Conservative hating ACLU strikes again

[VicDaring]

ACLU defends Limbaugh (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=487&ncid=762&e=3&u=/ap/20040112/ap_en_ot/limbaugh_painkillers)


The Florida ACLU filed court papers Monday supporting Limbaugh's argument that investigators violated his constitutional right to privacy when they seized his medical records in November to investigate whether he violated drug laws when he purchased prescription painkillers.


"It may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," the state chapter's executive director, Howard Simon, said in a statement. "But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view."

Those loony liberals.

[Ed]

I suspect that they have hired a new Director of Public Relations.

[hgc]

Here's the thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33425) where I said last Tuesday that the ACLU should take up his case. Where's my $1 million? :D

[corplinx]

Does this really fall under the right to privacy or does this fall under due process? I was under the impression that it was a simple warrant issue.

[hgc]

Originally posted by corplinx
Does this really fall under the right to privacy or does this fall under due process? I was under the impression that it was a simple warrant issue. I think it falls under the 4th Amendment (... secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures...), but I don't know the ACLU's argument. I assume that Florida has a law specifically protecting the privacy of medical records, with provisions for getting at them when the visit to the doctor is part of the criminal activity.

[shemp]

The last refuge of a professional *********.

[pupdog]

Yikes! In 2002 the ACLU joined Jerry Falwell (in a case regarding incorporation of religious organizations) -- now Rush Limbaugh! They certainly are a menace to society!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc
Here's the thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33425) where I said last Tuesday that the ACLU should take up his case. Where's my $1 million? :D

Dang! I was just going to post to that topic and mention your prescience, but I thought I would check to see if anyone else had heard and started a new topic...

ACLU and Rush Limbaugh. Irony meters must be busting all over the place.

[Upchurch]

The real question is, will Rush accept their help?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The real question is, will Rush accept their help? And will he talk about it on his show? What will he say?

[Upchurch]

From the horse's mouth (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=14698&c=27).

So far, I haven't found anything from the horse's a.... er, Rush (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html).

[hgc]

And Bill O'Reilly calls the ACLU fascist and the most dangerous organization in the world. I think he's blown a gasket.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc
And Bill O'Reilly calls the ACLU fascist and the most dangerous organization in the world. I think he's blown a gasket.

He made a point last night, as a matter of fact, when someone wrote in saying he said this, that he thinks Al Queda is the most dangerous organization in the world. The ACLU is the most dangerous organization in the USA.

Link to one example. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102361,00.html)


Hey, if you don't get it by now, you're never going to get it. The ACLU is the most dangerous organization currently operating in America.

Link to another example. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/141407p-125379c.html)


The ACLU, which I believe is the most dangerous organization in America, is on the prowl.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.


He made a point last night, as a matter of fact, when someone wrote in saying he said this, that he thinks Al Queda is the most dangerous organization in the world. The ACLU is the most dangerous organization in the USA.
... Yes, and I was quoting the fauxnews.com website, from this morning. It was on the front page of the site, where they usually have a little blurb of one of BOR's talking points. When I went back there to get the link to post here, it was gone. I can find no reference to it anywhere on the site now.

I'll assume that he was merely misquoted on the site.

That having been said, to call it the most dangerous organization in America is still evidence of a blown gasket. But then he's engaged in a concerted campaign against atheists, and has practically declared me and people like me enemies of the state. Who's dangerous to whom is definitely in the eyes of the beholder.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
And Bill O'Reilly calls the ACLU fascist and the most dangerous organization in the world. There's gotta be a joke in here somewhere along the lines of

O'Reilly: Who's looking out for you?
Limbaugh: The ACLU.


(heck, it even rhymes)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Dang! I was just going to post to that topic and mention your prescience, but I thought I would check to see if anyone else had heard and started a new topic...

ACLU and Rush Limbaugh. Irony meters must be busting all over the place.

The willingness of the ACLU to defend even rightists should have been obvious since the Nazis in Skokie case.

Trouble is that the right has a short memory. Not quite as short as the left, as oxycontin isn't quite as good as dope at erasing it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not conservative hating. They are constitution loving.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by shemp
The last refuge of a professional *********.

Do I detect a jealous amateur?

[peptoabysmal]

This is almost as brilliant a political move as Bush's new immigration proposal, considering it's an election year with a conservative administration that is likely to be staying in office for another four years.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
This is almost as brilliant a political move as Bush's new immigration proposal, considering it's an election year with a conservative administration that is likely to be staying in office for another four years. Since when has the ACLU ever cared who the president was? They spend most of their time in the courts, not the oval office. Further, why would they be worried about getting into Bush's good graces now when they haven't seemed to care for the last three and a half years? Not to mention all the stuff they're still doing that wouldn't please the current administration.

That makes no sense.

[hgc]

Quick update on the basis of the Florida branch of ACLU's reasoning in its filing: Florida's constitution provides for privacy, including of medical records. There is a law providing the procedure by which those records may be obtained by authorities, and it includes the right of the person whose records are being pursued to be heard before the seizure of the records. This procedure was not followed, as the records were seized without Rush having a chance to argue against it. Not any big constitutional cause being fought in this particular case. As a matter of fact, they explicitly state in the filing that they are not concerned with whether the state ultimately prevails in getting access to the medical records, but rather that, "... we seek to vindicate every Floridian's fundemental right to privacy by ensuring that the State be required to comply with sections ... of the Florida Statutes when it wishes to obtain patient records."

