Just thought of great punishment for OBL or other apprehended terrorists

[Viking22]

How's this for creative punishment. Take large building in NY. Make plexiglass display case. Put display case in lobby of building. Put OBL in display case. Re-route the sewage pipes that take all the sh!t and piss from all the toilets in the building and affix to top of plexiglass display case. Make bottom of display case a grate so defacation doesn't build up. Let the citizens of NY essentially sh!t and piss on OBL around the clock.

[Viking850]

I don't know about that my Viking brother. You see the nice people over at the ACLU may object to that kind of harsh and cruel punishment. After all, since they are in the US, they have to be entitled to all of the protections available to US citizens.

I'm sure the great folks of the ACLU would also represent said terrorist pro bono(free). At the same time, they will fight to imprison whoever captured the terrorist for "racial profiling" or a "hate crime".

[Viking22]

Originally posted by Viking850
I don't know about that my Viking brother. You see the nice people over at the ACLU may object to that kind of harsh and cruel punishment. After all, since they are in the US, they have to be entitled to all of the protections available to US citizens.

I think the ACLU should be in there with him.....

[Viking850]

Originally posted by Viking22
I think the ACLU should be in there with him.....

It's nice to hear someone with some common sense and logic. Great screen name by the way!

[Rippllez]

Yeah, the ACLU sucks....defending the Bill Of Rights and all.

What losers they are.



Then again, I should prolly stay out of this conservative Scandanavian mutual strokefest of a thread.

[Jimineye]

Originally posted by Viking22
I think the ACLU should be in there with him.....

Amen

[Viking22]

Originally posted by Rippllez
Yeah, the ACLU sucks....defending the Bill Of Rights and all.

What losers they are.



Then again, I should prolly stay out of this conservative Scandanavian mutual strokefest of a thread.

You're next for the display case....

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by Viking22
You're next for the display case....

Oh nos!!!!1!

I think you are bitter from having gotten too many swirlies from the bullies in middle school.

[Viking22]

Originally posted by Rippllez
Oh nos!!!!1!

I think you are bitter from having gotten too many swirlies from the bullies in middle school.

WTF is Middle School?

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by Viking22
WTF is Middle School?

Ages 11-14 or so.

[Viking850]

Originally posted by Rippllez
Yeah, the ACLU sucks....defending the Bill Of Rights and all.

What losers they are.



Then again, I should prolly stay out of this conservative Scandanavian mutual strokefest of a thread.

Yeah, they're defending the Bill of Rights all right, but it's only for the rabid terrorist throat slashers. The ACLU is making sure the TERRORIST rights are not violated, not your rights. Don't you realized how the P.C. brainwashing has left many with no sense of logic!

Another question. Why is it that the ACLU never represents anyone that is an upright, moral person. Why is it they are always providing counsel and defending the rights of would be terrorists, drug addicts, degenerates, illegal aliens, convicted felon prisoners, nazis, child molesters, pornographers, and other various lazy bums who want free handouts?

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by Viking850
Yeah, they're defending the Bill of Rights all right, but it's only for the rabid terrorist throat slashers. The ACLU is making sure the TERRORIST rights are not violated, not your rights. Don't you realized how the P.C. brainwashing has left many with no sense of logic!

Another question. Why is it that the ACLU never represents anyone that is an upright, moral person. Why is it they are always providing counsel and defending the rights of would be terrorists, drug addicts, degenerates, illegal aliens, convicted felon prisoners, nazis, child molesters, pornographers, and other various lazy bums who want free handouts?

Well, the short answer is that we wouldn't need the ACLU (or the Bill of Rights for that matter) if every freedom that needed defending was the popular opinion.

Do I agree with or even like some of the issues that the ACLU fights for? Of course not. Do I think pornography depicting feces eating bondage is wholesome and worthwhile? No way. I do support the right of the sall minority of people who fancy that stuff to view it though.


The ACLU provides counsel and supports many issues that are "upright and moral", even right wing if you wish to call it that.

They support the right to bear arms under the second ammendment.

They support people's right to freely exercise their religion.

