President Bush has referred to the Minutemen as "vigilantes." And some> Border Patrol officials have suggested members of the group are> interfering with the government's work.>

The ACLU has claimed the group is creating a "powder-keg situation" on> the border that could lead to violence.

third world at thirdworld@cwazy.co­.uk wrote on 4/19/05 2:15 AM:>

Vigilante justice lives on at every truck stop in America.>

Bush, the Border Patrol and the ACLU on the same team.>

Can Armageddon be far behind?

Don't forget that they're all closet commies. You can't bash the> ACLU without calling them commies.

The ACLU is dedicated to protecting NAMBLA Pederasts,

Wow. That's a keeper. Does the spraying froth hurt> your keyboard?

rich> -- > -to reply, it's hot not warm> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+­-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+­-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+­> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.­net/~rhammett> / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;> \ than the pride that divides> / when a colorful rag is unfurled."

What's a pederast, Walter?

-- > It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.> http://www.unclaime­dmysteries.net

"Unclaimed Mysteries" > <theletter_k_andthe­numeral_4_doh@unclai­medmysteries.net>> wrote in message > news:doa9e.10003$go­4.7456@newsread2.new­s.atl.earthlink.net.­..>> Will wrote in part:>>

"The Pretzel" <rold_gold@hotmail.­com> wrote in message> news:8Cb9e.118$CH.1­04@news-wrt-01.socal­.rr.com...> >

Just like you are a NAMBLA member.

"Sir Marksman" <kurt_lochner@hotma­il.com> wrote in message> news:lxd9e.3227$mG3­.691@twister.nyroc.r­r.com...>>

Somebody is stupid, here, but I don't think it's the ACLU.

The ACLU isn't stupid, quite the opposite. They are tragically misguided on> a number of important issues. And a group of misguided smart people are more> dangerous than a group of misguided dumb people.

ACLU aiding illegal entry>into U.S.?>Minuteman spokesman charges group with criminal activity>Posted: April 15, 2005>1:00 a.m. Eastern>

What is it about the Bill of Rights that you find so misguided?

Lamont Cranston, I keep one item from every home I break into, I think> that's fair:

What does the Bill of Rights have to do with the ACLU?

They allegedly are only interested in Amendment I.

rich hammett, I keep one item from every home I break into, I think> that's fair:

No, they are out to make sure that only their POV is heard.

StephenJ wrote:>

What is it about the Bill of Rights that you find so misguided?

John P. Mullen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...

Remember, too, that the US Congress has passed a number of laws in which >the only way one can benefit is to sue in court. Without the ACLU, the >average blueshirt would not have a chance against big business. If the >Congress didn't want the ACLU about, they wouldn't write such laws.

I don't believe your logic on that last point is very sound at all.>

Trent

more>

Nothing. But the ACLU's interpretation of aspects of it is frightening.>

Lamont Cranston, I keep one item from every home I break into, I think> that's fair:>

misguided on>

are more>

What does the Bill of Rights have to do with the ACLU?>

They allegedly are only interested in Amendment I. >

-Tom Enright>

John P. Mullen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff wrote:>>>John P. Mullen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...

So, you feel there should be one law for the wealthy and another for the >working class?

Oh? And that would be ...

more>

Nothing. But the ACLU's interpretation of aspects of it is frightening.>

rich hammett, I want to bet the injured goat:

Like any other group, the ACLU is interested in pushing> their own interpetation of the Bill of Rights. In some> cases they work to weaken people's rights, in others,> strengthen the people's rights.

http://www.aclu.org­/about/aboutmain.cfm­

While not exclusive to Amendment I, it appears to> be their primary interest.

Dig that Holly Hunter ad at the bottom of the page.> What an idot.

-Tom Enright

(1) [Government contractors must] affirm that they> will not discriminate against any employee or applicant> for employment because of race, creed, color, or> national origin. The contractor will take affirmative> action to ensure that applicants are employed, and> that employees are treated during employment, without> regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.

