Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gary Busey

ban aclu counterplan?

Recommended Posts

if i could find evidence saying how the aclu is ruining american civil liberties, it would solve case or be better than case because aclu is around when case is passed. or you could go civil liberties bad, then ban aclu. then it would be competitive because you ban the main organization devoted to giving civil rights. and, even if you don't win solvency you would still win that all of your evidence is still functionally a case turn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if i could find evidence saying how the aclu is ruining american civil liberties, it would solve case or be better than case because aclu is around when case is passed. or you could go civil liberties bad, then ban aclu. then it would be competitive because you ban the main organization devoted to giving civil rights. and, even if you don't win solvency you would still win that all of your evidence is still functionally a case turn

Perm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what about a plan to silence the aclu. It would restrict their civil liberties, but maybe help on a whole?

 

fxt, xt, unsubstanciable, and bad. this case fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how into talk radio alot of you are, but michael savage is coming out with a new book in which he outlines a plan to destroy the ACLU using recko statues (or however you spell that). Just an idea. I kinda like it. You could run the CP on cases that use ACLU sorces or ideas and then when they perm do "Severence Perm Bad." I think it really could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not competitive whatsoever with the affirmative.

 

Banning a political organization and blatantly violating the Bill of Rights is a great way to protect civil liberties.

 

I question the solvency of the counterplan too. While it may or may not be true that the ACLU causes more problems than it solves, banning it would lead to replacement organizations and backlash.

 

And sure, there are plenty of conservative and communitarian thinkers who accuse the ACLU of being counter-productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how into talk radio alot of you are, but michael savage is coming out with a new book in which he outlines a plan to destroy the ACLU using recko statues (or however you spell that). Just an idea. I kinda like it. You could run the CP on cases that use ACLU sorces or ideas and then when they perm do "Severence Perm Bad." I think it really could work.

 

You really dig those sever perms eh? I'm not so sure I'd go for the full blown CP, but cutting Savage's articles on using the RICO statutes to break down the ACLU could work really nicely as a kick in the groin on solvency.

 

Almost as fun as his anti-PETA bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this counterplan doesn't make any sense

 

it doesn't solve case; there's almost no net benefit; and it's not even close to competitive.

 

perm do both anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Savage is a disgustingly tyrannical pig whose opinions should be valued at about oh... level zero. Anyone who cuts Savage should be flogged.

 

replace "Michael Savage" with "ACLU" in this post and you've got it about right.

 

All right, so with his new book (for those of you who dont know what I and Disolved Solvency are talking about) the "Michael Savage" CP would look like this:

 

Text: We will disolve (not ban) the ACLU using the same riko statuets that are used in disolving the funding and abilities on mobs, gangs, cells, etc. as segested by Micheal Savage in his book "Liberalism is A Mental Disorder, Savage Solutions."

 

This CP would be structured alot like the Withdraw CP from this year, but it wouldn't be as generic. I suppose it would be possible to make it such, but this would be most effective against cases with ACLU solvency and possibly harms and other stock issues. In the SP solvency you would find a card that said civil liberties would be fine without the ACLU and the rest would solve for how bad the ACLU is. I am (as others on the post are) a little worried about how exactly we would apply this to a case. There are a couple of options that I see. You could make it a pic and be "disolve ACLU, then pass plan", but i am having trouble seeing how that is net benefitial other then getting rid of what you would prop up as a satanic organization. Maybe that is enough. The other option i can see is finding literature on how getting rid of the ACLU increases our civil liberty/freedoms. I just dont know. Any sugestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have no warrants to that claim whatsoever. Not in the sense that you just didn't post them, but in the sense that good warrants for that argument simply don't exist.

 

This is clearly illegal and government oppression. Michael Savage's book title alone looks like little more than an attempt to medicalize (in a piss poor way) what he views as "deviancy." I dare you to try to defend Savage's position on anything. I, or any even half-witted leftist, would be able to solidly trounce you.

 

Also, the RICO Statutes have about zero applicability to the ACLU. They were originally devised for use against the mafia and its racketeering practices. There is no evidence of the ACLU doing any of this at all. I defy you to provide some. Also, the RICO Statutes, I believe, charge the heads of the organizations with a crime - they don't dissolve the enterprise as a whole. Also, you can't just circumvent due process. There would have to be actual evidence that the ACLU violated the RICO Statutes in order to enact punitive measures (fiating a jury is beyond bullshit).

 

This is a terrible counterplan in every sense of the word "terrible." Its literary basis is absolutely shitty, it has no net benefits, it's not competitive, it doesn't solve case. This counterplan is horrible. Get serious.

 

Okay, here it goes. I always love these posts that spend so much time blaming everyone else for not having warrants but never actually take the time to make any of their own.

 

We'll start at the top by removing all of your "indites" of Michael Savage. They're all just ad hom and end up making you look like an ass. Secondly, I'll be more than happy to take you up on any given portion of his advocacies. I guess his hatred of the ACLU is a good place to start.

