This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
What about the TONS of crosses and star of david's etc. that line our national cemetaries paid for by our tax dollars... should we knock them down too?
I believe that's their ultimate goal James. They especially hate the crosses at Arlington. I had thought this was settled by Congress making the land Federal, so I believe if they succeed here they will have Arlington in their cross-hairs next.
This is just out of control. The will of the people is continuously disregarded as if being a fucking lawyer trumps the average citizens vote.
It's a slap in the face to those who voted. Who cares how many robed assholes say what. If the people have spoken, then it's settled.
Again we have the will of the few trying to be imposed on the many. I'd love to know when one of those ACLU lawyer types kicks the bucket. I'd find his or her plot and make sure I scatter little crosses and stars of david all over it. Oh yeah, and piss on the headstone.
The ACLU works on one fundamental principal - "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many."
I don't think in any - and I mean ANY - case that a minority should have any voice in overpowering a MAJORITY. I don't mean that in a racial sense, I mean it in the sense that a Jewish group and three individual Jews can't override the 800,000 or so San Diegans who voted to keep this thing.
What's the demographic of these losers? I'd bet money they're old(er) with values as out of sync with reality as the concept of the "nuclear family". Why is it religion always seems to f**k up the peace? Here's a tip: THEY'RE JUST SYMBOLS!!! Didn't we all learn that from the DaVinci Code? Symbols can have a lot of different meanings. Why look at that cross, which everyone seems like like, and draw even more attention to it. Just let it go.
The AlQaeda Civil Liberties Union is a disgrace to America.
Well, E, we agree.
There are 4 people who will not let it go.
The ACLU is on the wrong track. Even though they may have been an organization with a worthy mission in the beginning, they are now attacking Christianity all the time. I am highly disappointed in our judges for siding with the ACLU in their attack on our Christian history.
"Even though they may have been an organization with a worthy mission in the beginning"
I'm not sure that they did. As far as I can tell, the ACLU was founded to attack America using it's own laws in an attempt to steer the direction of the nation to communism/socialism. They'll take cases from time to time that make them appear to be objective in their beliefs but it's just a front.
Take for example the ACLU war on Christianity. Who in their right mind thinks that the tiny cross on the Los Angeles county seal was a violation of the 1st amendment?
This was kept alive for 17 years by one guy. The fact the ACLU lost that round and has hand picked four new plaintiffs to retry this in court is no accident. Make no mistake - these so-called Jews are in name only. There are many non-practicing people of Jewish heritage that are nothing more than secular leftists. Rabidly leftst. I believe, in fact, most of the ACLU lawyers ARE this particular brand of Socialist Jew.
Darwin - did you know the ACLU has an entire department whose only job is to go town to town, city to city, state to state checking every single seal and country sticker to see if there is a cross on it? Is that insane or what?
I really wish there was some way to outlaw these facists - and yes I believe they're facists - who are trying to impose THEIR will on the rest of the country. That is, after all, what facists do.
Here's what I think of the ACLU..
http://thumbsnap.com/v/plIrBWNe.jpg
The aclu (yes, no caps on purpose) was founded by a socialist with the express intent to disrupt the American Government:
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." Robert Baldwin, Founder, american civil liberties union
In other words, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Yeah - that works real well in the USSR, doesn't it?
I wrote on this issue a while ago. The left wants to just screw the general public for their own ideals. But then that's why they're the party of big government.
People just need to smarten up on how they approch an ACLU argument- the darwin "democracy" will of the people and they have spoken - just doesn't cut it. So what if it is the will of the people to discriminate against eskimos etc. Such discrimination would fly in the face of the core constitutional values and the will of the people would be over-ridden by the constitution.
The trick for a canny lawyer, and one who will do this for free, (and good luck finding one who will work for free) is to attack the ACLU's case on constitutional principles or get it thrown out on a technicality.
Simple as that.
E: Why is it religion always seems to f**k up the peace?
Religion did NOT fuck up the peace. The ACLU did.
THEY'RE JUST SYMBOLS!!! Didn't we all learn that from the DaVinci Code?
Anyone who takes deep philosophical lessons from an overhyped, underachieving piece of Hollywood crap isn't smart enough to talk to.
What's next? We're gonna learn what love REALLY is from the new Paris Hilton song?
Dear Fatass, I am still waiting for you to explain to me who "c*nt-Hole bassist Melissa barf-der-Whore" is.
And BTW muppet, I am about as Canadian as you are. Beleive it or not, I am American and was honorably discharged after 8 years- which- I'm only guessing of course, is 8 years more than you.
Have a nice sabbath day.
although I do understand that the Army is lowering standards to support the war at the moment- so good luck with that.
krazy kris: "the darwin "democracy" will of the people and they have spoken - just doesn't cut it."
