Principles Sighted On Fox

Published May 23, 2007 in Fox News.

Of course, it was the guy from the ACLU shocking Steve Douchey that someone out there stands on principles and not just what one of Rupert Murdoch’s drones drops on his or her teleprompter.

17 Responses to “Principles Sighted On Fox”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 The ACLU -- Getting Draft Dodgers off the Hook since 1919
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Wendy Kaminer comments on the ACLU’s principles.
Don’t forget to attack Frank. It is so superior to creative thought.
2 Nimrod Gently
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm

The ACLU, understood by the right since pretty much never.
3 Oliver
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Perhaps if Frank found something other than the same tired old conservative sources to back up his arguments, you know, like objective fact.
4 The ACLU -- Getting Draft Dodgers off the Hook since 1919
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Oliver, are you saying Ms. Kaminer is lying?

Or perhaps those things never happened.

Oliver, I wouldn’t talk about “tired old sources” if I were you.

Shall I get you about a hundred references from Stop ACLU?
5 Duder
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:08 pm

It’s most amusing when pseudo-libertarians winge about how awful the ACLU is. Is there anything worse than a pseudo-libertarian?
6 Oliver
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm

You mean the fact that I link to objective news sources or people who cite objective news sources? You could get a relevant refutation of the FACTUAL INFORMATION and not some con who has an axe to grind versus the ACLU.
7 The ACLU -- Getting Draft Dodgers off the Hook since 1919
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm

some con who has an axe to grind versus the ACLU
Why would that be? Did they sue her?

And as for objective sources, between AmericaBLOG, and TPM, that’s half of your content.

At least when I quote from AEI, or WSJ, or TCS, the articles are by different authors.
8 Oliver
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm

On any given day you’ll find more links to AP and Reuters than other sources. You know this because you’re on my site more than even I am. But as usual you’re full of it.
9 The ACLU -- Getting Draft Dodgers off the Hook since 1919
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:01 pm

“As usual, I’m full of it”. Well, that sure beats defending what you quoted, OR refuting Ms.Kaminer’s essay.

And I’m still surprised by gratuitous attacks from all your sycophants.

“Quotes from AP and Reuters”? Yeah, after they’ve been filtered through TPM, Think Progress and AmericaBLOG, and their “cherry - picking machines”
10 Zython
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Oliver, are you saying Ms. Kaminer is lying?

That or stupid. I’ll let you decide on that one.
11 Wilbur
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Best as I can tell, Kaminer’s complaint is that the ACLU is not forceful enough in defending anti-gay bigots.

Maybe she has a point. Anti-gay bigots have rights too.

Meanwhile, I think Oliver is illustrating the principles of the ACLU perfectly: instead of banning Frank and his pathetic litany of paranoid alter egos, he is allowing him free rein to make a spectacle of himself, so that everyone can see just how morally and intellectually bankrupt the right really is.
12 My name is Frank, What's Yours?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 pm

That’s it, Wilbur, you’ve hit on it exactly.
13 merlallen
May 24th, 2007 at 5:13 am

I think the dumbass frank thinks if he changes his name no one will know it’s him.
you can’t disguise stupid with a new name, frank.
And what year did the ACLU defend you?
14 Wilbur
May 24th, 2007 at 6:40 am

Yes, Frank, thank you.

You can always count on right-wingers to stick up for the civil rights of bigots. I just wish they were as interested in the rights of the rest of us.
15 bill l.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:45 am

Wendy Kaminer isn’t a con by any stretch. The article Frank links to like it’s some sort of a slam dunk on the ACLU is Kaminer expressing concerns that the ACLU is beginning to neglect the civil liberties of certain less savory, or at least unpopular, groups and individuals. This may be so, I can’t say that I have been tracking the ACLU’s caseload over the years. However, it is interesting to note that the exact period Kaminer refers to happens to coincide precisely with the arrival of Bushco. Previous to that, Kaminer clearly thought the ACLU was doing a bang up job. Unfortunately, she occasionally lapses into generalizations like “liberals” want to ban hate speech. Really? Since when? I’m sure the PC police get their mitts in it from time to time, but overall, I have seen most liberals trip over themselves to accommodate speech from all sides.

Ultimately, though, it’s just a lame shot at trotting out the “liberal bias” trope again, the con go to staple when they can’t debate the actual subject on the merits.

Oh, and Frank, one of those draft dodgers would be Rush Limbaugh, though they helped him with his Oxycotin troubles, not avoiding military service ala the rest of the capitol gang. Somehow Limbaugh neglected to mention that during any of his on-air diatribes.
16 Andrew Shepherd
May 24th, 2007 at 8:46 am

For the record, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is “Why aren’t you, Bob?” Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party’s most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution?
17 fd10801
May 24th, 2007 at 4:17 pm

I was merely linking to an article that indicated that the ACLU’s principles were somewhat questionable.

I’m sure you are all aware of the ACLU’s preoccupation with Christianity, so much so that one would think that they believe in “separation of Christians and State.”

And, in those instances where the PC police are roused into action, the ACLU does seem uninterested.

There certainly are more things to criticize than were mentioned by Ms. Kaminer