They support Bill O'Rielly's right to be "fair and balanced"

[luciferchrist]

Originally posted by Viking850

Another question. Why is it that the ACLU never represents anyone that is an upright, moral person. Why is it they are always providing counsel and defending the rights of would be terrorists, drug addicts, degenerates, illegal aliens, convicted felon prisoners, nazis, child molesters, pornographers, and other various lazy bums who want free handouts?

because they are looters, and they would like to continue breeding the midframe that we should be entitled to other peoples properties, and that there is no such thing as consequences to actions?

[BuckWyld]

This thread reminds me that I need to send more money to the ACLU.


oh and the ACLU generally does not get involved with second ammendment rights because it was formed after the NRA so they let the NRA worry about that while they focus on other things.

Originally posted by Rippllez

They support the right to bear arms under the second ammendment.

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by BuckWyld
This thread reminds me that I need to send more money to the ACLU.


oh and the ACLU generally does not get involved with second ammendment rights because it was formed after the NRA so they let the NRA worry about that while they focus on other things.

Correct, they do not spend many reasources on gun rights, but they do support (agree) with those rights.

They don't spend a great deal of resources on enforcing people's rights to practice their religion either, at least not mainstream religion. Of course, that's because rarely is that right infringed upon.

[BuckWyld]

actually there was a recent case where they supported a student having a biblical quote in his (her?) yearbook here is a link
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7235-.html
(first link i found)

[Viking850]

Originally posted by Rippllez
Well, the short answer is that we wouldn't need the ACLU (or the Bill of Rights for that matter) if every freedom that needed defending was the popular opinion.

Do I agree with or even like some of the issues that the ACLU fights for? Of course not. Do I think pornography depicting feces eating bondage is wholesome and worthwhile? No way. I do support the right of the sall minority of people who fancy that stuff to view it though.


The ACLU provides counsel and supports many issues that are "upright and moral", even right wing if you wish to call it that.

They support the right to bear arms under the second ammendment.

They support people's right to freely exercise their religion.

They support Bill O'Rielly's right to be "fair and balanced"

I don't know if you know this but the ACLU was established in the 1950's to provide legal counsel to Communist Party Memebers that had been arrested for various charges. They are obviously not an elected body to "protect the constitution and freedoms." Why is it that they feel they have to force THEIR beliefs down the throats of Americans, the vast majority of whom OPPOSE their postition on most issues they represent?

This is not a "right wing vs left wing issue IMHO.

[BuckWyld]

Originally posted by Viking850
I don't know if you know this but the ACLU was established in the 1950's to provide legal counsel to Communist Party Memebers that had been arrested for various charges. They are obviously not an elected body to "protect the constitution and freedoms." Why is it that they feel they have to force THEIR beliefs down the throats of Americans, the vast majority of whom OPPOSE their postition on most issues they represent?

This is not a "right wing vs left wing issue IMHO.

Are you saying that protecting Communists from Mcarthy was a bad thing? In this country we have the right to political freedom which includes the communist party and what McCarthy was doing was very wrong, and thoes people should have been protected. And what part of the ACLU do people dissagree with? I can't see anyproblems with protecting people's civil liberties.

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by Viking850
I don't know if you know this but the ACLU was established in the 1950's to provide legal counsel to Communist Party Memebers that had been arrested for various charges. They are obviously not an elected body to "protect the constitution and freedoms." Why is it that they feel they have to force THEIR beliefs down the throats of Americans, the vast majority of whom OPPOSE their postition on most issues they represent?

This is not a "right wing vs left wing issue IMHO.

First of all, you're full of it saying the ACLU was started during the fifties. It's been around since the 1920s.

Did they help people who were rounded up by the government during the Red Scare and McCarthyism era? They sure did. The thousands falsley accused were damn glad, too.



Lemme go over this again...

Of course most Americans disagree with most of the activities of the people they represent. If everyone enjoyed and agreed with these positions, the rights would not be violated in the first place and there would be no need for the ACLU to defend them.

They aren't shoving "THEIR beliefs" down anyone's throats. They do the opposite...preventing the beiliefs of the majority from abridging the rights of the minority.

[Viking850]

Originally posted by Rippllez

Of course most Americans disagree with most of the activities of the people they represent. If everyone enjoyed and agreed with these positions, the rights would not be violated in the first place and there would be no need for the ACLU to defend them.

