>> ^Crosswords:
Well hope they can succeed, but not holding my breath on it. Over turning a popular vote initiative can't be easy.

That's true, but that's how we got here in the first place. An appellate court overturned the voters who made gay marriage illegal a few years ago, so the homophobes tried to do it again using different language and called it Prop 8.

The 14th Amendment is on our (opponents of Prop side.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'speeding, ticket, howto, know, your, rights' to 'speeding, ticket, howto, know, your, rights, aclu' - edited by MrFisk

Let's face it, company's here in America are under constant surveillance. They are big targets for lawsuits, since they usually exchange large amounts of money. Anything that happens during working ours on company property that could be considered the least bit offensive can put a company at risk. Since everybody has a different view of decency, government regulations and company policies stipulate rules akin those of the FCC. No swearing, nudity, etc.

Even if a company has lenient rules regarding break times and what you do on them, they stick stern to their rules on general decency, as they should. After all, it's on a company to pay out when Julie from accounts receivable sees Andy from marketing looking at the latest celebrity nipslip and feels compelled to sue for emotional distress.

...don't blame the ACLU, blame lawyers in general. NSFW doesn't bother ya, it just let's you know, notice who's around you before opening.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
And how exactly is people being shot voluntarily an example of brutality?

It's not.
But you're effectively justifying the rampant use of tasers by police based on the voluntary cooperation of these celebrities.
Your apparent enthusiasm for tasers, based on the fact that you've made about three posts on that subject today alone, is more than a little disturbing, MGR.
It smacks of sadism.
Especially since you are in law enforcement, if I'm not mistaken.


This post has nothing to do with the widespread use of tasers. It has to do with all those videos you see of people screaming bloody murder after being hit with one - acting like it still hurts after the taser is off. (Drama Queen).

My enthusiasm for tasers comes from my hatred of people that disregard the laws around them and act like they're the most important people on the planet. \

Before tasers, cops only had these options:
1) Attemmpt to subdue the criminal, risking life and limb while doing so (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3).
2) Run up to them and beat the shit out of them with a baton, or mace them,.
3) Shoot them.

Very rarely do officer have the chance to jump up to a guy and take him down smoothly and effectively. (Like this)

What the Taser does is open up a fourth option for officers. It allows them to subdue a suspect without putting them in danger. It's not about taser vs. bullets or taser vs. baton, but it just lets them do something they've never been able to do before.

Don't want to be tased? Don't break the fucking law and if you have to deal with the police, be it legit or not, don't resist and do everything the officer says.

Even that left-wing-as-can-be organization, the ACLU says "Cooperate, even if you think you're innocent"

>> ^blankfist:
From slate.com: "If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity blah blah blah blah


Your first problem is thinking that Slate.com somehow is the standard bearer for every POV on the left. It's just not. And pointing to one crappy article to prove your point is a bit ridiculous.

This kid was not practicing his 1st amendment rights. His father was using his child, and abusing his public education system, to spew this ugly and racist statement. This is a case for child services, not the ACLU.

Vote Udall!

Rep. Tom Udall voted NO in 2002 on the Iraq War, and continues to oppose it. He advocates withdrawing U.S. troops as soon as practicable.

Udall counts among his highest legislative priorities as expanding health care services, additional funding for public education, and repealing certain sections of the Patriot act.

Udall's voting record is rated 100% pro-choice by NARAL, and 93% pro-civil rights by the ACLU, 97% pro-affirmative-action by the NAACP and a D- by the NRA. He voted NO on free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Peru and Central American nations (CAFTA).

