Republicans are destroying their own party.

[MrFun]

Apparently the author the moronic article in the OP thinks dropping the name "Citizens United" settles the entire discussion as if by magic. I assumed I'd attempt the same tactic since you respond so favorably to it.

You just didn't understand the context in which the author mentioned Citizens United. He was talking about how the Citizens United ruling has changed the game of political campaign spending and contribution for the worse. He didn't "drop" in Citizens United as if by itself, it would settle the whole discussion.

All you did, was mention that the ACLU supported the Citizens United ruling. So what if the ACLU supported it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You just didn't understand the context in which the author mentioned Citizens United. He was talking about how the Citizens United ruling has changed the game of political campaign spending and contribution for the worse.

Which has what to do with the IRS unfairly targeting groups? I have yet to receive an answer to it, so I assume that there isn't any.

So what if the ACLU supported it?

When the author seems to indicate that only right wing groups were in support of it, I think it is good to show its bipartisan advocacy.

[Colon™]

Another poll, however, found a distinct partisan shift when it comes to surveillance, where a majority of both parties approving the programs when their own party held the Oval Office, and disapproving when the opposing party was in power.

Seriously, talk about being of 2 minds. The govt has become dangerously large and powerful but it's ok to monitor Americans interacting with foreigners. As that's pretty suspicious behaviour in this day and age.

[OzzyKP]

That's not what the text you quoted actually says.

Sorry, I assumed everyone had heard this already.

http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2013/06/12/look-whos-mr-popularity-again-bush-now-more-popular-than-obama/

Gallup pollsters announced Tuesday that the last Bush in office is more popular than our sitting president. Forty-nine percent of Americans now see Bush in favorable terms, compared to 47 percent for President Barack Obama.

Bush’s 49/45 approval-to-disapproval rating split in the new poll also is the first time since 2005 – not-so-coincidentally the same year as Hurricane Katrina – that more Americans say they approve of his presidency than don’t. It’s also a major uptick from his favorability rating low of 35 percent in March 2009. (His high: 87% two months after the 9/11 attacks in 2001).

Bush is even gaining ground among Democrats, who give him a 24 percent approval rating, up 10 percent from his last day in office. Independents have also given Bush a double-digit approval bump since 2009.

(for the record I disapprove of them both, so I take no joy in reporting their changing fortunes)

[Sava]

When the author seems to indicate that only right wing groups were in support of it, I think it is good to show its bipartisan advocacy.

So you admit civil liberties is entirely a left wing issue?

[Hauldren Collider]

Who know who else the ACLU defended? The Klu Klux Klan.

:siren: somebody needs to re-examine their understanding of the first amendment :siren:

edit: can we get a siren smiley please?

[Sava]

:siren:

"siren" has some fun GIS results

[Hauldren Collider]

Not that kind of siren

[regexcellent]

The ACLU didn't defeat the Klu Klux Klan, seeing as it never existed

[Hauldren Collider]

You mean, it didn't exist while the klan did?

[regexcellent]

No I mean he misspelled Ku Klux Klan.

also amusingly the ACLU spends a hell of a lot of time defending the KKK these days for its right to go marching and whatnot.

[kentonio]

:siren: somebody needs to re-examine their understanding of the first amendment :siren:

edit: can we get a siren smiley please?

Please actually read posts before you leap in with your poor attempts at smugness. I wasn't questioning the ACLU's defense of the Klan, I was pointing out the silliness of using the name of an organization as some kind of symbol of truth, or in that case evil. Sometimes the good guys are wrong, and sometimes the bad guys have right on their side.

[kentonio]

The ACLU didn't defeat the Klu Klux Klan, seeing as it never existed

I may have misspelled the Ku, but you managed to spell defend 'defeat', so who's clever now dip****.

[regexcellent]

I may have misspelled the Ku, but you managed to spell defend 'defeat', so who's clever now dip****.

Um. No I didn't, what the ****?

[Felch]

Please actually read posts before you leap in with your poor attempts at smugness. I wasn't questioning the ACLU's defense of the Klan, I was pointing out the silliness of using the name of an organization as some kind of symbol of truth, or in that case evil. Sometimes the good guys are wrong, and sometimes the bad guys have right on their side.

Like it or not, the Klan has a right to say what they want to say, just as all other groups of people (including corporations) have a right to organize and act politically. If that boggles you're pathetic Limey mind, it's because Aaron Sorkin was right. America is advanced citizenship.