They aren't shoving "THEIR beliefs" down anyone's throats. They do the opposite...preventing the beiliefs of the majority from abridging the rights of the minority.

So in essence your position is violate the rights and beliefs of the MAJORITY, to allow a MINORITY the right to engage in activities that are harmful to all?

And the guiding authority is the unelected staff of the ACLU?

[BuckWyld]

Originally posted by Viking850
So in essence your position is violate the rights and beliefs of the MAJORITY, to allow a MINORITY the right to engage in activities that are harmful to all?

what activities are you talking about? belonging to the political party of their choice? not having christianity rammed down their throats? allowing people marry who ever they please? Giving people ACCUSED of crimes good representation?

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by Viking850
So in essence your position is violate the rights and beliefs of the MAJORITY, to allow a MINORITY the right to engage in activities that are harmful to all?

And the guiding authority is the unelected staff of the ACLU?

What activities "harmful to all" are you talking about?


Supporting someone's rights to be given a fair trial for a crime does not mean they support the crime itself.

[Viking850]

Well, I'll just give a list of a few cases the ACLU has championed for the sake of "protecting the Constitution." You tell me what you think:
1) Days after 9-11, they print up cards and hand them out in the Muslim Communities advocating people to NOT cooperate or provide info. to the FBI or Law Enforcement who are trying to apprehend terrorists.

2) Supporting "Virtual Child Porograhers" on the internet.

3) Threatening to sue La County for a small cross on the county logo that has been there for over 45 years.

4) Representing the families of Mexican Nationals who died while trying to enter this country in the Arizona Desert in a law suit that claimed that the state was negligent since they did not provide water facilities with light beacons for the thirsty lost people entering the US illegally.

Sure, once in a while they will represent a decent person. But that is so rare, it is insignificant in comparison to the damage they have caused in this nation.

Again, who elected this bunch? I know I did not.

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by Viking850
Well, I'll just give a list of a few cases the ACLU has championed for the sake of "protecting the Constitution." You tell me what you think:
1) Days after 9-11, they print up cards and hand them out in the Muslim Communities advocating people to NOT cooperate or provide info. to the FBI or Law Enforcement who are trying to apprehend terrorists.

2) Supporting "Virtual Child Porograhers" on the internet.

3) Threatening to sue La County for a small cross on the county logo that has been there for over 45 years.

4) Representing the families of Mexican Nationals who died while trying to enter this country in the Arizona Desert in a law suit that claimed that the state was negligent since they did not provide water facilities with light beacons for the thirsty lost people entering the US illegally.

Sure, once in a while they will represent a decent person. But that is so rare, it is insignificant in comparison to the damage they have caused in this nation.

Again, who elected this bunch? I know I did not.

It's not rare at all that they help "decent" people.

You're just never getting the full scope of cases they handle.

All the media focuses on is **** like Maplethorpe's cross floating in urine art and things that stir up controversy.

Elected? No one. They aren't making laws....just trying to support those laws already in place....namely those 10 little ones called the Bill of Rights.

[Viking850]

How anyone can excuse these MAJOR cases and still support the ACLU is unexplainable.

1) Days after 9-11, they print up cards and hand them out in the Muslim Communities advocating people to NOT cooperate or provide info. to the FBI or Law Enforcement who are trying to apprehend terrorists.

Do you understand that these thugs are going to kill again? I guess 4,000 dead is not enough of a wake up call that this is serious and that the terrorist are trying to kill us. Does anyone in the Muslim Community have the DUTY to provide ANY information that could prevent more SLAUGHTER? Or are the RIGHTS of these individuals more important then the life of an American?

2) Supporting "Virtual Child Porograhers" on the internet. I don't know how ANYONE other then a complete degenerate could support this. This is not freedom of speech, it's illegal!

3) Threatening to sue La County for a small cross on the county logo that has been there for over 45 years. I guess that what was good for over 45 years is now a major issue for the ACLU. The cross by the way represents the series of Catholic Missions that the Spanish built along the coast. It is California's history for pete's sake. No one seems to mind this and no one said anything about it until the ACLU makes threats? I don't get it!

4) Representing the families of Mexican Nationals who died while trying to enter this country in the Arizona Desert in a law suit that claimed that the state was negligent since they did not provide water facilities with light beacons for the thirsty lost people entering the US illegally.