What? Using absurd counter points like "what if they wanted to discriminate against Eskimos" won't cut it either.
If the power of the people is negated and handed over to another body, it is no longer a democracy. It becomes a totalitarian entity that enforces the will of whoever is in power (i.e. secular socialists).
The only way to deal with the ACLU is to actually use the words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they were meant to be used and interpreted. These documents weren't written in some code only to be interpreted by some ethereal body of robed gray-haired lawyers. They were written in simple language to be easily understood by the every day man.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
A State and it's people have every right to determine situations like this. It never should have gone past the county level. Only the inappropriate intervention by activist judges has allowed this farce to proceed any further than it should have.
Activist judges are our biggist hurdle these days. We need some sort of amendment (I truly don't know how this was constitutionally set up in the first place or if it was just tradition) that limits terms of judges to say 8-12 years. It's these lifetime appointees that have really screwed things up - and that goes for the supremes as well!
Fortunately the crosses and star of davids on our Government properties are protected by Federal National Monument laws. Unfortunately the ACLU continues it's fight against religious Liberties.
Oh yeah, there are protecting our Freedom FROM religion.
Well - Daniel, the Mt Soledad land is now protected under that same federal monument law. Yet the aclu has gone after it yet again. If they can break this, then they have set precedent to go after all the other monuments and national cemetaries.
So, I was thinking I'd go up to the cross after work and hold up a big sign saying "athiests for the cross".
Wonder how that would go over?
People would think you're a saint.
Fine. I'll do it. No triple dog dare either.
Oh Hey, Miss Jenn, call a TV station first. The fact that around 80% percent of the population voted that way you wouldn't be alone. Probably have some Jews in there too!
I totally bet the offended jews in question somehow work for the aclu. This would not be the first time they blurred the lines between activism and litigation, using actual employees to be the "victim" of their lawsuits.
Believe me, I will. Maybe you'll all "meet" me that way. I'm such a puss, but I just told my husband, that i'd do, it. So I guees I've got to.
Scary, but, I'll call all of them, before I do it.
Dear Darwin, much as I enjoy your lectures on law, I think you must have been absent the day they told us about the constitution.
If you don't want to get smart and decide rather to bleat on about "the will of the people" you will continue to get flummoxed by muppets like the aclu.
Law ain't about what's 'morally right' or about the will of the people, it's about crafting your case properly. All of you wailing and gnashing of teeth ain't going to change the constitution.
BTW, I think you'll find that the current Supreme Court bench is the most conservative in most people's lifetimes. If you can't win your constitutional law case in front of those guys, you need to get a new lawyer.
What really makes me weep is that some so-called conservatives are apparently oblivious to the constitutional principles that underpin this great nation.
BTW, the eskimo analogy is just that- an analogy. Please look the word up before kicking off your next rant.
have a nice day.
Kris
From Fatass the Conquerer:
Anyone who takes deep philosophical lessons from an overhyped, underachieving piece of Hollywood crap isn't smart enough to talk to.
The fact that you're too dense to realize that this "overhyped" movie had the Vatican and most of the Catholic community worldwide up in arms proves is has absolute bearing as a "philosophical lesson". There is so much real theory and history in or tied to that movie you would have to be brain dead not to know it or "get" it.
Think before you type moron. Nothing would please me more than to have you be some MENSA idiot with an IQ of 180 so I can belittle you a little more at your brash display of stupidity. If you can't make the connection between symbology, religion, sociology, psychology, and economics then you're unqualified to comment. I could rationalize this debate after 10 shots of Macallan 18.
Come back and talk when you've had more time to read up and study, little boy. Run along now and let the adults chat.
Sorry Darwin, I should clarify. The word you need to look up is 'analogy' and not 'eskimo'....
OMFG...
"The fact that you're too dense to realize that this "overhyped" movie had the Vatican and most of the Catholic community worldwide up in arms proves is has absolute bearing as a "philosophical lesson". There is so much real theory and history in or tied to that movie you would have to be brain dead not to know it or "get" it".
Dear oh dear. You ain't talking about that Davinci Code I hope.
Against advice, I went to see this 'epic'. Risible nonsense!
Ooh! Let's go to Temple Church!
For fuck's sakes.
Dear 'Enlightened' or perhaps just 'Lit',
Even Opie Cunningham said the DaVinci Code is FICTION....
krazy kris: "Law ain't about what's 'morally right' or about the will of the people, it's about crafting your case properly. All of you wailing and gnashing of teeth ain't going to change the constitution."