-Executive Order 11246 (1965), President Johnson

John P. Mullen wrote:

And denying people equal treatment under law.

stuff like "if a school board opens its meetings with a prayer, that> violates the 1st amendment".>

John P. Mullen wrote:>

And denying people equal treatment under law.

-Tom Enright>

It does violate the First Amendment. Here are some words from James

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation> between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have

doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in> showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the> less they are mixed together.">

The First Amendment forbids the mixing.

The right to equal protection under the law is one of protections that the

Lamont Cranston wrote:>

No, the ACLU despises Amendment XIV.>

http://www.aclu.org­/RacialEquality/Raci­alEqualitylist.cfm?c­=134>

ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Affirmative Action Policies> in College Admissions (03/31/2003)>

NEW YORK-In a landmark case being argued tomorrow before> the Supreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union> will urge the Justices to uphold the admissions policies> of the University of Michigan, which seeks to promote a> diverse student body by employing affirmative action> programs. >

-Tom Enright>

rich hammett wrote:

So you agree that the ACLU is against equal treatment> under law?

There is nothing inconsistent about the Fourteenth Amendment and

Affirmative action is about trying to rectify the long-term denial of> Fourteen Amendment rights to certain groups of people.

rich hammett wrote:

Can you name one of these advantages?

No, I didn't think so.

I really don't care about my position in the world anyway.> It would be nice, however, to know that when the time comes> for my children to apply to colleges they will be judged> by the content of their character rather than the color> of their skin. That all the hard work and sacrifices they> make will be given the attention that it deserves.

-Tom Enright

affirmative>

Only if one thinks that you can reconcile "equal protection of the law" with> discrimination on the basis of race. But that's absurd, since how can your> protection of the law be equal to mine if the government can choose to favor> me on the basis of my race? LOL.>

It doesn't matter what AA is "about", what matters is what it does, since> what it does affects actual people. It discriminates on the basis of race.> That's the only way it can "work".>

We can sum up AA thinking this way: "for a long time, it was legal to> discriminate against minorities. As a result, a minority that constitutes> 12% of the population only constitutes 4% of the lawyers (or doctors or> undergrads at Michigan or whatever). So, we're going to discriminate in> favor of these minorities until their % of admissions or whatever is up to> roughly 12%."

In other words - discrimination on the basis of race, exactly what A14 was> intended to outlaw.

It's just that it's the kind of discrimination that makes liberals feel> good.>

That is not the way that AA works.

That is not how it works.

I didn't say that's the way AA works. I said it's the logic or rationale> behind AA. The way AA works is by giving preferences to chosen minorities> during the selection process.

Yes. Not being discriminated against in hiring, housing,> or financial markets because you are black.

So What?

You ignore the hundreds of years of denial of economic and educational> equalities for minorities. Why would it ever be reasonable to have a law> which prevents the teaching of reading & writing, as there was in

Why does the ACLU always stop at the First Amendment?

they don't. they have wacky, liberal ideas about most of the other> ones as well.>

Actually, *certain* religions flourished. I remember being singled out> and actually beaten by other students for daring to say the Catholic> version of the Lord's prayer. We Catholics, like the Armenians,> Gypsies, Jews, and members of other minority cultures and religions,> were repeatedly discriminated against by other students and even some> teachers, as well. The public statement of the prayer was a way of> identifying who was who and the Protestants made it clear who was boss.

Lets not forget, either, that some of these "liberal" judges were> appointed by Regan and the elder Bush.

"evolved"? WTF does that mean? Laws can be changed, of course. But the only> way a constitutional provision can be changed is via amendment.

When i think of the positions that the fundies care most about - abortion,> prayer in school, "immorality" in the mass media - i don't see how any of> them involve invoking government aid to suppress other religions...

they don't. they have wacky, liberal ideas about most of the other ones as> well.

Does it say that in the constitution?

That particular myth has already been put to rest in this same thread.

James Chamblee wrote:

<snip>

There are plenty of non-"fundies" how would like to outlaw abortion.

