Found this today during my semi-routine of blog reading and thought it was worth sharing [img]smile.gif[/img]

Of course, it's your civil right to not let facts get in the way

MWO has a bit on Bill O'Reilly's latest assault on the American Civil Liberties Union from a January 9th Fox News broadcast:

Now the ACLU is free to come to your town and sue the heck out of it. And believe me, that organization will. The ACLU doesn't care about the law or the constitution or what the people want. It's a fascist organization that uses lawyers instead of Panzers. It'll find a way to inflict financial damage on any concern that opposes its secular agenda and its growing in power.

I eagerly await the conservatives who raised their mock idignation over Hitler-Bush analogies expressing their utter disgust at someone like Bill O'Reilly daring to demean the lives of those who suffered under Fascism by connecting it to an organization devoted to protecting the Constitution of the United States. Don't everyone hold your breath.
Of course, I'm sure it's just the start for O'Reilly and his daring expose on the ACLU. Clearly, he did his research, going as far as the depths of the ACLU's website to analyze all the acts of horrendous Fascism that could come at the behest of such wanton anti-American invective.

For example, I'm sure the episode of "The O'Reilly Factor" next week will be a daring move for O'Reilly, as he breaks ranks with his conservative audience to chastize the overzealous lawyers- I'm sorry, Panzers- of the ACLU for fighting to protect Rush Limbaugh's privacy rights.

And man, how will Murdoch let O'Reilly get away with his next "Talking Point" of the day, about the fascist attempts to repeal Campaign Finance Reform in a coalition with the National Rifle Association? I applaud O'Reilly for standing up to an organization like the NRA, and its proven anti-Americanism for sympathizing with a group of fascists. Why does the NRA hate the constitution so much? What amendments have they ever tried to protect, huh? SHUT UP!

And how about the ACLU's blatant leftist attempt to investigate the overuse of Federal power in the Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges? Those fascists, always trying to limit the powers of authoritarian government! God, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that these are all cases that show the ACLU's interest in defending constitutional law regardless of political leaning- a concept which would imply Bill O'Reilly doesn't have a fifth of a f*** of an idea what he's talking about!

But... but... could Bill O'Reilly lie? I certainly hope he doesn't think he could get away with doing something like that in a state so wantonly crippled by the fascist attempts by the ACLU to protect the right to free speech.

You really have to laugh at stories like this, because it's outright embarassing to see conservatives in this day and age still trying to convince the country that the ACLU is some kind of communist organization. Obviously it's a left-wing organization by the nature of civil liberties being a left-wing cause, but that Fox News can't even get an intern to go to the ACLU's own website and prove in five minutes that they're not the wing of any party is a sign of just how much of an advantage Fox has taken of the First Amendment that the ACLU has defended for so many years.

Bill O'Reilly owes the ACLU his utmost gratitude for securing the very laws that allowed a man like him to have a career spouting partisan lies with no factual backing on national television. At the very least, I'd settle for him thanking the ACLU for defending his first-amendment right to lie about his book sales.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I would like to say that in fact, the ACLU had nothing at all whatsoever to do with making sure Bill O'reilly or anyone for that matter can say what they want. There was NO ACLU in 1776 nor in 1886. The ACLU is in fact a modern invention and does employ facist like attacks.

Some times they are on the "right" side of the issue...but just as often they (in my opinion) are on the wrong end of right and wrong. Actually I think they are one of the nations most hit or miss groups, with far too much power and money backing them.


Just an opinion there. I think they are needed, but I wish they would pick their battles a bit more...judiciously.
</font>

[ 01-13-2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Bill O'Reilly talking out of his a$$ as usual.

facist like attacks? I have not heard about any roving gangs of ACLU brown shirts smashing the windows of any business or turning people out of their homes. Nor have a heard of them rounding up their opponents and sending them to death camps. Care to elaborate?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I am really gong to have to listen to this guy O'reilly some day [img]smile.gif[/img] He sounds like the devil himself from listening to the fans he has here [img]smile.gif[/img]

I have seen him in commercials for his show....but never read anything by him or seent he show.</font>;D

Not the devil just a poor deluded man, here is an example from his web site:

Factor Fans Keep Bill's Book #1
Memo to Al Franken: For the fifth straight week, "Who's Looking Out for You?" remains #1 on the NYT Best Seller List.
Get YOUR copy: · Hardcover ·Autographed · Personalized · Audio CD

When in fact here is the actual listing:

Hardcover Nonfiction

Published: January 18, 2004


1 LIES (AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM), by Al Franken. (Dutton, $24.95.) A satirical critique of the rhetoric of right-wing pundits and politicians. 2 20

2 DUDE, WHERE'S MY COUNTRY? by Michael Moore. (Warner, $24.95.) The author of "Stupid White Men" calls for "regime change" in Washington. 3 13

3 FLYBOYS, by James Bradley. (Little, Brown, $25.95.) An account of eight American airmen who were shot down and captured by the Japanese in World War II. 4 14

4 WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU? by Bill O'Reilly. (Broadway, $24.95.) The host of "The O'Reilly Factor" attacks those individuals and institutions that he believes have let down the American people. 1 15

5 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, by Walter Isaacson. (Simon & Schuster, $30.) A biography of the scientist, inventor, writer and Revolutionary statesman.

