inquire if the doctor had an inferior degree.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/04/update-desperate-housewives-producers-apologize-to-filipinos/

The reason why few people dislike Filipinos is because most of them keep their mouths shut, go to work, and take care of their families. Any culture that does not currently emulate these values should immediately begin doing so. Freedom of speech gives me the right to think that people who open their mouths and spout nonsense are imbeciles. So now some Filipinos are fighting for their right to stop being seen as successful high achievers, and instead be seen as hypersensitive oppressed people that cry over nothing.

One of the leaders of America’s next potential ethnic lynch mob is Kevin Nadal. Mr. Nadal has many job descriptions, and whether or not they are actual real jobs is not for me to judge. He “specializes in multicultural consulting, facilitation training, and diversity awareness issues.” So basically, he finds healthy companies, screws them up, and earns a healthy fee doing so. I hope I do not get in trouble for using a word that contains one syllable that is actually an Asian slur, but “multicultural consulting” sounds like gobbledygook to me. Yes, I said gobbledygook. Maybe I do need this consulting.

For those wondering why I am directing fire at somebody who until yesterday was famous for being anonymous, this fellow went on Bill O’Reilly’s program to declare that people must be more sensitive to other people’s cultures. Ok, fair enough. However, he then said the following to Mr. O’Reilly:

“somebody from the midwest or the south, who doesn’t even know what a Phillipino is, and then they watch this show…”

I then wrote the following to Mr. Nadal:

“Mr. Nadal,

When you expressed your opinions on Bill O’Reilly’s show, you made an overwhelmingly insensitive remark.

You stated, ‘somebody from the midwest or the south, who doesn’t even know what a Filipino is, and then they watch this show…’

Nice job. Southerners are bubbas, and middle America are all a bunch of squares and yokels that think the glamour of Desperate Housewives is real life, and could not possibly be educated enough to know what a Filipino looks or sounds like.

One does not need an advanced degree to know what an arrogant liberal gasbag looks and sounds like.

Given that all middle America is pasty white people, and that they are all the same, I do not expect them to be protesting in the streets at your remark. They are too busy playing croquet and attending macaroni and cheese baking parties, with white Wonder Bread on the side of course.

Comments like yours tell me that ‘multicultural consulting,’ while paying better than unemployment, contributes less to society.

eric aka ‘The Tygrrrr Express’

For those who still do not seem to understand the heart of this matter, let me crystallize it for you in terms that even a bored activist who may or may not be Filipino, a housewife, or both, can understand.

As somebody who loves watching Desperate Housewives (Eva Longoria is the reason I am not a social conservative), the one thing that people who got angry about the “joke” missed was that Teri Hatcher’s character is on many levels an “airhead.” She was not cast in a positive light during that scene. She was rambling hysterically as her doctor tried to calm her down. I equated this to the Seinfeld “Puerto Rican Day Parade” episode that caused flak when a Puerto Rican flag was banned. The character who burned the flag was seen as the idiot, not the Puerto Rican people.

Filipinos should worry about what Non-Filipinos should worry about…that Islamofacists are trying to murder us all…not some tv show.

My dad is a Holocaust survivor, but I am not going to go ape-spit over the “Soup Nazi.”

Lighten up America (when I say lighten up I am not implying that we must all become caucasian). Randy Newman thinks that “short people have no reason to live.” I will not be suing him, although I did sue Santa Claus when I was 8 years old for being an anti-semite. My republican father straightened me out, and I dropped the class action I was organizing with my Jewish friends.

Another thing that has to be looked at is intent. Did Desperate Housewives have a political agenda against the people of the Filipines? No. Does it have any political agenda? No.

Desperate Housewives is about hot women frolicking around in their undies. Whether or not that is good or bad for society (me likey), the show itself is hardly a pillar of ideological controversy.

However, one character who is “uptight” and “proper” is a republican, and in one scene when told she was being uptight about something sexual, the other character said, “You are such a republican.” It was meant as a good natured tease.

The show is harmless, except for the anti-undie frolicking crowd.

http://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/05/eva-longoria-and-other-reasons-i-am-not-a-social-conservative/

The bottom line is that if I were to advocate burning French or Belgian people in effigy, I would rightly be described as a hate monger. However, civil rights lawyers do not need to be called if I merely burn or even advocating burning French toast or Belgian waffles. Hey, I like my food extra well done.

This desperate tempest in a housewife’s teapot is the equivalent of a waffle, and waffles are only bad when they are affiliated with politicians, be they Belgian or otherwise.

As for those who are desperately seeking Susan, she is a fictional character. If Desperate Housewives is truly what riles people up, then the problem is not the women of Wisteria Lane. It is that in addition to every other aggrieved group on the planet, society now needs to be concerned with desperate…and incredibly bored…Filipino Housewives.

eric

54 Responses to “Desperately Seeking Susan and other bored Filipino Housewives”

  1. […] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSome people have better things to do than watching Eva Longoria and Terri Hatcher traipse around like an older but still hot version of “Girls Gone Wild.” Those people are heterosexual females and homosexual males, and I respect their … […]

  2. I enjoyed reading this blog entry. Very clever and true.

  3. […] Geller wrote an interesting post today on Desperately Seeking Susan and other bored Filipino HousewivesHere’s a quick […]

  4. micky2 says:

    Black Tygrrrr said;
    “The character who burned the flag was seen as the idiot, not the Puerto Rican people.”

    The idiots in this case are also those out there that cant distiguish and act from a political speech.
    I referd to this ” hypersensitivity ” crap that has been going on for a while now in your previous post on ” Bill O’Reilly cries”.
    And we can all give great gratitude and thanks to that sneaky little disease called political correctness for bringing on this hightened brand of idiotic awareness.
    I’m not exagerating when I say that it looks as if it has become sport in America (or the world) to root out and look for every nuance or slightly potenetial phrase that could be vaguely construed as ignorant or racist.
    Next thing you know we’re gonna have to go under the magnifying glass for saying
    ” I’m going out for Chinese ” (make sure that you include the word food)
    And for the record, I live in Hawaii and we have a whole bunch of Phillipino doctors and nurses her that are wonderful.

  5. Jersey McJones says:

    What’s worse; the complainer or the complainer of the complainer? It seems to me that the only people that are interested in complaints are those that complain the most. Maybe I’m wrong.