 

The assertions against the ACLU on the grounds of the RICO statutes are absolutely applicable. The ACLU has had a really neat history of running to the sides of crimminals. They seek to gain quite nice compensation for their troubles and thus they hop at it like a shark. They also represent ideals that make it much easier for criminal groups to get away with what they do. Drug smugglers don't have to worry because they know the ACLU has their back if they're caught and some formality is missing from the arrest or if there is some magical blemish on the poor dumb cop's record somewhere. Secondly, the removal of the leadership of the group is key to its disolution, that's how it worked on the other mobs. You remove the leader and the whole house of cards comes down. The really neat part of it is, once the first leader has been ousted, even if the group wanted to choose another and move on, they'd then have the public scrutinize every move they make. They wouldn't be accepted as the "defenders of civil liberties" they claim to be because the American people would know better.

 

As a position, like I said, it would function best as simply caseturn evidence. The CP would be extra advocacy that you really wouldn't need. At the point that the CP functions as a turn against the case, it would be like Withdraw this year. Solving the case is irrelevent when you come to the end of the debate and you weigh the evils of the ACLU vs the good of the plan/ACLU. It is competitive on several bases. 1) Its not topical 2) Any Aff perm would be severing from their ACLU ev in the 1AC 3) The net benifits are never captured by anything other than a sever perm.

 

Netbenifits could but might not include:

Legal legitimacy

Right to a speedy trial

Terrorism

Border Security

Culture

etc

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if i could find evidence saying how the aclu is ruining american civil liberties, it would solve case or be better than case because aclu is around when case is passed. or you could go civil liberties bad, then ban aclu. then it would be competitive because you ban the main organization devoted to giving civil rights. and, even if you don't win solvency you would still win that all of your evidence is still functionally a case turn

Last time I checked the ACLU had nothing to do with granting civil liberties or civil rights.... I think it's a little organization called the government that does that.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from all other responses (which I agree with)

 

The perm is all you really need. No reason I can't acquiese to ACLU demands and simultaneously ban it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the "dirty tricks" counterplan...you know, frame the leadership of the ACLU as being in cahoots with Al Quaeda, the Int'l Communist party, and the Screen Actor's Guild.

 

Maybe a staged picture of the leadership in an orgy with Fidel Castro and Brittney Spears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and by the way, the best you could do without having massive fiat abuse is the counter-plan text: "The United States federal government should charge the ACLU for racketeering under X section of the RICO Statutes."

 

You will never, ever win that a jury would convict on that. Period.

 

Correction: All you need to get for the RICO statutes to work would be find a good conservative, repuublican (most likly) congressmen whos fed up with the ACLU like most of us Savage Nation Members to present it. And just to let ya know, i'm with disolved solvency and will advocate pretty much any of Savage's positions and argue them through. (just in case you decide to actually start attacking what the man says instead of contiually discrediting him because he a "AUTHORITARIAN FACIST!!!")

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

k1

Savage changed his name from Michael Weiner. This is an obvious expression of masculine femiphobia. Ducat 04

Femiphobic gender politics allows for rape, patriarchy and violence. Ducat 04

Patriarchy leads to extinction. Reardon 1993

I am to lazzy to type this shot up tonight.

Micheal Savage is a patriarcal ass, no matter how shitty the first Ducat card is.

k2

somewere i have good cards[faucault, steinem, freyd, etc] saying that the idea of a mental dissorder is a tool of suppresion(crazy biopower or fem impacts, or better shit if I get around to cutting it).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to let ya know, i'm with disolved solvency and will advocate pretty much any of Savage's positions and argue them through. (just in case you decide to actually start attacking what the man says instead of contiually discrediting him because he a "AUTHORITARIAN FACIST!!!")
On MichaelSavage.com:

 

"The True Face of Our Enemy! SHOW THESE PHOTOS TO YOUR LIBERAL FRIENDS

CLICK HERE FOR MORE GRAPHIC PICTURES"

 

"Know Your Enemy

 

 

 

XXXX WARNING XXXX

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE FOLLOWING VIDEOS ARE EXTREMELY GRAPHIC. HOWEVER, WE FEEL IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THEM TO YOU IN ORDER TO SHOW YOU WHO THE ENEMY REALLY IS AND WHAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF."

 

 

 

"Get Your GEAR for Liberals to FEAR!

 

 

 

 

 

A T-Shirt advertisement:

"Best Way To Insult Liberals"

 

The first point being illustrated here is that Mr. Savage, rather than seeing things in from a standpoint of "which policy is best," takes the stance: "liberal = bad. Me no like liberal."

 

Next:

Advertisement for a T-Shirt: "WELCOME TO AMERICA. . . NOW SPEAK ENGLISH!"

Wow; must be a really tolerant and considerate guy. I really think this speaks for itself on the level of idiocy this man displays.

 

Last:

There are no fewer than 15 advertisements on the homepage of this website. Seems like this guy's trying to SELL AN IMAGE rather than constructively comment on issues.