MagiK, I'm disappointed you let the "hook" of fascist language get stuck in your mouth.

The ACLU goes into court and sues, allowing juries of US, WE, The People, to decide facts and allowing the LAW to determine the outcome of those facts. It may be one of the only real democratic ways of resolving things we have left. :D

He's a soapbox journalist / spin doctor to the extreme. One who rants and raves, gets everyone all whipped up.. but his rants and raves are more often than not based in total BS.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
And WE the people do things like ohhh... Declare OJ not guilty ;)
and we the people allow millions of dollars to be spent ruining peoples lives by convicts in jail....what am I talking about?

A convict rapes and murders a couples 13 year old daughter in a most hideous fashion...he is found guilty goes to jail, and gets a law degree...now he is in jail for life..but he is allowed and DOES sue the parents for defamation of character...of course he will lose..but the couple has to declare bankruptcy to finance the cost of their legal defense. (This case will always stick in my mind, I believeit was in Arizona or New Mexico in the early 90's)

TL the system is broken and can be abused badly. ACLU and criminals and idiots alike can damage andharm innocent people using LEGAL tactics. :( The system needs fixed :(
</font>

[ 01-13-2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Ever hear of SLAPP suits? It's a nice legal tactic Big Business uses to bankrupt their critics and detractors. So if you are going to rail against abuses in the system besure to include that in your rant.

Well, let us be mindful of the more eggregious broken system: Congress and the Admin. Their flaws are worse, and without courts we'd have NOTHING left to use against them. At least in a courtroom, each side gets to present their argument.

Speaking of decent laws, in most states SLAPP (strategic litigation against public policy) suits will get you in big trouble real fast due to anti-SLAPP legislation. My advice to corporations who ask "Can we sue for defamation" has always been -- YOU'D BETTER NOT.

TL,
have you heard anything about Congress pushing for laws to limit the Courts? I remember hearing something about it on the radio last week. It seems the repugs are pushing it, especially to stop the Court from being able to overrule the Administration on PATRIOT issues.

<font color=deepskyblue>He is slightly less hardcore than Rush, but not by much. I did watch O'Reilly's show during the War On Iraq. I agreed with a lot of the issues and organizations he attacked, but it became very obvious very quickly that he can "dish it out" but he can't take it in return. He hates Al Franken with a passion...due in large part to O'Reilly's picture being "strategically juxtapositioned" next to the text "Lying Liars" on the cover of Franken's book.

The fact is that O'Reilly spouts some of the most hateful vitriol at those he dislikes (and he dislikes a LOT of people and organizations), but when any one does the same to him, he becomes "outraged" and indignant...then whines, bitches, and moans incessantly about the mean-spirited attacks against him.

Excuuuuse me...but O'Reilly's ENTIRE show normally consists of "mean spirited attacks" itself. If you're going sling that much mud around, a good portion of it is gonna fly back in your face.

As for the ACLU, I do believe they often cause more trouble than they solve, because they are too quick (IMHO) to jump in and claim "discrimination" where none is actually ocurring. HOWEVER, I WILL give them credit for being consistent in their efforts to protect the Civil Rights of EVERYBODY, regardless of their political affiliation. They are the closest thing you'll find to a truly non-partisan organization in today's political climate.</font>

TL,
have you heard anything about Congress pushing for laws to limit the Courts? I remember hearing something about it on the radio last week. It seems the repugs are pushing it, especially to stop the Court from being able to overrule the Administration on PATRIOT issues. </font>[/QUOTE]Gee, if this is true .... aren't they reaching for power that is denied them? ;)

As for congress limiting courts, I have only been following the tort issues, including class action limitations and punitive damage limitations -- and those seem to be narrowing. Congress is trying to pass a bill limiting class actions, and one of the Appellate courts recently held that punitive damages cannot be based on the wealth of the company (which I think is Wrong). I haven't time to post links now... maybe later.

Ever hear of SLAPP suits? It's a nice legal tactic Big Business uses to bankrupt their critics and detractors. So if you are going to rail against abuses in the system besure to include that in your rant. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I never heard of SLAPP suits, however I am against this practice as well, I know of the practice not the Acronym. I dislike it and am all for fixing our tort system. There has to be a way to fix the system to limit it's abuses.

I am not for anyone misusing the legal system to immoral gains or to harm innocent people.</font>

As I mentioned, there is anti-SLAPP legislation that says if citizen groups sue companies, the companies cannot turn around and hit them with lawsuits meant to drive them into the ground.