    JMJ

  6. micky2 says:

    Its the anti discrimination movement, mostly the left.
    To discriminate against anything for any reason has become some kind of cardinal sin. We cant profile at airports, cops cant pull over anyone darker that themselves.
    You could be looking at a cosmopolitan menu and if you picked the burger and fries you would be discrimating.
    The only ones you are allowed to discrimate against are those that discriminate, so you would actually be discriminating against yourself.
    As far as complainers goes and those that complain about them. I say the root of the problem is where you start. And the root is the nut roots.
    I will direct everyones attention to Evan Sayet. Eric turned me and a few others on to him a few months back. Evan explains this phenomenom a lot better than I could.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c&mode=related&search=

  7. Carole says:

    Isn’t it Phillipinos?

    ;->

  8. micky2 says:

    Not just Phillipinos, hypersensitivity is everywhere. You put it in concert with a dishonest media and then boom, you have the O’Reilly and Rush incidents, now the desperate housewife and Obama pin thing.
    It’s all so ridiculous, it really is.

  9. Jersey McJones says:

    Ya’ know, did it ever occur to you guys that Fox and Limbaugh et al just give these “hypersensitivge” people a forum and audience? It seems to me that these sorts of petty complaints are the life’s blood of the Fox “News” crowd. O’Rielly and Hannity are the worst of them too – constantly giving credulence to silly trivialities that most people couldn’t possibly care less about – except the “conservative” crowd, who seems to think things like this are somehow important. You guys are the reason whiny people have an audience in the first place. People like me just ignore them.

    JMJ.

  10. micky2 says:

    AAAW B.S. !

    This crap is everywhere Jersey ! Dont even start with O’Reilly and Rush.
    This crap is on every stinking channel from here to the moon.The media “period” is the reason for the platform. Its the left that wont even allow you to say Booo ! anymore without it implying the word SPOOK.

    Its not the consevatives who did the original bitching. The hypersensatives are the hippie PC left who dont want to offend anything or one.
    You must go after the root of the problem, which is the mentallity that projects this mindset and not the messenger

  11. micky2 says:

    Rica,
    You obviously do not know a thing about this man
    And then you said;
    “By the way, I won’t even expose myself to any more of these words of cowardice from an imbecile like you, so just be sure that any reply to me that might make you your pathetic narcissistic coward self feel good will fall dead, because I sure as hell won’t waste my time reading them since I refuse to waste any more time associating with pathetic cowards like you, hahaha”

    ( and then you came back ten minutes later) hahaha.

  12. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, the kind of people with whom I associate, couldn’t be bothered to with Desperate Wives, let alone it’s detractors. DW is common tripe, and anyone who would take the time to complain about it, or complain about those who complain about it, have, IMHO, common taste. Even Eric admits, right of the bat, the only reason he pays attention to the show is his single male libido and nothing else. DW is tripe, it’s audience are common or occasional, and so are it’s detractors. Classier news outlets wouldn’t be bothered with the story. There’s real news goin’ on out there.

    JMJ

  13. micky2 says:

    Once again , you missed the whole point.
    And then you bitch about FOX just like the ones who bitch about Desperate housewives. And that is also beside the point, but I had to point out the irony.
    And once again FYI, “ALL” news outlets are airing this from the wrong perspective.
    The question is always ” did he or they go over the line ?” When really the question should be ” why dont you all just relax and stop getting your panties in a ruffle everytime someones ethnicity comes up?”
    And also once again you looked at the whole thing thru a straw sized telescope and went and implemented Bill, Hannity, Rush, and Fox itself as the reason for this.
    How imaginative and unpredictable of you. No one could be that dense unless he was purposely trying to stir up crap.
    So if you want play advocate for one thing or another at least have the balls to say so.
    But dont insult our intelligence to say that Fox is the only one responsable for this, everyone knows thats crap heaped upon crap.
    And as far as real news goes, it would be nice if you brought some up instead of bitching about the bitchers.
    The fact of the matter here is that we are loosing our ability and right to speak freely without always getting dragged to court or being peed on by the public. Thats the news !
    An actress cant even ACT like an idiot anymore without having a huge disclaimer in front of and behind each episode.
    Its sad and dangerous when our speech is being chipped away at slowly by over sensitive nutjobs that are graduates of the loony left PC university.
    They cant tell the truth, and then when it is truth they make it something else.

    And also, I’m willing to bet that your choice of entertainment is probably not what most people would care to watch either, but that doesnt you any less than anyone else.
    I can sit down and watch Ren & Stimpy and move right on over to the Boston Pops in less than a second. Dont be so judgemental, I’ll bet you have your share of stupid programs that you watch also.

  14. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, there are plenty of news outlets who don’t carry, or barely mention, this sort of pop silliness. Fox, though, carries more of this sort of stupidity than any other outlet besides TMZ.

    JMJ

  15. micky2 says:

    New outlets ?
    Well that makes your case a different story, my local high school newspaper isnt carrying it either. And niether was the 700 club ( my wife watches that one )
    But most intelligent people who know what I’m talking about wouldnt argue this point as I have repeatedly mentioned here the point is how our culture is morphing into a bunch of over sensative woosies.
    And you still dont answer or reflect on any of the points I brought up in my last post

    You said;
    “Ya’ know, did it ever occur to you guys that Fox and Limbaugh et al just give these “hypersensitivge” people a forum and audience? It seems to me that these sorts of petty complaints are the life’s blood of the Fox “News” crowd. O’Rielly and Hannity are the worst of them too – ”

    So you werent talking news “outlets”, you were talking “cable” and television . I made it abundantly clear that you were full of crap in saying this. Now you want to argue from the point of “neas outlets”
    And since we are on the subject of FOX supposedly being the worst cable news there is , it was CNN that first took the BS story about O’Reilly and Sharptons lunch and ran with it first and distorted the facts. So in all fairness ( which is lmpossible when you have BDS and hate FOX) you have to admitt that this crap is everywhere.
    I switch back and forth between FOX and CNN all day and CNN is was still harping on the Obama story yesterday.

