Comments on: Got any facts, Jay?

By: Eli

Eli — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:46:32 +0000

While I fully don’t know many of the facts it seems that the ACLU is not as transparent with their positions on important matters. This is a huge red flag to me and should be to anyone wanting to get a straight answer. Is it true that in order to get a written policy statement from the ACLU national office that they require you physically go to their offices? This is hard to believe and maybe someone from the pro –ACLU side can help by providing us some type of official documentation since statements on websites can be altered are not enough.

I see that someone cites a case > In a quietly prosecuted case in 1981, People v. Ferber, the ACLU won a 5-2 decision in the New York Court of Appeals. Can someone explain so I can understand what happened? I have seen that it is claimed the ACLU filed a brief siding with child pornographers. I found something mentioning that an ACLU former national counsel’s testimony supporting porn “rights” in Washington D.C. before the Pornography Commission was delivered after a slide show of such photos depicting in frightening detail the sexual abuse and then murder of a small boy.
Is this accurate and if so what was the ACLU doing in this case?

Finally does anyone know the name of the child that was sexually abused and murdered? I would like to know. Because it’s very important.

By: Beaming Visionary

Beaming Visionary — Sat, 06 May 2006 13:34:24 +0000

“BV, I would note that there is little difference between Jay and Kender’s ad hominem tactics, and your own references to them as ‘borderline illiterate’ and ‘thickheaded’.”

While I agree that issues and facts are far more relevant than aimless one-upmanship, I respectfully submit that Jay et al. have provided ample evidence of both a lack of facility with English and a marked inability to comprehend the very things they rail against.

I see kender is back to the subject of lynching those who disagree with him. It doesn’t take much to get these guys waxing homicidal even when they’re just been called on it.

By: kender

kender — Thu, 04 May 2006 00:22:02 +0000

I am glad to know that you believe to know what I do and do not lack when it comes to courage, meathead.

You just keep believing what you wanna believe, and I will keep knowing what I know, and the earth will continue to turn, you will stay stupid and water will still run downhill.

By: meatbrain

meatbrain — Wed, 03 May 2006 01:57:43 +0000

You lack the courage to assault anyone physically, Kender.

By: kender

kender — Wed, 03 May 2006 01:52:50 +0000

wow…you two are a pair…wish I had come back to this thread earlier. I don’t know if I agree with lynching, as I haven’t tried it, but I suspect that just to be fair we should give it a go…....any volunteers?

By: meatbrain

meatbrain — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:46:23 +0000

BV, I would note that there is little difference between Jay and Kender’s ad hominem tactics, and your own references to them as “borderline illiterate” and “thickheaded”. While I have certainly been guilty of making personal attacks on occasion, I try hard to focus on the facts, and whether those who make claims have the facts to support their assertions.

By: Beaming Visionary

Beaming Visionary — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:25:55 +0000

”...people who canot spell to save their lives…”

Ahem…”cannot.”

By: Beaming Visionary

Beaming Visionary — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:23:46 +0000

I’ve noticed that people like Jay and Kender and their bloodthirsty Elmer-Fudd-clone friends—people who canot spell to save their lives and couldn’t match a subject to a verb even if you promised to blow up the ACLU national headquarters—are notably fond of calling others stupid. This is one of the reasons I keep returning to read the garbage they churn out: I can’t help but get a huge charge out of the various levels of irony they and their screeds occupy. Jay and Kender, you can’t tell me that you’re unaware of being borderline illiterate. You can admit this while still maintaining a deathgrip on your untenable world views, if that helps.

This is relevant because, like as not, poor writing skills are a nearly universal indicator of low intellectual wattage across the board, and you guys are no exception. Watching Jay try to back-pedal in the face of meatbrain’s indictment of his pro-lynching cartoon and his unsupported accusations about the ACLU vis-a-vis kiddie porn is like watching a blind, drunk donkey try to outrun a cheetah, only funnier.

By: meatbrain

meatbrain — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:41:57 +0000

Hi, Kender!

Arrest any immigrants yet?

No?

Gee, why is no one surprised?

By: kender

kender — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:17:38 +0000

congrats meathead, you finally found a like minded commentor in BV….about time you managed to garner one more moron that has the cognitive skills to match yours…....

By: Beaming Visionary

Beaming Visionary — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:23:30 +0000

Credibility is not an issue. Jay’s site is a monument to raging hypocrisy. Since dissenters are summarily drummed off the site and there’s always an ample supply of like-minded nutjob sycophants equally ignorant of basic realities, he can easily maintain the illusion that his clumsy and misinformed screeds have merit. These assholes think that by simply screaming about how much they love America and its freedoms (many of which they’d love to destroy) and calling the othe guy a commie, they’re taking an honorable stance. Hard as it is to conceive of, the Kender ape is several keys down the scale from Jay when it comes to blind intolerance and unfettered hate. Yeah, these guys are exactly the kind of citizens Jefferson et al. envisioned populating America a couple centuries down the road.

By: meatbrain

meatbrain — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:02:41 +0000

Jay wrote:

Notice this: http://www.aclu-de.org/tentoughquestions.htm

Did you make your original accusation against the national ACLU, or just the Delaware section, Jay?

Previously, the ACLU has defended child pornography.

What’s their policy now, Jay? Where is your documentary evidence of the ACLU’s national policy now, Jay?

Why do you constantly need to be reminded that your accusations have to be documented to have any credibility, Jay?

By: Beaming Visionary

Beaming Visionary — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:59:29 +0000

“In a quietly prosecuted case in 1981, People v. Ferber, the ACLU won a 5-2 decision in the New York Court of Appeals that for a short time “legalized simulated intercourse, real intercourse, lewd conduct … with children…”

Simulated, eh? So if I whack off to mental images of Angelina Jolie, or pleasure myself to literal images of her on my screen, or even get a blow-up Angie G doll and boff its nonexistent brains out, can I be tried for celebrity rape?

Regardless, your efforts to show that the ACLU eagerly endorses kiddie porn are a dismal failure—just one more eddy in a steady stream of straw men, hyperbole, and bald-faced lies from that august group of illiterates and Elmer Fudd clones that make up StoptheACLU.com.

By: Beaming Visionary

Beaming Visionary — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:31:11 +0000

If you’re expecting Jay to do any of his own research, don’t hold your breath. In the past I’ve pointed out where he’s gone astray, particularly with regards to evolution and “Intelligent Design” issues, and he just waffles and stammers and eventually makes another post along exactly the same lines as the previous, grossly errant one The reason he’s able to generate such a prodigious amount of verbal garbage on that site is because he simply cuts and pastes articles from Wingnut Daily and similarly unreliable “news” sources, then throws in a few token misspelled words of assent. If you send him evidence that he’s wrong about something involving the ACLU, he just dismisses it and accuses it of some other malfeasance. Make no mistake—thickheaded, uninformed people can be very persistent if nothing else.

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:22:53 +0000

Previously, the ACLU has defended child pornography. In a quietly prosecuted case in 1981, People v. Ferber, the ACLU won a 5-2 decision in the New York Court of Appeals that for a short time “legalized simulated intercourse, real intercourse, lewd conduct … with children,” says Reisman, author of the soon-to-be-released, “Kinsey’s Attic: How One Man’s Psychopathology Changed the World.” Fortunately, says Reisman, the Ferber case was later appealed by the New York attorney general and ultimately reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Oregon cases, like Ferber, just demonstrate how far the ACLU will go in defending pornographers, adds Reisman.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46985

Don’t deny this case in which they fought for child porn distribution and possession to be legal.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html