The ACLU is currently trying to protect the following peoples’ privacy:
Rush Limbaugh
Tom Delay
Dennis Hastert
Yup…the ACLU is a bunch of liberal shitbirds.
The aclu passionately defends:
-nambla(nationonal man boy love association). Which listed on it’s web site how to recruit and get away with molesting young boys. Gotta protect free speech ya know.
-Terrorists worldwide. Including but certainly not limited to the taliban and al-qaeda.
-Anti christian groups. They are dedicated to the complete removal of any referance to christianity from within America. Suing an elementary school to stop them from singing "O Holy Night at a cristmas show? What happened to free speech?
-Anti american communist groups. The ACLU was founded by an avowed communist and America hater. Free speech is good here because they hate America.
And countless other shitbirds. Just because they managed to defend a few of the good guys does not change their crazy agenda
The aclu best represents the death of common sense in America. Yes they are generally a bunch of left wing shitbirds.
I’m glad we agree marmadogg!
I already listed NAMBLA’s top 3 members…didn’t you read my post?
Is it just me or does ‘bigflamer’ come off as an angry right wingnut?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
I already listed NAMBLA’s top 3 members…didn’t you read my post?[/quote]
Wow…youre really funny.
You should write for Leno.
Seriously marmadogg, do you really think that the ACLU is a worthwhile organization? You don’t have to be a “right wing nutjob” to see that they have a crazy left wing agenda.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Is it just me or does ‘bigflamer’ come off as an angry right wingnut?[/quote]
It’s not just you.
[quote]Watson2K5 wrote:
Well Buchanan and Lothario’s points are both good but the real question I ask is this… What was the point of letting her die? What did anyone gain from it? If someone wants to take care of their vegatative child why can’t we just let them hold onto that?
If you don’t think she’s suffering then there’s no point in letting her die, after all she feels nothing… and it keeps her family happy.
If you think she IS suffering then that must mean that she’s conscious and there’s hope for her to snap out of it…
I don’t think this is really the judges faults, for the most part they upheld custody laws…[/quote]
The whole point was that it wasn’t about her parents, it was about her. The courts concluded that she didn’t want to live like that (and I’ve never heard of anyone that would want to be kept alive).
[quote]veruvius wrote:
Watson2K5 wrote:
Well Buchanan and Lothario’s points are both good but the real question I ask is this… What was the point of letting her die? What did anyone gain from it? If someone wants to take care of their vegatative child why can’t we just let them hold onto that?
If you don’t think she’s suffering then there’s no point in letting her die, after all she feels nothing… and it keeps her family happy.
If you think she IS suffering then that must mean that she’s conscious and there’s hope for her to snap out of it…
I don’t think this is really the judges faults, for the most part they upheld custody laws…
The whole point was that it wasn’t about her parents, it was about her. The courts concluded that she didn’t want to live like that (and I’ve never heard of anyone that would want to be kept alive). [/quote]
I thought the court concluded that her husband was the legal guardian and affirmed his decision to let her die.
Does anyone know for sure what the court actually decided?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
I already listed NAMBLA’s top 3 members…didn’t you read my post?
Wow…youre really funny.
You should write for Leno.
Seriously marmadogg, do you really think that the ACLU is a worthwhile organization? You don’t have to be a “right wing nutjob” to see that they have a crazy left wing agenda.[/quote]
I’ll take your lack of a response as an inabillity to adequately defend that “liberal shitbird” orginazation
bzzzzzzzzzt!
Thanks for playing.