    Our culture of speech is taking a serious nose dive, that is the issue, not the media.
    The media is just reporting the hypersensativity, not making it.
    ACLU and other moonbat organizations are the one convincing everyone that they have rights more important than others rights, even speech

  16. Jersey McJones says:

    I watch the 700 Club too, every now and then.

    So, I suppose Fox “News” truly isn’t the “News” to you either, Micky? Great to hear it!

    What Obama story?

    The ACLU does what? What are you talking about? Are you just makin’ stuff up?

    JMJ

  17. Jersey McJones says:

    Does what, Micky? Do you have a single example?

    JMJ

  18. Jersey McJones says:

    You shouldn’t have to dig too far, Micky. Surely you had an example in mind.

    JMJ

  19. micky2 says:

    Obamas lapel pin was not the story. The story was that there were people freaking because he took it off.

  20. micky2 says:

    Muslim footbaths in our schools, but no ten commandments in front of court houses.
    Theres one.
    You have a right to clean air, I have no right to smoke, even in a restaurant I own.
    The list is endless.

  21. Jersey McJones says:

    Oh that Obama story. Yeah, I thought it was pretty silly.

    The ACLU simply refused to get involved with the Foot Bath issue, so I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Should they have involved themselves?

    The ACLU believes that Constitution justice, or the appearance of it, should not be obgusgated by singuar religious law. Most of the Ten Commandments are not a part of our law. The ACLU also believes that other religious taxts should not be displayed in court rooms and offiical, taxpayor funded, created by law, institutions. I concur. I don’t want that stupid monument in my face in a public building, unless it’s a museum that I choose to patronize.

    The ACLU hasn’t really gotten involved with smoking bans – with the execption of when those bans affect smokers themselves (the ACLU has supported some smokers rights under fire) and religious riituals (again, thye ACLU supported the religious groups rights).

    You’re batting 0 for 4, micky. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You have just been baited by the Right to hate the ACLU for no good reason.

    JMJ

  22. micky2 says:

    The ACLU is no longer a friend to the United States or its citizens. Rather than being an organization committed to civil liberties, it has morphed into a radical, terrorist-sympathizing group of thugs.

    NAMBLA deserves free speech ? so they can coordinate the rape of little boys. I’ll bet both my gonads they made that one up and are trying to push it through as we speak.
    Here, your buddy Nill explains it ACCURATLY
    http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?022007/022007_oreilly_views&Talking%20Points:%202/20&OReilly_Factor_Talking_Points&Oprah,%20O'Reilly%20and%20child%20predators…&Opinion&-1&&&&&new

    http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/09/aclu-privacy-hypocrisy.html
    They prey upon the paranoid. This is how they get donations to fund their machine. They cry about “American citizens being spied upon” when in fact there is no evidence that anyone has been hurt by the government’s terrorist surviellance program.

    While the ACLU cry that they are the guardian’s of liberty, and that privacy is one of those liberties….they have been exposed as being violators of that very liberty. They have a massive database of their own member’s private financial information they use for soliciting donations.

    But then the ACLU went a step further, arguing that there is not only a right to solicit sex, but also to engage in it, in a public restroom.

  23. micky2 says:

    I can do this all day , they dont even want us to profile middle easterners at the airport.
    They “MAKE UP” these justifications that make no sense in the realm of security

  24. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, you’ve been suckered. The ACLU does not support NAMBLA. All you have are lies from Fox. Why don’t you try reading some more accurate sources about that story. As for government spying, I am glad the ACLU is full of grown-ups who understand that Rights are not just important when they are regularly asserted. All rights are important.

    JMJ

  25. micky2 says:

    Whay determines a right ?
    My rights stop where yours begin at the ACLU

    They may not support NAMBLA in its practice, but they make a claim that it has a right to the practice.
    I’m not a complete moron jersey, am I actually supposed to believe you?
    And once again my dear friend , you only assert opinion.
    You asked for one example, I gave you a few and can keep em comin all day

    Heres your footbath that you say the ACLU wasnt involved in.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25897_The_ACLU_Has_Found_a_Religion_It_Will_Defend&only
    DEARBORN — Muslim leaders in Metro Detroit have decided not to raise private money to pay for two footbaths at a local college campus now that the American Civil Liberties Union has said the plan doesn’t pose constitutional problems.

    The University of Michigan-Dearborn’s plan to spend $25,000 on the footbaths was criticized on conservative blogs and radio shows this month. Critics said using public money for the project would violate the First Amendment, which says governments can’t favor or subsidize religions.

    Muslims are required to wash body parts, including feet, up to five times daily before prayers. University officials say the floor-level wash basins are needed because some students at the 8,600-student campus wash their feet in the sinks.

    Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said his group was concerned a public outcry would cause the university to back down from the project.

    “If the ACLU had decided to take legal action against the UM-Dearborn, we probably would have called for the university to raise the funds privately, just so that the UM-Dearborn wouldn’t have to go through the trouble of having to defend its position against the ACLU,” Walid said.

    Kary Moss, director of the Detroit branch of the ACLU, said its review concluded the plan is a “reasonable accommodation” to resolve “safety and cleanliness issues” that arose when Muslims used public sinks for foot cleaning before prayers, which often spilled water on bathroom floors.

    “We view it as an attempt to deal with a problem, not an attempt to make it easier for Muslims to pray,” said Moss, who likened the plan to paying for added police during religious events with huge turnouts. “There’s no intent to promote religion.”

    Thats a home run and all the rest is opiniated interpretations of your own.

    And this right here will straighten you out on the NAMBLA issue.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000831/aponline171914_000.htm

    BOSTON –– Saying important First Amendment issues are at stake, the American Civil Liberties Union is stepping in to defend a group that advocates sex between men and boys against a lawsuit brought by the family of a murdered 10-year-old.

    The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge claims in its lawsuit that the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its Web site incited the molestation and murder of the boy in 1997.

    The Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU said Thursday it will defend NAMBLA because the group’s activities are protected under First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

    “Under the First Amendment, there are no illegal ideas. Those who commit illegal acts can be punished for wrongful conduct, but the expression of even offensive ideas is protected by our Constitution,” the ACLU said in a statement.

    The ACLU has long accepted unpopular clients and despised causes, including Ku Klux Klansmen and neo-Nazis. In 1977, the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. – home to many Holocaust survivors. Thousands of ACLU members quit and contributions plunged.