Tom Enright was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>rich hammett wrote:

So about 50% of Americans are on the "fundie fringe"? Are you>sure you know what "mainstream" means?

Tom Enright was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>Trent Woodruff wrote:>>>Tom Enright was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>>>rich hammett wrote:

No, but I have a cite for this figure.>http://www.­zogby.com/Soundbites­/ReadClips.dbm?ID=69­82>New National Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Americans are>Pro-Life>Polls are consistently showing that Americans are becoming>more pro-life. A December poll conducted by Zogby>International­, a respected nonpartisan polling firm,>confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the public>supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human>life and is manslaughter."

No, there are not. Anybody who would like to outlaw abortion> is so far out of the mainstream as to be placing themself on> the fundie fringe.

Other polls I viewed were similar, including one from Faux News.>

-- > "Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their> dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."> - William H. Beveridge, 1944>

No, but I have a cite for this figure.>

http://www.zogby.co­m/Soundbites/ReadCli­ps.dbm?ID=6982>

New National Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Americans are> Pro-Life>

Polls are consistently showing that Americans are becoming> more pro-life. A December poll conducted by Zogby> International, a respected nonpartisan polling firm,> confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the public> supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human> life and is manslaughter."

Only if they want to outlaw it in cases of rape, incest, or to save the> mother's life. Otherwise, they'd be in the majority.

"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont@Shadow.com>­ wrote in message> news:UNU9e.5200$26.­4201@chiapp18.algx.n­et...>

When Democrats stopped lynching them it helped.

J/>

SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants>

http://homepage.eir­com.net/~albedo1/> http://www.zenhex.c­om/quiz.php?id=710>

And Tom specifically stated a majority of Americans are for outlawing> abortion.>

He's wrong.

First, i think he already admitted that, second, i never said that. So> tackle me on what i did say.>

If you want to outlaw abortion save for rape, incest, or to save the> mother's life, you'd be far from on the fringe.

So about 50% of Americans are on the "fundie fringe"? Are you> sure you know what "mainstream" means?

Only if the company was under-represented in black employees, thereby > showing that discrimination has probably occurred.

Once again you use a word which is inappropriate.

And in that case, you'd be correct.>

But unfortunately for you, mob rules

was never part of the U.S.> Constitution.

A right to an abortion has never been in the US Constitution either. But> sadly, liberal make-stuff-up supreme court justices have been empowered to> construe it that way.

The Constitution doesn't specifically contain a right to eat ice cream

"Lamont Cranston">

<snip>>

First, not one single field will "look like America" PERIOD. Jews,

Chinese, Irish, Germans, Greeks, men & women will be over/under> represented in all fields.>

If you don't believe that; what should the NBA do to increase the> number of white players?>

-Tom Enright >

I provided no such definition. That makes you a liar.

One of the worst hiring mistakes is to hire someone into a position for

Are you insane? Who said:>

"Only if the company was under-represented in black employees, thereby> showing> that discrimination has probably occurred.">

And:>

"Under-representati­on is almost always the> result of discrimination.">

Hey, but if that's not what you meant, by all means clarify.

which he>

Yes, it's possible to be overqualified. But let's say that in this case a> Masters + 8 yrs experience isn't overqualified, it's excellently qualified.> A recruiter's wet dream for that position.

AA would force you to hire the less-qualified candidate.

Only if you were under-represented in black employees in the type of

Lamont Cranston was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...>>StephenJ­ wrote:

If 3 years of experience will do, then 8 years is over-qualified.

You said that my definition of "strong evidence that discrimination was > occurring" was "any time blacks are employed at a rate lower than their > proportion of the population or somesuch.">

I didn't say that. I did say, "under-representati­on is almost always the > result of discrimination." I did say, "Only if the company was > under-represented in black employees, thereby showing that discrimination > has probably occurred.">

I did not say anything about blacks being employed at a rate lower than > their proportion of the population. I never defined under-representatio­n. > You are a liar.