About.com

Article explaining this mayor vs. ACLU:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/sep/07/curfew-pits-mayor-vs-aclu-on-the-web/

^Yeah. Obama's scorecard is only from a pool of 20 votes though. And of those he voted:

FOR the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Senate)
On July 9, 2008, the Senate passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304) by a vote of 69-28. The ACLU opposed this legislation due to its failure to protect Fourth Amendment privacy rights for individual Americans. Specifically, it authorizes an unlawful warrantless surveillance program, while providing effective immunity to those telecommunications companies that assisted government surveillance even before the facts surrounding the full extent of this program are known.
FOR Patriot Act Reauthorization (Senate)
On March 2, 2006, the Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
of 2005 by a vote of 89 to 10. The ACLU opposed this bill because it failed to add to the Patriot Act reasonable, necessary safeguards to protect civil liberties. It made many expiring provisions permanent, including provisions that allow the government to obtain a wide variety of private confidential records using National Security Letters, seek secret court orders under section 215, gag recipients of these record requests with only an illusory right to challenge, and secretly search homes and offices. The bill also expands the death penalty, limits protest rights at major events and coerces businesses to check their employees against flawed government watch lists.
FOR Judicial Review of Torture
On November 15, 2005, the Senate agreed to the Graham-Levin Amendment that would strip
detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay of most of their due process protections. The ACLU
opposed the Graham-Levin Amendment because, by stripping detainees at Guantanamo Bay of
the ability to file habeas petitions and other claims in federal court, it unconstitutionally removed the
system of checks and balances for persons seeking protection against the government's use of
torture and abuse and other denials of due process. The amendment passed by a vote of 84 to 14
and was attached to the Defense Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.


christ that was a pretty important 18%....

>> ^SpeveO:
Somehow I don't think Joe Biden, the man who bragged to Tim Russert about how the Patriot Act mirrored a lot of his proposed legislation in the Omnibus Counter-terrorism Act of 1995, is going to be part of the team that restores the American constitution.


Thanks for pointing that one out, I wasn't aware of it. Count that as a definite strike against him, but his scorecard from the ACLU is 91% in the 110th Congress (only because he missed a single crucial vote, after being named VP), and an 86% rating lifetime.

Obama's position on the Patriot act has been scrutinized, and while his ACLU scorecard shows 82% for FISA and Patriot votes, he's certainly talked a lot about wanting to replace them with better legislation that better protects people's rights (specifics are behind that link).

Contrast that to McCain's rating of 22% lifetime, with a 17% in the 110th Congress, and absolutely no mitigating commentary about it. He's even ducked voting against measures that would've precluded the CIA from using torture, even with his supposed opposition to torture (a minority view in the Republican party, mind you).

Goodness knows what Palin's scorecard would look like.

I'm standing by Obama and Biden being the team to restore the Constitution.

Not a big fan of Rand. Well, it has nothing to do with anarchy or fuck the poor. Why is it when I bring up an idea it always becomes the butt of some chicken little fear? People who want to do good in a society will do so without a babysitting government, dude. When you give freedom a chance, it can work and work well. Government overspend and misappropriate funds, people can spend smarter. That, and I really feel most people are apathetic to help others when they know there are systems already created using their tax dollars for that purpose. It gives them a clear conscience. Reminds me of a Living Color song: Go Away. You get rid of poorly run and poorly conceived bureaucracies, I think people will give more. In 2004, American civilians gave more money to foreign aid than the US Government.

Like I said, I have given plenty to charities, and I give to the ACLU on a regular basis. I care, but I also want to give how and where I want without being forced to do it. I think that's fair. Your idea of welfare is theft, and it's theft done violently. How would you feel if I broke into your home, robbed you, but used all of that money to pay for cancer treatment for dying children. Wouldn't you still call the police and want me arrested? Seriously.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Oh wow, that's far worse. You meant no federal funds as in education anarchy-fuck the poor-caste system learning. Yikes. At least I can rest easy with the knowledge that libertarian politics have never played any meaningful role in any worthwhile modern society to date and never will.

I do like the fact that we can brawl without any bruised egos or hurt feelings. As you know, most people aren't like that.