You miss the boat entirely. The whole structure of our government is based on the "will of the people". Anything can be changed in the Constitution through legislative amendments based on the "desires" and "will" of the people. It's doubtful anything major will ever be changed, but the capacity is there. The legislature is an extension of the people, and therefore when they change policy or law it's usually with the tacit approval of the people they represent. Sometimes the legislature is petitioned by the people for new laws or changes to exisiting. Regardless of how high you seem to hold lawyers or the law itself, nothing trumps the right of the people to decide their fate. That is the emtire premise of freedom as as founding fathers saw it.
krazy kris: "BTW, the eskimo analogy is just that- an analogy. Please look the word up before kicking off your next rant."
Yeah, no shit Brainiac, and a very poor one at that. That's why I called it absurd. If you want to be taken seriously, stop pulling strange sayings out of your ass.
The supremes of today are NOT the most conservative court we've had in years. It's still polluted with five - count em - five left wing nuts who consistantly grab power they are not entitled to and continue to socially engineer America whether we want it or not (i.e. eminant domain, military tribunals, giving citizen rights to foreigners, etc.). There's about two of those five who are about 105 and I really wish they would retire so we can get two more people in there who have at leasst read the constitution and don't depend on international laws for their judicial inspiration.
As for crafting a legal case - some of the crappiest decisions have, again, been made by activist judges and not on constitutional grounds or legal precedent (i.e. that hag in MI who struck down an intelligence tool to protect our country - even her opinion can't stand up to legal scrutiny) and groups like the aclu and cair literally go judge shopping (i.e. again the hag in MI) in order to get the rulings they want to promote their own, and not the peoples, will.
There was a time when these tripe cases wouldn't even get as far as before a judge because they would have been thrown out "without merit" because they had no legal or constitutional leg to stand on. This is why we need to get these judical hacks out of the courtroom. Cases such as Michael Neudow's "Pledge" case should never have made it as far as the supremes. Yet over and over, at the expense of the American taxpayer and against our will, these cases go on and on, year after year, in one court after another to eventually end up in the lap of the supreme court and I'm fairly sick of it.
Kris
Yes, the DaVinci Code is fiction. However, substantial portions are based on fact. More importantly, anyone who has done any reading about how the bible was written, what was written, and who wrote it knows that so much information was left out of the Bible as to make it a 1500 year old dime novel.
So, I was thinking I'd go up to the cross after work and hold up a big sign saying "athiests for the cross".
Wonder how that would go over?
That would be awesome! 
If I can feel my ass cheeks this weekend, I'll do it.
Well done darwin!!!
You finally get it! Hurrah!
If you don't like the current contents of the constitution- get your majority to change it- and good luck with that...
I know this concept doesn't register in darwin world, but maybe, just maybe, it's about protecting the little guy when the majority is quite happy to discriminate against him.
That is why many people consider the constitution to be divinely inspired- we didn't have to go through our own holocaust (like the germans) to work out that some things are just wrong- no matter what the will of the people at any give time.
It strike me that you might be interested in furthering your education in this regard. may I suggest that you contact you local high school to arranged a remedial social-studies class.
With kindest regards
Kris, LL.B., LL.M.
krazy kris: “I know this concept doesn't register in darwin world, but maybe, just maybe, it's about protecting the little guy when the majority is quite happy to discriminate against him.”
I'm not quite sure where this "liberal" concept of the Constitution, “to protect the minority” came from, but it's false, and krazy kris as always, is confused.
As I've said with James, these documents were written by reasonable men, which may be why you have such a hard time grasping the simplest concept. You’re simply refusing to accept that common sense and rationality must be interjected when interpreting them.
The Bill of Rights is designed to protect All and guarantees the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness within REASON. If a town had a small minority of “white” Baptists in an otherwise majority of Eskimos, who passed an ordinance that prevented the construction of a church and accompanying school, that would be unreasonable. That ordinance would fail when challenged in court because the town failed to allow the Baptists their right to freedom of religion.
The Mt. Soledad Cross debacle is not an example of the Bill of Rights protecting the little guy, it's an example of the little guy getting lawyers in an attempt to circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No one in the minority has been denied any right. The citizens of San Diego have expressed their desire to keep the cross. No one is harmed and no laws have been broken.
As I've said many times before, if someone finds something offensive, which otherwise is approved or enjoyed by the majority within REASON, it's incumbent on that person(s) to move, not move the majority for the sake of that person. This is where a court would normally decide. You know as well as I that our courts have had trouble lately interpreting anything with reason or rationality and have for the most part decided to forego referencing the Bill of Rights or Constitution in their decisions.
I'm sure I'm not articulating my position well enough or else you would have gotten the message by now. You can’t impose the will of the minority over the majority unless it has been clearly shown that the will of the majority is illegal. Being offended has nothing to do with it.
I'm just wondering if someone could find me that elusive spot in the Constitution that guarantees the right to NOT be offended?