    “The Constitution is for everybody. But there are some people who just don’t understand that and never will,” said Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member.

    Silverglate noted also that NAMBLA had been having trouble finding a lawyer. He said the decision to represent NAMBLA had been made by an overwhelming vote of the local ACLU board.

    One of two men convicted in the murder, Charles Jaynes, 25, allegedly viewed the group’s Web site shortly before the murder, and also had NAMBLA publications. Also convicted of murder was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.

    A call to NAMBLA in New York was not immediately returned. A message on the answering machine describes it as an organization that “speaks out against societal oppression and celebrates the joys of men and boys in love.”

    ACLU officials said that NAMBLA argues for changes in society’s views about consensual sex between adults and minors and a lowering of the age of consent. Silverglate said NAMBLA does not advocate illegal acts, and even if it did, that, too, would be protected by the First Amendment.

    It is ilegal in Massachusetts to have sex with a child under 16.

    Lawrence Frisoli, an attorney for the Curleys, said NAMBLA has stepped over the line from advocacy into actually participating in crimes.

    “The commission of crimes is not constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. They participate. That’s the allegation of the lawsuit, that the organization is participating in the rape of children,” he said.

    Frisoli claimed that NAMBLA assists its members in raping children by educating them on how to locate victims, how to gain their trust and how to avoid law enforcement so they won’t get caught.

    At separate trials last year, prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, and lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, then smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. Jaynes allegedly molested the boy’s lifeless body.

    They then stuffed him into a concrete-filled container and dumped it into a Maine river.

    Sicari is serving a life sentence without parole. Jaynes can seek parole in 23 years.

    The Curley family last week won a $328 million verdict in a lawsuit against Jaynes and Sicari.

  26. micky2 says:

    By the way, can you leave FOX out of one comment ? And move past it.
    I have a thumbnail file on anything I need that will blow you away everytime.
    And none of it came from FOX, so drop it already!

  27. micky2 says:

    I’m carrying this over here, tired of playing hop scotch.

    http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/my-meeting-rudy-giuliani/#comments

    Jersey McJones said,
    October 8, 2007 at 5:45 am

    Micky, anyone who thinks the protection of civil rights is “leftist” must then believe that all our founding fathers were leftists too. I find baiting the ACLU about the lowest endeavor I’ve ever seen.

    JMJ

    micky2 said,
    October 8, 2007 at 11:31 am

    That was then holmes, turn the page and get up to date.

    Roger Baldwin, founder and guiding light of the ACLU for over 30 years, is now a member of the National Committee of the ACLU. Mr Roger Baldwin has a record of over 100 communist-front affiliations and citations (documented in detail, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May 26, 1952). In an article written for Soviet Russia Today (September 1934), Roger Baldwin said: “When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever.” “The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental.”. (He said he did not care who died for his cause)

    Our founding fathers had no idea of this intellectual bigotry in their time,.
    Give me another break from the BS would ja ?

  28. Jersey McJones says:

    NAMBLA had nothing to do with what that criminal did. The Foor Bath case was not advocated either way by the ACLU. You brought up Fox, so I continued. Lts of people were communists in the war – most of them changed their minds afterwards because of the disaster of Stalin. Once people realized wht Stalin did, they turned on him. Get with the times man.

    JMJ

  29. micky2 says:

    Doesnt back up anything you said previously.
    You loose on the foot bath, you aid the ACLU had nothing to do with it and I proved you wrong.
    you said;
    The ACLU simply refused to get involved with the Foot Bath issue, so I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Should they have involved themselves?

    You said the ACLU did not support NAMBLA and I proved nothing could be further from the truth.
    You said;
    Micky, you’ve been suckered. The ACLU does not support NAMBLA. All you have are lies from Fox.
    Also right there you brought up FOX , not I.

    Please refer to all post above that contain documented accounts on the three subjects backing up my points and assertions.

    You lose, again

  30. Jersey McJones says:

    The ACLU opted out of the Foot Bath case. The ACLU does not “support” NAMBLA. Fox is dummy “news.”

    You are not being genuine, Micky.

    JMJ

  31. micky2 says:

    All my above references do not come from Fox but for one clip.
    Good God man , can you even read ?

    The Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU said Thursday it “””will defend “””NAMBLA because the group’s activities are protected under First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

    What the hell do you call that ? They still supported them no matter for how long you think is important.

    And they still also supported the foot baths, no matter what time frame or duration you think is important.

    Dont even begin to tell me Jack about genuine.
    You have not produced anything but your own words and opinion and perspective , which is USELESS !!!!

    (Wuh duh oh ahh, O.K ahh duh, jersey said so, so uh duh yup it must be true)

  32. micky2 says:

    Dont bother posting, this is pathetic.

  33. Jersey McJones says:

    They defended NAFTA when a DA attempted to blame them for the actions of a man who was not a member, and who had only casually visited their website. That does not mean that the ACLU supports NAMBLA any more than the KKK – but they do defend EVERYONE’S civil rights.

    Micky, you ought to take a debating class. I would do you some good. I ceertainly hope you’re being disingenuous, otherwise…

    JMJ

  34. micky2 says:

    Debating class ?
    You wouldnt know a fact if it bit you in the arse.

    YOU SAID; does not mean that the ACLU supports NAMBLA any more than the KKK –
    All links and post below will prove you are the one who not only needs a course in debating , but also english

    http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11081prs20010815.html

    ST. PAUL–In response to growing concerns over permit applications filed on behalf of the Ku Klux Klan and local KKK opposition group Can The Klan, the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union today is demanding that the Department of Administration grant the applications of both groups to rally on the capital by Friday.

    Representatives of both groups recently contacted the ACLU voicing concern over whether their applications for permits to hold rallies on the state capital are being treated fairly and legally.

    The permit regulations do not specify a time frame in which an application must be approved or denied.

    “”As written, the current regulations allow the Director to wait until the eleventh hour to make a decision, thereby eliminating the ability of an applicant to get into court and challenge an adverse decision,” said Teresa Nelson, Legal Counsel with the Minnesota ACLU.

