NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(PoohIss @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 10:03 AM) If I remember correctly, Kerry believes in God as well. What's the difference? The difference is that the left bashes Bush for being religous and not Kerry.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 01:42 PM) Please show where the ACLU supported child pornography. I already did but I'll put em up again.........just for you. GAME http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=1147 SET http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=1014 MATCH! http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/coment...e.asp?story=652

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 12:58 PM) Uh huh. I used to give you some credit for at least trying to make an honest argument, but here every single thing you used to back up your case was wrong, and you don't have the spine to admit that you just screwed up. They aren't backtracking -- the very first response to this, before the articles were written, a day before this interview you saw, was from the president of the ACLU, saying that there was virtually no chance anything would come of it. AFTER she said this, your source goes on tv and throws a hissy fit, saying he was about to be kicked out. Not that you've ever trusted anyone w/ the ACLU before, but damn, now all of a sudden his word is gospel, despite lots of evidence to the contrary. Noone even mentioned religious freedom cases until he did. By all reports, it had nothing to do with the complaint. The complaint which did not come from the people he was having the disagreement with. You claimed that he was being kicked out (no) for disagreeing (no) on issues (no). He disagreed w/ some central officials on matters of oversight, administrative crap, and he took it public. That prompted someone from the Oregon affiliate (note: not the people he was arguing w/) to issue the complaint. All of which you've conveniently ignored, in your mindless ranting on a vast left-wing conspiracy to replace all Bibles w/ kiddie porn. What a joke. The ACLU did nothing here but confirm how committed they are to individual rights, even when they're being blasted by someone on the board. That's an amazing show of patience, I wouldn't blame them one bit for disciplining these 2. You've confirmed that you're incapable of reading the news to find out if some nut on tv had his facts straight. You obviously didn't hear the man himself speak out on TV last night, you just read the whitewash the NYT published but I don't expect you to listen or care when even one of your own sees this organization for what it is. Mr. Meyers himself said he was about to be kicked out, Meyers himself said he had a major disagreement with the ACLU board and not just over administrative stuff either. Dont take his words and try to make them mine. As I've proven in my earlier post, the ACLU is all about individual freedoms alright. The freedom to be a child pornographer, the freedom to say whatever kind of vile crap you want over the airwaves regardless of how offensive it is, the feeedom to do any and everything save for even hint that you are somewhat religous. If you are they're coming with their lawsuit hammer.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 07:10 AM) Here's the quandary I feel in our society and my Christian views. I have also seen where ACLU's attention has increased the outward appearance of Christianity. Wauconda's nativity scene and cross was removed from the city hall back in the late 80s or early 90s. Last time I was in Wauconda, hundreds of residents had erected hundreds of crosses on their property. Score one for the big Guy. From one of the town square, to hundreds on roofs, in backyards, and hopefully in their hearts. That's called a backlash. I bet the hypersensitive moron who whined about it is a lot more offended now that there are more symbols of the religon that he doesn't believe in than ever and in places where even the ACLU can't touch them.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 11:41 AM) of course i don't always agree with the aclu, but if they ever stop being radical and challenging everything, its worse for us. It really would be. If they weren't so petty, if they weren't so eager to trample all over small towns and schoolkids with their vile litigation, if they didn't support child pornography, if they didn't seek to usurp the rights of parents to raise their kids then maybe I could tolerate them somewhat.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 08:41 AM) Nuke -- prominent sociologists have looked back at the Vietnam war and can find not one published case of an anti-war protester spitting on a soldier. All their research that could be uncovered actually showed most of the belligerance coming at the hands of people who attacked anti-war protesters. Jerry Lembcke published "The Spitting Image: Myth, Media and the Legacy of Viet Nam." In all the research done, there were ZERO cases of soldiers being spit upon. And Nuke, there is historical precedent for not having a lavish party during war time. Just because they raked in $40 mil doesn't mean that it all has to go to his party. I'm sure the donators wouldn't mind that their money assisted the war effort since the GOP has a monopoly on support of the troops. Just becaue it wasn't published in the papers doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your little book is a bunch of f***ing bulls*** too. When you see footage of soldiers getting off the plane and having a throng of protestors yelling "baby killer", "murderer" and a bunch of other vile crap that speaks a lot louder than some leftist assclowns little book.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 22, 2005 -> 12:11 PM) Please. wino was just reiterating what a number political analysts - even Righties like Peggy Noonan - have said: the speech was well written and poorly/uninspiringly delivered. And Bush does suck. That's what you think. You, however, are in the minority. Get used to it.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 09:45 PM) Incidentally, the ACLU declined to pursue any disciplinary action whatsoever, those hypocritical, censor-happy bastards! So Nuke, your one and only source of information was proven totally wrong. How 'bout you explain how this proves you right? Of course they're gonna backtrack now that their hypocrasy was made public. Enough people hate them already and they dont need anymore black eyes. Id have thought that was obvious but I guess that went over your head in your rush to defend them.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 07:48 PM) Thanks and a lot and I can't express how happy I am for four more years. 4 MORE YEARS!!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!! WOOT!

