Nancy Pelosi, SF Congresswoman, marched in a SF parade at which NAMBLA was present, therefore she supports this group. Do you agree this is the same logic?
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/14969prs20040112.html
2006-10-29 04:27:20 · 16 answers · asked by Snowshoe 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Its makes the ACLU more of a principled organization than the entire G.O.P
2006-10-29 04:31:07 · answer #1 · answered by dstr 6 · 4⤊ 6⤋
It became once suggested that you'll get a lot more effective with a form be conscious and a gun than only a form be conscious. even as the whiny liberal aclu-pansies communicate about civil liberties and own rights, they don't have any clue about civil liberty violations considering that they prefer to guard the criminals and not in any respect the victims who were violated. in the intervening time, how lots of those criminals who want to conceal in the back of the aclu shelter dare to go adverse to someone packing warmth and able to guard themselves? answer: NONE. very last time I checked, those playing cards are not made from kevlar and are not large adequate to guard the completed objective.
2016-12-05 08:30:18 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She was three spots away from Harry Hay. The ACLU took the "friend of the court" action, not at the behest of Mr. Limbaugh.
Which makes one curious about the presence of marcher number 34 in the 2001 Pride Parade. Marching a mere three spots away from the famous Harry Hay, no doubt waving and smiling to the crowd, was, as the Chronicle logged her in the Official Guide and Program Parade Lineup: "U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi."
Facts are facts.
2006-10-29 04:34:24 · answer #3 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No its not the same.
Limbaugh had a case before the ACLU ever got involved. He probably couldn't have stopped them if he tried (but why would anyone refuse free legal help)
Pelosi had a choice in where she marches. Her support is implicit only, but is fodder for criticism from the other side.
2006-10-29 04:32:27 · answer #4 · answered by CHEVICK_1776 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, it doesn't necessarily indicate he is a member of any organization.
But despite the many controversies, it makes the ACLU a necessary and vital organization that doesn't compromise on it's agenda of protecting everyone's rights - whether you agree with them or not.
This is how a nation of laws, where all men are deemed to be created equal, is suppose to operate.
2006-10-29 04:35:23 · answer #5 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
According to John Skerry etal. (Redpublicans that follow him religiously)
Anyone that uses the acronym ACLU is a man boy love supporter.
Go big Red Go
2006-10-29 05:10:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the A.C.L.U did defend Limbaugh,they had other motives.It was a medical records issue.The A.C.L.U doesn't want any cases like that to even reach court.
Pelosi must support NAMBLA. If them pedophiles were marching in our local parade,i wouldn't even go to it,let alone march.
Have some standards,man!
2006-10-29 04:32:27 · answer #7 · answered by LIBS ARE FOOLS 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The facts are that the ACLU does not have the welfare of this nation as a high priority on their agenda and I certainly am suspicious of ANY support they lend to Rush Limbaugh.
2006-10-29 04:33:54 · answer #8 · answered by just the facts 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Nobody believes me when I say adult-child sex is the next domino to fall but the fact that NAMBLA is being represented at homosexual parades speaks volumes does it not?
2006-10-29 04:31:27 · answer #9 · answered by Cybeq 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
DEFENDING MEDICAL RECORDS RELEASE IS A LEGITIMATE CASE FOR ALL PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,THEY WERE FIRED BY THE WAY! BUT DEFENDING A MANS RIGHT TO SLEEP WITH LITTLE BOYS AND PELOSI TRYING TO HAVE THE AGE OF CONSENT LOWERED TO 13 IS JUST SICK! THIS WASN'T EVEN A GOOD ANALOGY! WHAT DO MEDICAL RECORDS HAVE TO DO WITH CHILD MOLESTATION?
2006-10-29 04:34:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I guess freedom of speech applies to everyone even fat pompous asses...hahaha sorry I meant to answer your question just got lost in the thought...No I don't necessarily agree with the logic but it is interesting.
2006-10-29 04:32:04 · answer #11 · answered by djmantx 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