Document at The Smoking Gun (http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/rushmotion1.html).

[Zero]

Originally posted by hgc
And Bill O'Reilly calls the ACLU fascist and the most dangerous organization in the world. I think he's blown a gasket. You mean it isn't the terrorists they caught in Texas last May who were armed to the teeth with machine guns and explosives? Its a bunch of lawyers with pens and legal pads that are dangerous?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Zero
You mean it isn't the terrorists they caught in Texas last May who were armed to the teeth with machine guns and explosives? Its a bunch of lawyers with pens and legal pads that are dangerous? I don't dismiss out-of-hand that an advocacy group who works through the courts can be more dangerous than a group of loons with weopons. But of course BO'R's particular problem with the ACLU is that they're vigorously trying to stop religious expression, officially sanctioned, on government property by claiming that they are "at war with religion." Judging by that behavior, I consider Fox News to be a more dangerous organization than the ACLU.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Zero
You mean it isn't the terrorists they caught in Texas last May who were armed to the teeth with machine guns and explosives? Its a bunch of lawyers with pens and legal pads that are dangerous?

Of course. Those ACLU commie-terrorists have the nerve to question the legality of the decisions of the all-knowing US government.

[DavidJames]

"I consider Fox News to be a more dangerous organization than the ACLU."

:) - I watched the end his show one day last week (I think) and he read part of an email that made that exact point. His reply, it's dangerous only if you don't like the truth :rolleyes:

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"I consider Fox News to be a more dangerous organization than the ACLU."

:) - I watched the end his show one day last week (I think) and he read part of an email that made that exact point. His reply, it's dangerous only if you don't like the truth :rolleyes:

You sure you're talking about Bill O'Reilly?

http://www.billoreilly.com/

Scroll all the way to the bottom:
Best in ACLU-nacy:
1. Cuddling up with NAMBLA
2. Bashing Boy Scouts
3. Helping alleged dirty bomb planner
4. Getting lawyers for alleged terrorists
5. Waging war on Christmas
6. Attacking Pledge of Allegiance
7. Threatening the U.S. Postal Service
8. Trying to stop faith-based treatment programs for drug addicts
9. Fighting for lady's right to booty-shake in public
10. Suing so student can wear "Bush is a terrorist" t-shirt
11. Protecting kid's "Bong Hits for Jesus" display

And:
ACLU's INTELLECTUAL FASCISM: "The ACLU is the most fascist organization I have seen in decades. They want to tell you how to live. They don't want to abide by the Constitution. They want to go AROUND the Constitution. They're intellectual fascists. And they use the courts as their Panzer divisions."
http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/community/radioshow.jsp#20040109-21

This guy is not ACLU-friendly.

[pgwenthold]

Bill OReilly's problem with the ACLU

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best in ACLU-nacy:
1. Cuddling up with NAMBLA
2. Bashing Boy Scouts
3. Helping alleged dirty bomb planner
4. Getting lawyers for alleged terrorists
5. Waging war on Christmas
6. Attacking Pledge of Allegiance
7. Threatening the U.S. Postal Service
8. Trying to stop faith-based treatment programs for drug addicts
9. Fighting for lady's right to booty-shake in public
10. Suing so student can wear "Bush is a terrorist" t-shirt
11. Protecting kid's "Bong Hits for Jesus" display
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let's see:

1) Don't know the details, but I am assuming the ACLU's position is that it is wrong to legislate against thoughts
2) An issue of public money for religious discrimination
3) Helping the alleged planner get a fair trial
4) Hey, if they are guilty, what's the problem? Again, get a fair trial
5) Only government endorsement of it.
6) Only the religious aspect of it
7) ??? Probably something with not using government funding for religious activity
8) Only the government support of faith based activities
9) So? It's easy to protect speech and acts everyone likes. The beauty of the constitution is that it protects the unpopular
10) See above
11) See above

Good thing Bill OReilly has a "No Spin" zone. I'd hate to see his pitch if he was spinning these in any way.

Fox News: "We distort, you decide (what we tell you to)"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
1) Don't know the details, but I am assuming the ACLU's position is that it is wrong to legislate against thoughtsFrom the ACLU's website (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86) In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

{snip}

The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

[pgwenthold]

The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

If that is the case, then I am not surprised about OReilly's opposition. He is really good at passing blame. He is big on blaming the entertainment industry for problems. It's all because of those evil rap lyrics or bad movies.

He went on a tirade one night against The Cat in the Hat because it claimed to be a kid's movie but had fart jokes in it and apparently the car referred to a butt in some way (never saw it myself).

Fart jokes are inappropriate in a kid's movie? Well, it may not be exactly what everyone wants, but apparently OReilly doesn't know too many kids. Kids like fart jokes. They think they are funny. OReilly is just a little out of touch with reality.

BTW, the movie was rated PG. From USAToday: Rating: MPAA PG: mild crude humor and double entendres

So it's rated PG but OReilly complains that some material is not appropriate for their kids?