quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz You're trying to equate supporting the right to free speech and expression of unpopular organizations with advocacy of said speech and expression. Perhaps this logic works with the average Fox News viewer, but I know in my heart that most reasonable people are objective enough to see through that smokescreen.

ya ok

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages....asp?story=1388

According to the Kansas Attorney General, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a brief with a Kansas state appeals court arguing that the state’s sexual age of consent laws should be lowered to thirteen years of age.

This request comes as the ACLU is defending 18-year-old homosexual Matthew Limon, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a mentally disabled 14-year-old boy at a group home in Paola, Kansas. These charges were nothing new to Limon’s history. This was his third conviction; as a result, Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Though his sentence is well within the current law dictated by the Kansas state legislature, the ACLU believes Matthew Limon should be released from prison and that the state should not show distinctions between homosexuals, heterosexuals, or those who have sex with teenagers.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline told reporters, “The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) states specifically in its brief that it is a constitutional right for any child age 13 and older to consent to have sex with anyone.”

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports, “In the ACLU’s brief for Limon… it said teenagers have a well-established ‘liberty interest in being free from state compulsion’ in making personal decisions about sex and marriage.”

Traditional Marriage Under Attack

Through this legal action, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline believes that the ACLU is attempting to establish precedents, which will diminish the legal distinctions between all types of relationships: heterosexual, homosexual, incestuous, bestial, pedophilia, and multiple-partner. If the Kansas state court agrees with the ACLU, Kline believes it will have established such a precedent to remove existing standards for marriage.

Tamara Lange, an ACLU attorney from San Francisco, dismissed Kline’s comments. She told the media, “To try to treat this as if it’s a challenge to the marriage law is an act of desperation.”

Traditional Family Under Attack

On September 30, Kline appeared on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor to discuss the case. Attorney General Kline told Bill O’Reilly, “It is an absolutely remarkable assault on the authority of the family… When your [13-year-old] daughter walks out the door and says, ‘I’m going to meet my 40-year-old boyfriend,’ and you try to guide her, parent her, and say, ‘No that’s not going to happen,’ and she holds up an ACLU card and says, ‘Call my attorney,’ then we are living in a different type of America.”

Apparently, this is the vision of the ACLU.

“I am just stunned that the ACLU is saying that a child of 13 or 14 has a constitutional right to make a decision to have sex with an adult,” responded O’Reilly, who was previously unaware of the ACLU’s motives. “If this continues, we’re not going to be living in America anymore. We’re going to be living in some country with no boundaries.”

Take Action!

Demand that your elected representatives take preemptive measures that will prevent any further deterioration of the traditional family.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz You're trying to equate supporting the right to free speech and expression of unpopular organizations with advocacy of said speech and expression. Perhaps this logic works with the average Fox News viewer, but I know in my heart that most reasonable people are objective enough to see through that smokescreen.

You are so quick to stereotype me as just a Fox news watcher...which simply is not the case...i read and watch ALL news agencies - gather all the info - then make my OWN opinion on the matter....this is called forming an opinion...which is something most of you lefty pinko's don;t do.

I AM reasonable...but not when it comes to the welfare of children...that is one area that free speecg, rights, the constitution and everything else has zero effect, atleast in my opinion....people like NAMBRA should be shut down, not heard and be locked away for all eternity...they are sick sick sick individuals that deserve zero rights....You can try to justify them and their free speech or the ACLUs defense for them and people of their nature...but sorry when it comes to children all that shit flys out the window...maybe you have to have your own children to understand where i am coming from.

This is not to say the ACLU is all bad...they have done many good things...but with this, they lost all credibility with ME!

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 ACLU sucks if you ask me...a bunch of liberal fucks who protect the scum of the earth in the name of rights....hate to break it to you but some people do not deserve rights!!

The leader of a certain Justice Department feels the same way!

There are Arab-American citizens who were arrested after 9/11 and held (some are still being held) for long periods with no formal charges filed in the name of "the war on terror." IS THAT AMERICAN? You tell me. Better yet just keep quiet like you said you would, because you have nothing constructive to add (as usual) to my thread, intended to support those who support our scene, other than insults.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 You are so quick to stereotype me as just a Fox news watcher...which simply is not the case...i read and watch ALL news agencies - gather all the info - then make my OWN opinion on the matter....this is called forming an opinion...which is something most of you lefty pinko's don;t do. I AM reasonable...but not when it comes to the welfare of children...that is one area that free speecg, rights, the constitution and everything else has zero effect, atleast in my opinion....people like NAMBRA should be shut down, not heard and be locked away for all eternity...they are sick sick sick individuals that deserve zero rights....You can try to justify them and their free speech or the ACLUs defense for them and people of their nature...but sorry when it comes to children all that shit flys out the window...maybe you have to have your own children to understand where i am coming from. This is not to say the ACLU is all bad...they have done many good things...but with this, they lost all credibility with ME!

Fair enough, although I love how you condemn my stereotyping you, and you in turn do it to me in the same sentence.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Nov-30-2003 at 08:17

quote:

Originally posted by NYGblue If you want to disregard an organization that has done so much to protect your rights over the past 40 years over one issue... Then you are a complete and utter idiot. Don't bother giving some smartass remark either, it won't help you. I am just pointing out the obvious.

Seriously. WTF?

Yeah, let's just watch all of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms fall by the wayside because one of those freedoms safeguards the right for people to be a member of an organization, whether it's unsavory or not.

They're not promoting anything, they're simply doing their jobs by defending American's rights.

Our rights are under attack and the ACLU is our first (and perhaps only) line of defense.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz The leader of a certain Justice Department feels the same way! There are Arab-American citizens who were arrested after 9/11 and held (some are still being held) for long periods with no formal charges filed in the name of "the war on terror." IS THAT AMERICAN? You tell me. Better yet just keep quiet like you said you would, because you have nothing constructive to add (as usual) to my thread, intended to support those who support our scene, other than insults.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Can you say Civil Asset Forfeiture?


http://www.americalivefree.org/rights.html