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 11:08 PM) Absolutely hilarious video of the Bush Whoring Network (FOX News) whining about critics of the inauguration... http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2663486?htv=12 $40 mil for an inauguration when we got troops without adequate supplies in the war -- she's got a point. Sorry if I threadjack, just saw an inauguration thread and didn't wanna make a new one. I love how this 40 million dollar figure is paraded around. THE MONEY WAS RAISED BY PRIVATE DONATIONS AND TICKET SALES!! You make it sound like this money was taken from money allocated for defense spending. But wait, you want to see the defense budget cut by 15% ( something you've posted many many times around here ). Now who wants to take money away from the troops? Hypocrite. The troops don't need the likes of you with your anti-war bulls*** looking out for them. If you truly want to support the troops you can say "thanks" and nothing else. Feigning support for servicemen/servicewomen and using a phony concern for our welfare is both not welcome and shameful especially when 30 years ago your ilk was spitting on American troops returning from Vietnam. If the radical left acted the way they really feel about our soldiers they'd still be spitting on us.

QUOTE(farmteam @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 06:53 PM) I actually like watching the Wolves more than the Hawks. But I'd watch either, if they were on. The Wolves have been far more fun to watch through most of their existence than the Slackhawks. As long as Dollar Bill is in charge of the Hawks I won't spend one thin dime on them. The Wolves are a far better value for my entertainment dollar for the simple reason ( among many others ) that they actually play like they give a damn about winning.

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 11:47 PM) Actually I believe you said that the ACLU attacked the practice of religion. And I challenged you to come up with an actual case involving the ACLU where they tried to keep people from saying any. All anyone could come up with are stories that aren't true. I quickly came up with four concrete examples of the ACLU fighting on behalf of churches and religion. You came up with some "Oh, that one about the guy with the stuff and the things." Someone else came up with a case where a lawyer for the prosecution mentioned "I bet the ACLU would be pissed if this were Christian stuff." So, you let the perception be the reality. Too bad you can't let reality be reality. Concrete examples? I prefer granite. Examples of attempted censorship of VOLUNTARY and non-sectarian prayer. http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200312...04220-9622r.htm http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledis...goryid=cfreport http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6352/CWA/freedom/ Here's a nice long list of ACLU sponsored destruction of anything Christian and promotion of all that's wrong with America. http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/ACLU/StoryArchives.asp More shamefulness September 1986 - The ACLU successfully sues fifth grade public school teacher Kenneth Roberts, forcing him to remove his personal Bible from his classroom desk. Roberts kept the Bible on top of his desk, and he read from it during his class' silent reading time. He never read it to his students or told them they had to read it. (Contrast this to the ACLU's actions in February and March, 2001, in Anaheim, California. This time, the ACLU threatened to sue the public school board if they did not put pro-homosexual propaganda on the shelves of the high school library.) In 1988 the ACLU barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured." April 2002 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act, which prohibited Internet porn hawkers from making "virtual" child pornography. The ACLU immediately declared victory, calling it a triumph for "free speech." April 2002 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down a Colorado law requiring parents be notified when their underage daughters sought abortions. The ACLU supported the suit to have the law struck down. http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=2102 http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/n....asp?story=1606 Advocates for religous freedom my ass. As I said earlier these people are all for stamping out christianity whenever and wherever it's found, replacing it with child pornography, foul and offensive language on the airwaves and taking the rights of parents to raise their children under the guise of privacy rights. How you can defend an organization who's clientele includes child pornographers, nazi's, smut peddlers and other assorted scum of society is beyond me.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 08:16 PM) :headshake I'm going to bet there is a lot more to this story. Too bad the made for CourtTV version that will be spun isn't going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nuke, I'm not certain how much this disgraces the corps. I doubt his defense will be his CO told him to do it. That's obvious but still, people in uniform whether cops, soldiers, firemen..etc.. are held up as examples and dirtbags like this one leave a nasty stain on all of us when they do stuff like this.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 08:25 PM) Nuke, is your position that is this was a conservative group and a member was constantly criticizing the administration, they would encourage him or fire him? I dont know if anything like that is actually going on but if you serve me up an example of something like that and I will shift focus and trash ( insert right wing organization ) for its own organization.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 08:14 PM) No Nuke. I'm saying that to proclaim that O'Reilly is some sort of bastion of righteousness is bulls*** -- just as dropping MOAB's is "compassionate conservatism". The fact that you tear things into "sides" is an act of partisan hackery. I remember during the election, you were one of the ones trumpeting the fact that Bush was God and everything against him was just lies etc. while everything that came out against Kerry was somehow valid. They were both softheaded, incompetent, moronic boobs that deserve to be beaten to death with woks. If you're gonna whine about one side pulling s***, then do it for both sides when they are in the wrong. Gay marriage amendment? Cabinet position of Homeland Security? Increased drug war? Etc. -- Sure sounds like a conservative less government program set-up to me! Oreilly's only involvement in this whole thing is that he happened to be the guy interviewing this ACLU member. That's all. Mr Meyers was the one going off on the ACLU and that's very telling to me. You're also DEAD WRONG asserting what I said about Bush and Kerry. Bush: You of all people should know that I didn't think the postwar period in Iraq was planned well and in fact there was no coherent plan ( I guess you forgot all those posts I wrote to that effect and all the chats in PM on AOL Messenger to that effect ). Kerry: I have also posted numerous times that I thought the Swifties attacks on Kerry's medals were over the top and bogus but as with the Bush example I guess you forgot all the posts and convos on AOL to that effect. 2 quick examples to quash that lie quickly.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 08:07 PM) Once again Nuke hits the nail on the head. Conservatives, unlike liberals, agree on everything. All conservatives think the same and do not disagree about anything. From abortion (bad), to same sex marriage (very bad), to Howard Stern (the essence of evil), to Spongebob Squarepants (encourages homosexual behavior) they all agree. Not the point at all. Last week you people spent an entire evening lecturing me about what a great champion of free speech the ACLU is but now, it seems, that one of their own board members can't speak his own mind and dare to not tow the party line without getting himself in hot water. Of course that's alright with you guys though. Hypocrites is what they are.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 08:03 PM) And there's no hypocricy in the Bushie administration or the Republican party in general. Quit being such a partisan hack, its quite tiresome. There's bulls*** on all sides. I just love hearing O'Reilly rail on and on about the rich media elite while not talking about the 6-7 figures that he's pulling down every year or the fact that he had to pay out the ass (no pun intended) for sexually harassing a woman. Christians, the most persecuted group in America I mean they sure read their Bible, right? "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-6 So now you're trying to justify it. It's hyprocasy on the highest order but since other people do it too it must be just fine. What temerity on my part for bringing this to light on here. LOL!