    The Ku Klux Klan, or KKK, filed a permit application nearly two months ago requesting permission to hold a demonstration on the capital on Aug. 25. In anticipation of the KKK rally, a local group, Can The Klan, or CTK, also filed for a permit for the same day and time. As of yet, neither group has received a permit. However, two additional groups, whose permit applications for the same Aug. 25 weekend were filed after the KKK’s, have already received permission to rally.

    The Department of Administration also requested that the KKK and CTK change their requested time frame to suit the department’s desire to keep the groups apart.

    Nelson said the ACLU recognizes that the department may have security concerns over the two groups appearing at the same time, but that the mere possibility of conflict does not provide a basis for denying a permit application or forcing one group to rally at a time different from that initially requested. The department simply does not have the administrative authority to make such a request.

    After reviewing the law governing permit requests and the applications of both groups, the ACLU noted that the rules state grounds for denying a permit application and that none of the listed reasons are likely to exist in the current situation.

    Further, the ACLU is concerned that the treatment of the two groups is infringing on First Amendment rights. “It appears that the office is in fact taking into account the content of both groups’ messages in determining whether to grant the applications,” Nelson said.

    Nelson noted that courts have routinely overturned as unconstitutional permit ordinances that allow administrators to consider the content of the applicant’s message when determining whether to grant the application.

    “The fact that the Department of Administration has pressured both groups to change the time frame on their applications illustrates that it has a de facto policy of not allowing groups with competing messages to demonstrate at the same time,”” Nelson explained. “”Such a policy, whether informal or written, is clearly a content-based restriction on speech and violative of each group’s First Amendment rights.

    Further, the department requested that CTK not use noise-makers and/or musical instruments and that it has complete discretion in deciding whether to require an applicant to provide proof of liability insurance.

    “This provision allows the Director to make determinations about what groups will be required to have liability insurance based solely on the content of the group’s message,” Nelson said. “And that is without question unconstitutional.”

    The ACLU’s letter to administration officials follows:

    August 15, 2001

    Bernie Steele
    Department of Administration
    Plant Management Division
    117 University Avenue, Rm 301
    St. Paul, MN 55155

    VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. Mail

    Dear Mr. Steele,

    Thank you for returning my phone call. While I had hoped to have an informal discussion with you about the MnCLU’s concerns regarding the proposed KKK and Can the Klan (CTK) rallies, it appears that the best way for us to connect is in writing. Since our last correspondence, the MnCLU has been contacted by both of the above-mentioned groups regarding the status of their permit applications. We have spoken to representatives of both groups and have reviewed written correspondence between your office and CTK. While we are not currently providing direct legal representation to either group, we do wish to weigh in on the current status of those applications and the approach that your office has taken thus far.

    Our first concern is with the pressure that your office has put on both groups to change their requested time frame to suit your desire to keep the groups apart. We recognize that special security concerns may arise because of the proposed rallies and understand the responsibility that you have in ensuring public safety. However, these concerns cannot be based on the message of the groups. The administrative rules governing permit applications do not provide you with the authority to condition a permit on the applicant’s willingness to comply with your request to reschedule merely for the purpose of avoiding having two competing messages being disseminated at the same time. The rules provide only for your consideration of matters such as the level of concentration of persons in the permit area, the proposed movement of the group from one area to another, and the impact that the size of the group may have on traffic and the normal operations of state government.

    The two rallies are currently scheduled for a Saturday afternoon when most state offices are closed for the weekend. It is our understanding that the anticipated attendees for the KKK and CTK rallies are 50 and 300 people respectively. It is also our understanding that both groups plan rallies specifically in designated areas — rather than rallies that would permit them to move from one point to another on the Capitol grounds. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any of the regulatory grounds for denying a permit could exist in this situation, especially in light of the fact that in the past the Capitol grounds have hosted a number of controversial rallies involving crowds much larger than the two groups have proposed.

    We believe that any effort to regulate the two proposed rallies based on the government’s disapproval or approval of the group’s message would not pass constitutional muster. Further, we believe a court would find unconstitutional the discriminatory application of a permit regulation based on the content of the applicant’s message. Courts have routinely overturned as unconstitutional permit ordinances that allow administrators to consider the content of the applicant’s message in determining whether to grant a permit and in determining what conditions to place on the permit. While the rules at issue do not on their face allow such a consideration, it appears that your office is in fact taking into account the content of both group’s messages in determining whether to grant their applications.

    CTK has reported to us that your office initially advised them that you do not grant permits for groups with competing messages to rally at the same time. Despite your written assurances to MnCLU to the contrary, the fact that you have pressured both groups to change the time frames set forth on their applications illustrates that you are administering a de facto policy of not allowing groups with competing messages to demonstrate at the same time even though they fully comply with your written regulations. Such a policy, whether it is informal or written, is clearly a content-based restriction on speech and violative of each group’s First Amendment rights. While we understand that competing rallies conducted at the same time do raise the prospect for conflict between the groups, the mere potential for conflict cannot provide a sufficient basis for denying a proper application or forcing one group to rally at a different time.

    Our second concern is with the delay that has occurred in processing these permits. While there was some confusion about whether CTK’s second permit application officially replaced their first application, it took your office ten days to inform CTK that you would not consider the second application until you had received a formal withdrawal of the first application, and an additional week to provide them with a written list of concerns that had to be resolved. Moreover, it is evident that much of the delay prior to CTK’s second application was directly related to your desire to have them change the time frame of the application to avoid them being on the Capitol grounds at the same time as the group that they evidently oppose.

    It is unclear to us why it has taken over two months for you to process the Klan’s permit application. According to Mr. McQueeney, your office told him that his permit would be granted; however he has not been provided with anything in writing. The delay is of particular concern in light of reports we have received that two groups, whose permit applications were tendered after that of the Klan, have already been granted for that same weekend. We recognize that two groups with competing viewpoints may, in some contexts, raise security concerns; however, apart from a clear and present threat to public safety, the fact that the two groups have conflicting messages can have no bearing on the decision to grant or deny their applications. It is apparent that the delay in this situation is directly related to content of these group’s messages and is, therefore, constitutionally indefensible.