I'll also note, regarding this whole discussion, the spurious lawsuits are really not allowed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11 allows one attorney in the suit to pursue a motion for sanctions for completely baseless claims or other such practices. The court can also issue Rule 11 smack-downs on its own. There are various such legal tools to prevent crappy legal practices in the state courts as well.

[ 01-14-2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Ever hear of SLAPP suits? It's a nice legal tactic Big Business uses to bankrupt their critics and detractors. So if you are going to rail against abuses in the system besure to include that in your rant. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I never heard of SLAPP suits, however I am against this practice as well, I know of the practice not the Acronym. I dislike it and am all for fixing our tort system. There has to be a way to fix the system to limit it's abuses.

I am not for anyone misusing the legal system to immoral gains or to harm innocent people.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>It happens all the time. That was the tactic used by PETA to prevent a local businessman from holding his annual New Year's Eve Possum Drop. They threatened to file a lawsuit against him if he used a live possum and he simply doesn't have the money to take on PETA in an extended legal battle. So a harmless tradition that had occurred for 12yrs had to be altered to pacify the PETA-heads.

The ACLU takes "donations" from many companies annually in return for NOT bringing a lawsuit against them. NASCAR is one of these organizations. The ACLU has a standing threat to file a lawsuit against them because of the lack of black race car drivers. The fact that most black youths don't WANT to grow up to be professional race car drivers is a moot point. The only thing important to the ACLU (in this instance), is the disparity of white drivers as opposed to black drivers. They have threatened to file a discriminatory lawsuit against NASCAR because of this discrepencey (since it MUST be due to bias on NASCAR'S part and not lack of desire to drive race cars on the black youth's part). However, they have graciously conceded NOT to file the lawsuit in return for a sizeable "donation" that NASCAR makes to them every year. In other words, they are basically blackmailing NASCAR and other organizations for donations in exchange for not having to enter a long, drawn out legal battle that will drain the coffers of both organizations.

But as <font color=coral>Rokenn</font> pointed out - Corporate America is even more willing to resort to this tactic than special interest groups. The thing is, corporations normally have lawyers either on staff or permanent retainer, so they try to get any litigation postponed for as long as possible. The longer they can drag out the lawsuit, the more money it will cost the person filing suit against them. Of course, it costs the corporation an equal (or maybe even greater) amount of money, but their coffers run muchdeeper than any the individual filing the suit against them. So the corporate plan is to extend the litigation for as long as possible by filing for extensions and other delaying tactics. Eventually, they figure the individual will simply run out of money and drop the suit. McDonald's used this tactic in the infamous "coffee spill" case. A case I had always thought was frivolous, until I researched it a bit more. Turns out that McD's had a corporate policy of keeping their coffee about 25-30 degrees hotter than most other restaurants. Seems like a good idea since most customers want their coffee hot. But there had been several other cases of customers recieving bad burns from the coffee. Many complaints had been filed against McDonald's but the company chose to ignore them and keep their coffee at the extra high temps. The lady that spilled the coffee on her lap suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns from the scalding liquid and had to undergo more than one surgery to repair the damage. Normally I would agree that she had to accept responsibility for spilling the coffee in the first place (still feel that way), but it does seem that she and her lawyers have a legitimate complaint, because McDonald's knew their coffee was "dangerously hot" and chose not to correct the problem.</font>

Well, I've explained the McD's coffee case a few times, and it's nice to see someone who gets it. Yes, some of the culpability was hers -- the court likely apportioned liability percentage-wise, and in most jurisdictions had she been more than 50% liable individually (for the injury -- including the extent of the injury), she would have had no recovery. Two notes: (1) McD's kept coffee too hot so people would not get free refills -- saving coffee and employee labor time to make the coffee; (2) McD's still keeps the coffee too hot, and now simply slaps a label on it saying "HOT". That last deserves a [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]

If you want to talk about legal abuse, let's talk about Monsanto. A farmer one day found that his neighbor's GMO soy had cross-pollenated his site and he now had GMO soy on his Organic farm. In other words, his neighbor harmed his property and his business with genetic pollution and Monsanto, who made the GMO, may be culpable as well because the GMO, in being used as intended, had caused genetic pollution. Well, to make matters worse, Monstanto sues the farmer because he never bought their GMO soy and had it growing on his field! They ran him so far into the ground some anti-GMO groups started helping the poor guy pay for his litigation against Monsanto -- which was all based on Monsanto's demand that it be paid for polluting his property.

!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
It almost makes me speachless.

[ 01-14-2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

The few good cases that the ACLU takes on does not make up for their support of groups that engage in conduct that most people find reprehensible. Number one being their case to defend nambla, a bunch of sick beasts who seek to legalise sex between men and young boys.

<font color = lightgreen>I don't think the ACLU has an identity. It appears to be comprised of a bunch of lawyers from all political viewpoints and at times some of them speak out about an issue that they find interesting or directly effects them in some way.
Although they do sometimes serve a valuable purpose, for the most part they simply like to file lawsuits just for the sake of filing a suit. *sigh* Oh, well...there are worse ways to entertain oneself.....</font>