Subject:
|
Re: Should we be concerned?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jun 2003 22:09:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
390 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
| |
I’m afraid I let my personal feelings out a bit-- I’m still reeling from the
news that the ACLU deciding to defend that Florida women who wants her
driver’s license photo ID taken with her veil on.
|
I’m very glad the ACLU is there to take the case. I must say, I hope they
lose, and I presume they will since a driver’s license is not a right, but it
doesn’t bother me in the slightest that they took the case. Without the
ACLU, all we would have are corporate-shill attorneys, and they are the ones
who scare me.
|
Having an entity in theory such as the ACLU is probably a Good Thing®, but the
extreme, agenda-driving wackos currently running it make it a liability. As you
say, any idiot can see that this case has absolutely nothing to do with
religious freedom, that driving is a privilege, not a right, but simple
facts don’t seem to concern these people. Without question there are ulterior
motives involved here-- and legislation from the bench is one of my
pet-peeves...
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Should we be concerned?
|
| (...) I'm very glad the ACLU is there to take the case. I must say, I hope they lose, and I presume they will since a driver's license is not a right, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that they took the case. Without the ACLU, all we would (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