    The Permit regulations are silent with respect to the time period in which permit applications must be granted or denied. The lack of a time limit renders the regulations facially unconstitutional for the following reasons. First, it allows administrators to delay processing the applications of groups that are controversial or who have messages with which the administrator or other public officials disagree. This open-ended delay constitutes a content-based restriction on their speech. Second, it interferes with the ability of such applicants to publicize information about their proposed rally. Any applicant must have reasonable time to provide attendees with information about the time and place of the rally, and any other specific information that attendees need to know beforehand. The requirement that groups secure a permit prior to announcing a public rally makes the lack of a time deadline even more problematic because it prohibits groups from disseminating even tentative preliminary information about the proposed rally. Finally, it interferes with the applicant’s ability to obtain prompt and fair judicial review of an adverse permit decision. Prompt judicial review is critical for any permit scheme to be held constitutional. As written, the current regulations allow the Director to wait until the eleventh hour to make a decision, thereby eliminating the ability of an applicant to get into court to challenge an adverse decision. Free speech delayed is free speech denied and clearly the lack of a decision on a permit application is the equivalent of making an adverse decision.

    Our third concern regards your unwritten policy prohibiting noise-making devices and musical instruments. Clearly, regulating the sound levels at public rallies is a significant government interest. To that end, a requirement that sound amplification and public address issues be coordinated with your office would seem to serve that interest. However, there is nothing in the permit regulations that grants you the authority to impose a blanket restriction on noise-making devices and musical instruments. Moreover, a blanket prohibition on all noise-making devices and musical instruments is an overbroad restriction on expressive activities that cannot be constitutionally defended. It is clear from the permit application materials that you do in fact grant permits for musical events; thus, it appears that you only apply this unwritten rule on an ad-hoc basis depending on the group that is applying for a permit.

    Our final concern involves the issue of liability insurance. While at this point, it is unclear whether you will require either group to provide proof of liability insurance, we believe that the current regulation constitutes a grant of unfettered discretion permitting administrators to require applicants to provide worker’s compensation and/or public liability insurance without constitutional or legal standards. Regardless of whether it is even constitutionally permissible to require liability insurance in the context of free speech activities, it is clear that a standardless grant to you of discretion to determine whether to require liability insurance renders the provision facially unconstitutional. As with the lack of time limitations, this provision allows the Director to make determinations based solely on the content of the group’s message.

    At this point, the MnCLU has not made a decision to represent either the KKK or CTK. However, the MnCLU Board may consider providing legal representation to both groups if your office does not address, in an expeditious manner, these important constitutional concerns that we have raised. In the event that the applicants have not been granted permits on or before Friday, August 17th, 2001 we will further consider the appropriate legal action to be taken on behalf of CTK and the KKK in this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Teresa J. Nelson
    Legal Counsel

    Cc: Attorney General Mike Hatch

  35. micky2 says:

    Here ya go

    American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defending the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
    Living in a free society is a benefit as well detraction. In our country the First Amendment of the constitution gives us freedom of speech. However this right to free speech comes with the sacrifice of having to hear opinions that are repugnant to the majority. So we have the incongruous situation, like oil and water, of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defending the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
    The ACLU defends our First Amendment right to free speech, as well as our other rights. The ACLU goes to court to fight those who would deny us these rights. Interestingly enough, it is usually the same government, which has given us these rights that tries to take them away. The ACLU defends free speech for all people and organizations no matter what their message or how reprehensible their views might be. “The ACLU believes that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom these rights apply,“ said Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin.

  36. micky2 says:

    And here ya go again

    American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defending the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
    Living in a free society is a benefit as well detraction. In our country the First Amendment of the constitution gives us freedom of speech. However this right to free speech comes with the sacrifice of having to hear opinions that are repugnant to the majority. So we have the incongruous situation, like oil and water, of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defending the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
    The ACLU defends our First Amendment right to free speech, as well as our other rights. The ACLU goes to court to fight those who would deny us these rights. Interestingly enough, it is usually the same government, which has given us these rights that tries to take them away. The ACLU defends free speech for all people and organizations no matter what their message or how reprehensible their views might be. “The ACLU believes that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom these rights apply,“ said Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin.

  37. micky2 says:

    And here ya go again

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

    The ACLU has provided legal support to various factions of the KKK in defense of their First Amendment rights to hold public rallies, parades, and marches, and their right to field political candidates.

    Man you must be a glutton for punisment.

  38. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, I’m not sure where you’re missing me here, but I said, the mission of the ACLU was to “defend EVERYONE’S civil rights.” Period. Not to support them, not to endorse them, not to make them feel good or make others feel bad – just to defend their civil liberities. It’s easy to defend the civil liberties of ordinary life. It’s a b!#$h to defend the civil liberties of the extraordinary. Do you understand me here?

    I know they defended all sorts of bad eggs. I never said otherwise. In fact, I was saying just that (Didn’t you catch the “NAMBLA” /”KKK” duo?). What is it that you don’t understand about the ACLU? Do you know what the acronym stands for? Would you have them make toasters or become vigilantes instead?

    JMJ

  39. micky2 says:

    Toasters would be fine.

    What is the matter with you ? Are you high ?

    Are you incapable of scrolling back to look at all the things you said that carry no weight ?

    You tried to discount the fact that the ACLU had much to do with footbaths, NAMBLA and the klan.
    I proved you wrong on all three.

    That would be point made and end of debate, stop weasling out and trying to argue tributary subjects, it makes you look needy and pathetic

  40. foundyourpostongoogle says:

    Ok, since the freedom-loving moderator saw fit to delete my post, let my try a more congenial tack: how can speech be considered “free” if that freedom only applies to content you agree with? Yes, the ACLU helps ensure that NAMBLA and the KKK are able to exercise their constitutional right to free speech. No, that does not mean in any way that the ACLU morally “supports” lynchings and the diddling of young boys. To suggest otherwise implies one of two things: that you fail to grasp the distinction, or that you have unspoken ulterior motives as jmj said. I strongly suspect the latter is the case.

  41. foundyourpostongoogle says:

    And I mean really…

    Desperate Housewives? Republicans are blowing the national treasury on corrupt wars of choice, not to mention undermining constitutional checks and balances on a massive scale, but Desperate Housewives merits any mention whatsoever? No.

  42. micky2 says:

    Boy, you need to catch up with the conversation.

    The housewives constitue a much larger issue that I pointed out 36 hours ago.
    Got any data to back up our constitution being undermined ?
    Show me some facts on our blown treasury, last I checked it was still there.
    How is the war corrupt ? In your eyes only ? or a few others with BDS ?