I hope you didn't forget the lube again.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Keywords: "Radical organizing"
That right there is reason to believe the people would be up to no good.
Nobody uses the word 'radical' to describe an organization that isn't prone to violence.


Fox News uses the word "radical" to describe: DailyKos, Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, ACLU, the Democratic party, and Obama's whole family.

Lots of people misuse the word.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously, it's this. This is why.
You got a 'P' next to your handle. I was annoying libs 'round here when you were in your crib shitting yellow mustard.
Raz me over pointing out a rather blatant "subliminal" sticker, which could just as easily have been out of the shot? Go back and count the number of anti-Fox sifts--no matter the content--and tell me with a straight face how I'm being nitpicky. HA.
ACLU? With its anti-religion agenda based on a fraudulent interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it's been making many people's lives miserable over nothing for decades. What do I care that this doof has been inconvenienced by the Big Government he craves? So has the "reporter"! Imagine a reporter with terminal cancer reporting on terminal cancer victims.
BTW, the misleading title of this sift makes one believe the TSA deliberately singled out the CNN reporter because he described them in an unflattering light, yet he has NO evidence, only an implication, kind of like "Bush lied." No evidence of a crime, therefore no impeachment.
Since over one milion people are also on the list "by accident", we can conclude they're all liberals working for the ACLU and/or CNN.


Wow! QM, I'm impressed. Reading that, you actually sounded reasonable and unprovocative. I think that's the first time I've actually seen some logic showing through in your arguments. Not that it hasn't been there all along, just nice to see it. Cheers! (no snark intended)

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously, it's this. This is why.

You got a 'P' next to your handle. I was annoying libs 'round here when you were in your crib shitting yellow mustard.

Raz me over pointing out a rather blatant "subliminal" sticker, which could just as easily have been out of the shot? Go back and count the number of anti-Fox sifts--no matter the content--and tell me with a straight face how I'm being nitpicky. HA.

ACLU? With its anti-religion agenda based on a fraudulent interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it's been making many people's lives miserable over nothing for decades. What do I care that this doof has been inconvenienced by the Big Government he craves? So has the "reporter"! Imagine a reporter with terminal cancer reporting on terminal cancer victims.

BTW, the misleading title of this sift makes one believe the TSA deliberately singled out the CNN reporter because he described them in an unflattering light, yet he has NO evidence, only an implication, kind of like "Bush lied." No evidence of a crime, therefore no impeachment.

Since over one milion people are also on the list "by accident", we can conclude they're all liberals working for the ACLU and/or CNN.

>> ^quantumushroom:
00:55 "Make sure you get the Obama '08 sticker and anti-W stickers in focus."
Yeah. What liberal media bias?


How is this evidence of liberal media bias in any way? Even if it was a conscious choice to get this guy's political stickers in the shot, it doesn't reflect on the reporter. The guy being interviewed was ASG under Clinton and works with the ACLU, so it shouldn't be a shock that he supports Obama or dislikes Bush. In fact, it was the provision of that information that allowed you to dismiss the man's complaint as some soft, liberal whiner. The story was never about the reporter's political views, you just wanted it to be.

heh - I was just teasing about the LA thing. I always notice it because I grew up in LA, but now live south of L.A.

Anyway, I don't care about the method of education, even if it is home schooling. I'm worried about the content. My concern is having a well-educated electorate and work force. What every child is taught has a direct impact on everyone else in the community and the nation as a whole.

Getting rid of public schools altogether would be a disaster, as NetRunner notes, because you would have a situation where wealth determines access to education. It already does to some extent because most places use property taxes to fund the local schools.

NetRunner, while I think it's a good idea, I'm not fool enough to think it could happen anytime soon in this country. You're absolutely right about the resistance it would meet, except that I think it wouldn't just be conservatives fighting it. There are significant constitutional barriers to implementing such a program. For instance, I imagine the ACLU might fight it on principle. And I have to agree that good teachers are in short supply, and that is partly a result of funding.