JL: "I'm just wondering if someone could find me that elusive spot in the Constitution that guarantees the right to NOT be offended?"
krazy kris seems to know where it is, maybe she'll point it out to us.
krazy kris seems to know where it is, maybe she'll point it out to us.
I sure hope so. Because if she can, then by virtue of the fact that I find the ACLU offensive, they would be TOAST! 
Dipshit darwin,
Where oh where did you find the words "right not to be offended" in anything I've written? If it were about "offensiveness" "boorishness" or even "stupidness" you would have been thrown outta the pool some time ago.
For starters, just because you've said something "many times before" you muppet- don't make it true.
Secondly, please show me the bit in the constitution- or even some subsequent case law- that says,
"if someone finds something offensive, which otherwise is approved or enjoyed by the majority within REASON, it's incumbent on that person(s) to move, not move the majority for the sake of that person"
If you can do that Darwin my boy, I'll fly to the USA and grant you the sexual favor of your choice- but only on the basis that if you lose- you will shut the fuck up about shit you obviously know nothing about. Deal?
Seriously mately, did they happen to skip over the civil rights movement, you know, the Rosa Parks 60's back of the bus thing at your high school?
If you don't get that- then on what basis do you suppose Geroge Bush and Tony Blair decided to go into Iraq? You see, I thought it was for freedom.
Dear darwin
Can I just say that it is about 5pm here- making that- I'm guessing- about 11 am central dipshit time.
I've been working from home- I'm self-employed you see- and this enables me to drop by from time to time for a break- and in your case- a laugh.
You ain't doing this from work are you? Please tell me you ain't a government employee soaking up my tax dollars and spewing shit across the universe on my dime!?
Jenn's best point is the "in God we Trust".
I can't do everything for ya'll.
You'll just have to find a COMPETENT lawyer (they are few and far between) with the determination of Roy Keane (don't know who he is- I suggest you find out! and fight the battle in court re the Mt Soledad Cross on a legal rather than emotional basis.
simple as that.
krazy kris obviously had her "button" pushed:
"Dipshit darwin"
"you muppet"
"shut the fuck up"
"If you can do that Darwin my boy, I'll fly to the USA and grant you the sexual favor of your choice- but only on the basis that if you lose- you will shut the fuck up about shit you obviously know nothing about. Deal?"
No deal. That would assume that I would find you attractive or that you'd shut the fuck up long enough to get anything accomplished. Plus, I don't like whorish women who think the only thing they have to offer is what's between their legs. God only knows what your sexual history is or how much uterine and psychological scarring you have.
The rest of your post is jibberish. Many things written in the Bill of Rights have an implied understanding that common sense and reason is to be used when applying them. You seem to be the kind of nitwit that requires everything spelled out. If not, you can't formulate the spirit or intent of the document in that perverse mind of yours.
You're the one that's needs to read up on the men that wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights and the thoughts and ideas behind those words. Simply spewing "freedom" means nothing if you can't articulate what they meant by freedom.
If you wish to see actual words in print, look it up yourself.
Dear oh Dear Darwin,
I knew it all along: You can dish it out but you just can't take it.
Given that your "will of the people" refrain and your supposed constitutional expertise is at the heart of every rant you make- you'd think you'd take the trouble to find a bit of foundation for your views.
If nobody's told you, allow me to be the first: you're just a lazy boorish fucker.
NEXT!
With kindest regards
"Krazy Kris"
BTW, I didn't rush out to by my flight. You see, I had done my homework....
Have a nice day; and seriously- try to calm down.
krazy kris: "I knew it all along: You can dish it out but you just can't take it."
Huh? No, you're ticked because I turned down your offer of a "sexual favor". I have nothing against you personally, I don't even know you. You're just irrational that's all. Maybe you should drink more. Or maybe some presription relaxants might help.
"Given that your "will of the people" refrain and your supposed constitutional expertise is at the heart of every rant you make- you'd think you'd take the trouble to find a bit of foundation for your views."
The Constitution of the United States of America:
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Is that clear enough for you?
krazy kris: "If nobody's told you, allow me to be the first: you're just a lazy boorish fucker."
Congrats!! You are the first. I've been called a "fucker" many times. Sometimes the connotation was positive, as in "you're a damn good fucker". Sometimes not, as in "You damn fucker".
I've never been called "boorish" or "lazy" though. I'll be sure to chalk that up to a lack of anything better to say on your part.
With kindest regards
The Lazy Boorish Fucker
Dear kris: Truce? I don't mind sparring but I dislike degenerating the conversation when for the most part we agree on much more than we disagree.
Yes, make nice please. You both have good things to add.
The fucker thing reminds me of American Ppie, when Stifflers kid brother is bouncing up and down on the bed saying, "Fucker, fucker, fuckers!!!!"
Commenting by HaloScan