Why should Arizona residents pay Mexican nationals for the death of their relatives who died trying to entering this nation illegally? Sure, the ACLU shopped around for a friendly like minded judge and filed the case. Don't think for a minute they did not get the standard 40% of the judgement!

If the ACLU had actually HONORABLE cases they were handling, you know for a fact they would be advertising it like crazy to get more members. Don't think for a minute that this is true.

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by Viking850
How anyone can excuse these MAJOR cases and still support the ACLU is unexplainable.

1) Days after 9-11, they print up cards and hand them out in the Muslim Communities advocating people to NOT cooperate or provide info. to the FBI or Law Enforcement who are trying to apprehend terrorists.

Do you understand that these thugs are going to kill again? I guess 4,000 dead is not enough of a wake up call that this is serious and that the terrorist are trying to kill us. Does anyone in the Muslim Community have the DUTY to provide ANY information that could prevent more SLAUGHTER? Or are the RIGHTS of these individuals more important then the life of an American?

2) Supporting "Virtual Child Porograhers" on the internet. I don't know how ANYONE other then a complete degenerate could support this. This is not freedom of speech, it's illegal!

3) Threatening to sue La County for a small cross on the county logo that has been there for over 45 years. I guess that what was good for over 45 years is now a major issue for the ACLU. The cross by the way represents the series of Catholic Missions that the Spanish built along the coast. It is California's history for pete's sake. No one seems to mind this and no one said anything about it until the ACLU makes threats? I don't get it!

4) Representing the families of Mexican Nationals who died while trying to enter this country in the Arizona Desert in a law suit that claimed that the state was negligent since they did not provide water facilities with light beacons for the thirsty lost people entering the US illegally.

Why should Arizona residents pay Mexican nationals for the death of their relatives who died trying to entering this nation illegally? Sure, the ACLU shopped around for a friendly like minded judge and filed the case. Don't think for a minute they did not get the standard 40% of the judgement!

If the ACLU had actually HONORABLE cases they were handling, you know for a fact they would be advertising it like crazy to get more members. Don't think for a minute that this is true.

Give me some legit resources on #1.

Did the ACLU actually canvass the area with the cards or were they defending people who exercised their free speech in canvassing the cards?

Big difference.

#2

What do you mean by "virtual child pornagrapher" I figured you meant a girl of legal age meant to look less than 18....perfectly legal, though not my taste.

#3

Go read the first ammendment

#4

I'd have to read the case to form any opinion...of course from your one sided ranting the ACLU looks like satan incarnate

[BuckWyld]

Originally posted by Rippllez

#2

What do you mean by "virtual child pornagrapher" I figured you meant a girl of legal age meant to look less than 18....perfectly legal, though not my taste.

I think what he meant was a little while ago there was a debate about computer generated child pornography, which imo is a grey area.

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by BuckWyld
I think what he meant was a little while ago there was a debate about computer generated child pornography, which imo is a grey area.

Like animated?

Why the hell would that be illegal?

Pretty fuggin sick, IMO, but then again, the AACLU defends some sick **** in the context of the larger issues.

[BuckWyld]

Originally posted by Rippllez
Like animated?

Why the hell would that be illegal?

Pretty fuggin sick, IMO, but then again, the AACLU defends some sick **** in the context of the larger issues.

basically iirc the argument for making cg child porn illegal was that it could be a gateway toward real child molestation. the argument against was that since no real children were being hurt in the production of cg child porno there was no reason for it to be illegal. I think in the end it was made illegal. Whether or not the ACLU was on the right side of this debate, I think that it is good for our society to have people willing to take up the unpopular side of issues that way we can be sure that we are making the right decisions one way or another.

[Rippllez]

Originally posted by BuckWyld
basically iirc the argument for making cg child porn illegal was that it could be a gateway toward real child molestation. the argument against was that since no real children were being hurt in the production of cg child porno there was no reason for it to be illegal. I think in the end it was made illegal. Whether or not the ACLU was on the right side of this debate, I think that it is good for our society to have people willing to take up the unpopular side of issues that way we can be sure that we are making the right decisions one way or another.

Agreed.

It doesn't matter if the ACLU is on the "right" side of the debate. "Right" is defined by the moral compass of the majority.