ACLU backs students protesting ACLU
Published: October 2, 2009
Updated: October 3, 2009
GATE CITY -- Civil liberties lawyers are standing behind the free speech rights of students in southwest Virginia who plan to protest the ACLU.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia is asking Gate City High School officials to allow students to wear T-shirts to tonight's football game with a message that reads: "I still pray ... In Jesus' name."
The students are responding to a letter from the ACLU telling school officials that a prayer delivered over the public address system at a football game was unconstitutional.
In response to the ACLU complaint, the students produced the protest T-shirts to wear at the game.
The ACLU's Kent Willis said the students' free speech rights most assuredly include the right to criticize his organization.
-- The Associated Press
Reader Reactions
Rambling man has at least 100 times mentioned that he thinks “liberals” are “smug.“ What this leads me to believe is that he is smack full of class resentment of some sort. Maybe he was last in his class, and those who he thought were “liberals” got the gold star? Maybe he simply has no class, and resents those who do? Whatever—but his allergy to this smugness keeps him from rational thought.
Did it ever occur to him I wonder that the potential downside to an operation on a 100 year old woman might every well exceed the potential benefit, and that an emotional daughter with no medical training isn’t the best person to make that call? Obama, though, appears “smug” so you don’t have to listen to what he says.
“I don’t see people running to Europe for their healthcare”—perhaps not. US insurance companies won’t pay for it, and European taxpayers don’t cotton much to American freeloaders on their excellent and varied systems (that is, there is no unitary “socialized mess” except in the fantasies of the No Nutty Party).
In the good old USA people routinely die because they can’t get health insurance. Perhaps they get treated too late at the ER, but early deaths from numerous debilitating diseases that go untreated can be directly attributed to the system that we are attempting to reform. An European model might now be the only way, but the debate isn’t helped by rambling men and women who shout OBAMA WANTS MOMMY TO DIE!! at every opportunity.
And why is it that people throw out this number that we spend more on healthcare with worse outcomes? I don’t see people running to Europe for their healthcare. The reason they can have their socialized mess over there is b/c the U.S. funds research and does great things. They are warning us not to do what we’re doing. So is Canada.
We spend more on education in this country with worse outcomes. I say let’s cut that budget too.
Only in the U.S. could the government expand a program, take over 1/6th of the U.S. economy, and this many people believe, “yeah, that will save us money.“
Medical problems:
1. Tort reform
2. allow health insurers to compete across state lines, just like auto insurers do…adding more competition
3. expand healthcare savings accounts so people can save tax free for their health spending
No, many folks would rather the government take it over so we can have an experience similar to the DMV and the post office.
Why do libs start everything with, “let me get this straight?“ and then manage to miss the obvious.
The fact that a U.S. citizen must ask the U.S. President, “will your plan let my Mom live” should scare us completely. Who in the heck is Obama to be involved in the healthcare decisions of citizens. He said to this woman that perhaps people could say “to YOUR MOM” the pain pill is better.
It’s amazing how brainwashed the left is when it comes to thinking that we aren’t going to have the gov’t deciding who gets what tests based on their age and other factors (dare we say their politics).
No, your mother’s “spirit” isn’t enough….shouldn’t that be up to the family and not a damn govt bureaucrat?
Keep speaking up and trying to insult us…so typical for you smug elitists.
So let me get this straight on that YouTube clip. A specialized doctor overruled a GP when it came to putting a pacemaker into a 100+ year old woman because of her age. The woman’s daughter asked the President if some consideration could be made for the patient’s joie de vie when making such a decision. The President, instead of addressing an individual case (he’s not a physician), or in articulating a new principle of medical practice based on the perception of zippiness in the elderly, instead, after pointing out not all problems can be solved, articulated a general theme: too many tests and procedures are done with no benefit to the patients. Sometimes a pain pill is better. Anybody who follows the research knows that this is the major concern with American medical practice. We have worse outcomes that most European nations—we spend much more per capita.
But Obama’s mainstream response to this situation makes him a death-dealing evil scrooge. It’s “proof”—that Obama’s critics can’t think.
WP: Someone called me a liar about the handicap remark so I responded with an obvious example…so obvious that one wonders why I’m called a liar. I even added a quote from a Democrat governor when it came to the issue about the elderly. I guess I could dig up other fun quotes from liberals talking about their obsession with death…how about when Obama told a woman in a Q&A who was asking a U.S. President, “under your plan, would my grandmother live?“ Imagine that for a moment that this sort of question has to be asked. And he told her that her mother didn’t need the surgery, she could just take a pain pill.
5 pages of facts?
This story was about the ACLU and state-sanctioned public prayer.
You then evoke Terri Schiavo’s case to support your viewpoint.
And then you object to being characterized as a cliche?
ohhhh…WAIT!...I get it now. You are actually a liberal, and are making a parody of Dave and VaResident! OK, I get it now, cool. But seriously, conservatives are not that bizarre, you need to tone it down a bit or people will catch on too fast.
Rambler, I support the ACLU philosophically, (although not currently) have been an NRA member, support the 2nd Amendment, and even own my fair share of firearms.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t think the NRA’s main interest in opposing the limits on campaign finance (which I support) was purely because they want to be able to spend as much money as they want on lobbying efforts, not because they were seeking to protect free speech.
To reduce that to NRA=bad, ACLU=good is not entirely convincing itself.
Will-Nice of you to sum up 5 pages of posts with facts, reasons and quotes as “cliches.“ I’ve been told that I’m a fascist, thick headed, etc, all stereotypes when people can’t argue facts. I’ve even been told to ignore the writings of the founding fathers to find out what they believed about religion.
By arguing “separation of church and state, separation of church and state, it’s in the Constitution”, I easily believe it is the other side that is full of cliches not based in reality.
It’s not me that is fighting so hard against something I don’t believe exist (God).
Feel better? We could argue that back and forth.
I stand by my view that people of your ilk are smug, arrogant and condescending. I must have struck a nerve for everyone to keep responding I guess.
Oh, and about an earlier post:
If the ACLU joins the NRA in a lawsuit…
NRA-bad, evil people
ACLU-noble, standing up for the people
Yeah, that’s real convincing.
Rambling Man: “Sorry I’m not drinking the kool aid.“ But you are—by writing one pathetic cliché after another. These were what Orwell called “prefabricated” phrases that substitute for thought. (“Politics and the English Language”).
It really is fun to watch the, “if you don’t agree with us, you are thick headed, we have to spell it out for you” crowd.
Liberals-smug, arrogant, condescending, liars.
Period.
Understand that?
Advertisement