This assclown was a Marine too. What a dirty son of a b****. Way to disgrace the corps asshole! http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/21/woman.abducted/index.html

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 07:54 PM) Maybe O'Rielly wispered something in his ear about a Falafel. Or maybe he's angry about the hypocrasy of the organization he works for.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 07:49 PM) Nuke, your initial post suggested Meyers was 'about to get kicked off,' and he may well believe that but it doesn't make it true. From the NYT piece, noting that th call for a hearing on this came from an Oregon Chapter member: It DOES sound like they're having problems, but even the bastion of free speech is going to have governance issues. Mr Meyers certainly seems to think he's out and he sounded very pissed off about it all.

Uhh guys.........Oreilly was interviewing this guy on air. Those words were Mr Meyers' not O'reillys. Try again.

This is sooooooooooo priceless. I'm watching the O'reilly factor right now and ACLU board member Michael Meyers ( a 23 year ACLU veteran ) is on the air right now saying that he's about to be kicked off the board of that organization because he does not agree with several of the organization's positions on various issues, not the least of which, is litigation involving religous expression. This one speaks for itself. Just more proof that you can say whatever you want around the left, just so long as you agree with them.

QUOTE(shagar69 @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 01:12 PM) http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines didnt show up to court, cook county judge issued an arrest warrant for him. when are we gonna get rid of this moron It's not enough he can't catch a pass right in the numbers but now he can't even make a court date for all the damn tickets he's racked up. What a s***bag.

I wouldn't mind seeing hockey come back. Hopefully the loss of most of the season taught both parties a lesson that excessive greed benefite no-one. Oh........wait.........they didn't learn that lesson in 1994 so why would they learn it now. :rolly

QUOTE(winodj @ Jan 21, 2005 -> 11:04 AM) You're missing the point, its not that we're gathering intelligence. It's the method in which we're doing it. You can not rewrite the way the government works without approval from those who represent the people that the government is supposed to be of. How do you know, if these reports are in fact true, that Congress doesn't already know about it? It's not like they blurt out to everyone what our covert ops are......unlike a certain reporter.