    I have concrete data proving at least 9 acts of war against America by Saddam since the first gulf war, on top of numerous human rights violations.
    So please, spare me the moonbat diatribe.

  43. micky2 says:

    Dont get me started man, i have this down to science and I know my facts
    http://www.merip.org/mero/mero022001.html
    In the long years of confrontation between the US and Iraq, an almost symbiotic relationship has developed between US and Iraqi efforts to raise the political and military stakes. The latest clashes in the no-fly zones, culminating in the February 16 US-UK attack on Iraqi command and control sites north of the 33rd parallel, are no exception. Bill Clinton’s arrival in office in January 1993 triggered brief but intense Iraqi anti-aircraft fire in both no-fly zones, and the US responded with bombing raids.

  44. foundyourpostongoogle says:

    “The housewives constitue a much larger issue that I pointed out 36 hours ago.”
    The hypersensitivity thing? JMJ was right. Almost nobody cares about ANY of that stuff. The people who do are either conservatives like you or powerless to do much about their outrage.

    “Got any data to back up our constitution being undermined ?”
    The TSA, blackwater, torture, the way Bush has used signing statements, the PATRIOT act, habeas corpus, voter fraud/diebold, and so on. If you’re honestly interested you can google them for yourself. Clinton was no saint in this department but Bush has been far worse.

    “Show me some facts on our blown treasury, last I checked it was still there.”
    How’s the dollar doing these days? What does our deficit look like?

    “How is the war corrupt ? In your eyes only ? or a few others with BDS ?”
    BDS, huh? I had to look that up. Krauthammer was wrong all along. He still is.

    “I have concrete data proving at least 9 acts of war against America by Saddam since the first gulf war, on top of numerous human rights violations.”
    And yet they’re irrelevant because they don’t speak to the rationale that was used to sell this war.

    “So please, spare me the moonbat diatribe.”
    No, spare ME the immature name calling.

    my question remains unanswered:
    how can speech be considered “free” if that freedom only applies to content you agree with?

  45. Jersey McJones says:

    Thank you, Found. Where Micky is missing my point here is beyond me.

    JMJ

  46. micky2 says:

    You with the ridiculous name said;
    “Got any data to back up our constitution being undermined ?”
    The TSA, blackwater, torture, the way Bush has used signing statements, the PATRIOT act, habeas corpus, voter fraud/diebold, and so on. If you’re honestly interested you can google them for yourself. Clinton was no saint in this department but Bush has been far worse.”
    You want me to google what should be your evidence ?
    YOU CLAIMED IT , YOU PROVE IT! Or else mail me a check to do it for you, grow up!

    God you guys are THICK !
    Once again, you make claims and then answer me with your own words as proof !

    First of all, It looks like I already toasted you on the war being corrupt.
    You answer with an interpretation of Krauthammer, was that your best shot ?phff.

    No judgement has been handed down on blackwater, only litigation.
    No judgement has been handed down on Bush for constitutional violations.
    No judgement has been handed down on the TSA.
    I have yet to see one person loose any rights due to the patriot act, can you name one who has won a case in court ?
    VOTER FRAUD? prove it !

    Spare you the name calling? Moonbat is a compliment.

    You said;
    And yet they’re irrelevant because they don’t speak to the rationale that was used to sell this war.

    You say they are irrelevant ? Congressional votes ? Hmmm.
    Rationale ? I guess you would be the one to show our whole congress what is rational ?
    I guess in your eyes the rational must be related to the DMDs ?
    Well even without them we had quite a few other legal reasons to go in.
    Saddam shot at us in no fly zones 7 times, as was presented to you above, but I guess the facts just dont cut it with you right ?

    long name said;
    how can speech be considered “free” if that freedom only applies to content you agree with?

    Speech should also be free from B.S. and lies.
    And actually if you paid attention I was talking about over sensative cultural zealots.
    I am all for free speech, but I am also free not to listen to it.
    SO YES! I DO HAVE CONTROL OVER CONTENT THAT REACHES MY EARS !
    I CAN CHANGE THE CHANNEL OR LEAVE !
    Insted of crying like some emotional retard and then go file a law suit or petition for an apology.

    And Jersey, stop playing the idiot card. I know damn well what your point was, you just keep changing it everytime you get hammerd.

    So as you can see you have really posted nothing substanial except for a bunch of empty claims and opinions.
    Neither of you really care to put up a decent fight (typical lib fashion) and present facts.

    The opininated heresay and emotinal debate will go to personal logic
    The factual debate will go to the truth.

    Do you understand that ? Man I feel like I should be getting paid for educating kiddys

  47. micky2 says:

    Correction
    I guess in your eyes the rational must be related to the DMDs ? ( WMDs)

  48. Jersey McJones says:

    Micky, I changed nothing. You made silly untrue claims, I showed you they were silly and untrue. Bashing the ACLU is silly. Period. We’re here for everyone – including you.

    Found and I care believe in the import of the vigilance of the citizenry. You believe in blind patriotism.

    JMJ

  49. micky2 says:

    Long name said;
    “How’s the dollar doing these days? What does our deficit look like?”

    Sorry, I forgot to nail you on this one.
    Of course as I’ve stated it should really be your job to present the facts instead of just mouthing off. But I’ll grant you this since you dont seem to want to really look for answers.

    These words come straight from the mouths of our president and Alan Greenspan.
    I’ll bet you would like to go off on the ANTI FOX diatribe, but the words dont come from FOX, they come from the utmost authority on this subject.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297250,00.html

    GEORGE W. BUSH : I would say that the record, our fiscal record is admirable and good. After all, the deficit percentage to GDP is low, relative to the 30-year average. It’s about 1.5 percent of GDP, which is — which is good. And we submitted a budget that shows that we can get it balanced.

    I would also argue that cutting taxes made a significant difference, not only in dealing with the recession and the attack in our country, but it made a significant difference in dealing with the deficit, because a growing economy yielded more tax revenues, which allowed us to shrink the deficit.

    ALAN GREENSPAN, FORMER FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: The issue is really not the short term. The president’s numbers are correct. Indeed, the deficit this year is coming in well under expectations.

