One of these days, we might actually get proof that at least some ACLU directors or attorneys are knowingly working for terrorist groups--and then it would be quite useful to prosecute them for perjury, and send them to prison. After all, people that hijack airliners, behead hostages, stone to death women for "impurity," and object to women learning to read--they need the ACLU to protect their interests.So, let's get this straight. 1. Someday an ACLU activist might get caught working for a terrorist group. 2. It might be useful to prosecute that person for terrorism. So far, so good, but with 3. it's coo-coo coo-coo.
The "After all" is a linguistic link between the preceeding and the following. In this case the link makes no sense; the two points are unrelated. Clayton says that hijackers and murderers need the ACLU to protect their interests. What does that have to do with being able to prosecute a terrorist?
Cramer implies that the ACLU is supporting hijacking and beheading, and further implies that anyone in the ACLU or supporting the ACLU does the same. The ACLU objected to Ohio making attorneys sign a pledge that they are not terrorists, and the court ageed. Cramer then asks
For you liberals who like to call me a wingnut--just one question: what is so offensive about not working for terrorists?Another misdirection ploy, or more specifically, a false premise. The issue isn't about working for terrorists, it's about being forced to sign a loyalty oath to do your job.
Also, notice the court agreed with the ACLU. I haven't read the case, but the court probably found the pledges were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, Cramer is really objecting to having to follow the requirements of the constituion. No doubt he'll blame this ruling as an aberration foisted upon Ohio by "liberal activist judges." If my view loses, it's because a bad person make the decision.
No evidence of rational thought in the post, just tired slogans, fear mongering and emotional appeals.
2 comments:
Well, that's a cute little collection of tautologies. If the ACLU were working for terrorists - then the ACLU would be working for terrorists! And if liberals were supporting the ACLU who is working for terrorists, then liberals would be supporting an organization that works for terrorists!
Does he even understand what a defense attorney does? Does he know that every day attorneys defend murderers and rapists and even terrorists because it's required for our justice system to work?
I saw you had a bit of a flame war going on at your site. You actually drew the guy out; good job.
Attorneys, ACLU, ACLU attorneys, what's the diff? They all hate liberty and want the West to be poor.
Post a Comment