    Heres some more education for you, as opposed to the chicken littles you get your info from.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259241,00.html

    Another doomsayer is U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, who’s slightly hysterical about another kind of debt—the debt of the U.S. government. He was on “60 Minutes” last week warning that the nation is about to go broke and is—in that tired, old phrase we last heard from Ross Perot—“mortgaging the future of our grandchildren.”

    Subprime loans—the kind the market’s now fretting about—amount to about 20 percent of all mortgages. Of those, about 12 percent are now or are about to be in default. In other words, about 2.6 percent of all loans are crashing.

    That’s not a lot.

    Now, as for Mr. Walker, he’s singing a blast from the past that’s reprieved about every decade or so. The important thing to keep in mind when thinking about the national debt is its size in relation to out entire economy. There have been times when our nation has borrowed much more than we are borrowing now.

    For example, during World War II, our national debt totaled more than 100 percent of our annual economy (known as Gross Domestic Product, or GDP). Towards the end of the Cold War, our debt averaged about 50 percent of GDP. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in a 1994 editorial about the debt, “We would certainly argue that winning the World War was worth borrowing 100 percent of GDP, and winning the Cold War was worth borrowing 50 percent of GDP.” (WSJ, November 18, 1994)

    Once the Cold War was officially ended with the 1989 downing of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent demise of the Soviet Union, our federal deficit and national debt began to decline. The “peace dividend” also coincided with a (temporarily) more responsible government, divided between Republicans in Congress and a pragmatic Democrat in the White House. The welfare reform bill, regulatory and trade liberalization (like NAFTA) and other stimulants of economic growth generated more private-sector income, while limiting the role of the government in the economy. This helped reduce the deficit and led to a budget surplus, until we were hit with the double whammy of the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11.

    Nowadays, we’re in the midst of a new war. I speak not of the battle in Iraq, but of the larger World War against radical Islam. This is a war that’s worth winning before terrorists create the kind of damage that would cost many times the amount of money we’re now paying to service the debt. But still it will cost a lot more money. Freedom is not free, and the debt will be necessary to help us defend our freedoms.

    Having said that, since the tax rate cuts of 2003 kicked in, we’ve seen a steady decline in the rise of our budget deficit. This is due to the most fundamental law of economics: Incentives matter.

    As taxpayers are allowed to keep more of their earnings and investments, they become more productive. They work harder and take money out of tax dodges and put them back in the taxable economy. So you have the seemingly contradictory effect of government tax receipts growing as tax rates decrease.

    It worked now; it worked in the ‘80s with Reagan tax cuts, in the ‘60s with JFK tax cuts, and in the ‘20s with the (Treasury Secretary) Mellon tax cuts. Had we merely focused our intentions on balancing the books to lower deficits, the country would not have grown and our deficits would likely have increased as a percentage of GDP.

    Do I like budget deficits? Of course not. But the problem with the folks that shout loudest about deficits is that they are usually willing to sacrifice private-sector growth (in the form of tax increases) for the sake of lowering the deficit. In other words, they assume that a lower debt is better than anything, even if it takes more cash out of the taxpayer’s pocket.

    This is nonsense. There’s nothing wrong with cutting spending (i.e., the size of our monster government) to lower the deficit. But there’s plenty wrong with trying to lower the deficit (or the overall debt) by squeezing an overtaxed population even more than they already are. Besides, as it’s been proved again and again: if you raise tax rates, you very often end up with less revenue and higher deficits.

    Oh, did I mention that the market has gone up as all these doomsayers have been predicting the worst for years and years? Will it continue to? Not always, and not as quickly as it did in 2006.

    But while doomsayers may be right occasionally (like the broken clock), they shouldn’t be allowed to panic the markets with their dire predictions. Look at the facts, don’t listen to hysterics.

    The link is there if you would care to read what the pros have to say
    You will see how misguided you are. Maybe not.

    You welcome.

  50. micky2 says:

    Jersey said;
    You made silly untrue claims, I showed you they were silly and untrue.

    With all due respect , this is a lie
    I proved all my claims, you did not prove ONE of yours.

  51. micky2 says:

    I’m sorry Jersey.
    You did prove one thing. That would be that you have an opinion.

    Here is what I said originally;
    “ACLU and other moonbat organizations are the one convincing everyone that they have rights more important than others rights, even speech”

    (That would be my opinion)

    Then you asked me if I was making things up and I proved that I wasnt and the rest is history.

    Long name said;
    that you fail to grasp the distinction, or that you have unspoken ulterior motives as jmj said. I strongly suspect the latter is the case.

    Look gentlemen, dont talk to me about grasping , I grasp facts documented in history, you grasp what the lemmings with their hair on fire tell you to grasp.
    The distinction is this. I do not see the distinction in having a right that limits the abilty for children to be free of predatory creeps, against the creeps that hunt them The ACLU should of never gone anywhwere near this case, but they did.
    It is not a right to plot , conspire , organize and plan the lynching of people based on their color. Should we give rights to murder organizations ? As long as all they do is talk about it ? A lot of folks are in jail for plotting murders and molestations, so give me a large break ! Its not a right !!!
    But the ACLU defended that also.
    You disguise your ignorance all you want with “WE ALL DESERVE OUR RIGHTS ” all you want.
    I have the right to my self and property and to be free of intervention and aggressive removal of those rights by institutions such as the Klan or NAMBLA or the ACLU !
    But this scumbag organization the ACLU comes to the rescue of these disgusting organizations anyway.
    And why? Why do the moonbats who are always so worried and crying” Ohhh ! they’re undermining the constitution ! ” give the ACLU a free pass, an organization that has communist roots and still is held down by that basic ideology ?

  52. hueguenot says:

    Eric:

    Sort of on the topic of your post, I’ll never forget a letter to the editor of Car and Driver magazine, though it had to have been 20 years ago.

    IIRC, the writer, an S. Kim in Los Angeles took great umbrage at the following phrase used in a previous article: “The only chink in the Mercedes’ otherwise unassailable armor was…”

    The editor replied something to the effect of “You are absolutely correct. We apologize, and while we’re at it, we also apologize for the use of the words “yellow” (p.86) and “slope” (p 94)”

    I lauged for 5 solid minutes and still do every time I think about it. Shades of “niggardly.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.