 

Ugh. It makes me sick to think anyone in our age bracket (read: under 25) could fall prey to such a closed-minded and dishonest mindset. At least MTV doesn't preach a philosophy of blind opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Silence
I dare you to defend those positions.

 

Watch out, there's enough radical conservatives on this site that someone may take you up on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer the "dirty tricks" counterplan...you know, frame the leadership of the ACLU as being in cahoots with Al Quaeda, the Int'l Communist party, and the Screen Actor's Guild.

 

Maybe a staged picture of the leadership in an orgy with Fidel Castro and Brittney Spears.

 

 

Ha. This wins. But, all silliness aside...I just love a good out-of-context discussion.

 

Savage critiques the idea that the sorts of people defended by the ACLU (i.e. child molesters, drug smugglers, pedophiles, illegal immigrants, etc) are being protrayed by them as being great saviors to our nation when in fact they are just directly the opposite. They are undermining the system. "The enemy within" as it were. Additionally, he critiques the idea that "deviant" behavior should instantly become a "human rights" issue. If its a "human rights" issue, it probably means that some minority hasn't been properly coddled by the majority. If the white manager of Denny's doesn't bring out a glass of water to a minory family, even if they are there illegally, fast enough they can be and are sued by the ACLU on that minority person's behalf for "hate crimes." Everyone that isn't white is a victim because whites are there. The whole system has been manipluated by the ACLU and simmilar organizations (the National Lawyers' Guild comes to mind) to breed a form of class/race warfare because supposedly they have been oppressed by whitey and are due some sort of compensation. Far beit from that same person to defend againts those claims because, they are white and probably male.

 

The portion of the RICO statutes that applies would be a charge of "conspiracy to create a criminal enterprise". Read them for yourself before you start claiming the ignorance of another person, you might learn something.

 

Now to the line-by-line:

Dissolved Solvency, your post contained no content. At all. Your basic assertion was that the ACLU defends "criminals" and is therefore guilty of crimes under the RICO Statutes.

Yup, no content there are all.

 

There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Your argument is piss-poorly constructed. Even if the ACLU defends criminals (more like "the accused") there is no evidence that they are doing any sort of illegal activity while defending the accused. I doubt you have even read the RICO Statutes nor have you read any solid evidence (besides Savage's ridiculous rhetoric) to point to the guilt of the ACLU. The assertion that the ACLU engages in activities which are like the mafias for which the RICO Statutes were designed is a completely absurd claim that not only has no evidence, but your application of it is a ridiculous attack on the civil liberties of this country.

Dodging all of the nice little logic circles and ad homs(again), the basics of this are quite simple. Al Capone had his own little ring of lawyers covering his ass too. The ACLU just happens to have lots and lots of clients instead of just one. Child molesters, rapists, drug runners, murderers and other "accused" are the top priorities of the ACLU's list. Any sort of technicallity they can find, any method of twisting the Constitution to meet their own agenda is used. Cases are frequently CREATED for the purpose of advancing agenda items (late-term abortion, etc). The flip-side to all of this is that when the original Roe from Roe v. Wade fame steps up and wants to have her case reheard and overturned, the ACLU shys away. Why? Because its not part of their liberalized agenda, they've already done their damage there.

 

 

Applying the RICO Statutes to those that merely defend the rights of the accused destroys legal advocacy and undermines the first amendment. It would severely hamper due process and would destroy substantial amounts of legal freedom in this country. Your application of the RICO Statutes to the ACLU, assuming it were to become a precedent, would serve to undergird absolute totalitarianism in the United States.

 

It really makes me sick when the 1st ammendment is used as a sheild. Applying the RICO statutes to those that choose to ignore the rights of the victim and instead use the accused as a tool to further agenda items and defend truly convicted criminals (as at the point they become convicted they are no longer "the accused" they are convicted awaiting appeal) is fully within the ideals of law. As far as totalitarianism goes, you'd be hard pressed to find any application of this. At the point that a group such as the ACLU is seen as causing the trouble that they are and taking up the cases of those without cases is the point that they no longer become a beacon of legal freedom and they become a beacon of legal benchwarming.

 

 

As a sidebar Gengis: The idea is not that tolerance is what is needed. The term tolerance has become a central talking point to promote a free-for-all nation. Where we go from being a nation of immigrants to being a nation FOR immigrants. He promotes English as the national language. I see no problem with this. When our forefathers came here they all made every attempt to learn the language of the land (mostly English with some hints and borrowings from other languages). This is in stark contrast to modern America where you are being "intolerant" if you don't provide everything in twos (one copy in English and another in Spanish) Its not a matter of being tolerant. It is a matter of being logical and pragmatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
k1

Savage changed his name from Michael Weiner. This is an obvious expression of masculine femiphobia. Ducat 04

Femiphobic gender politics allows for rape, patriarchy and violence. Ducat 04

Patriarchy leads to extinction. Reardon 1993

I am to lazzy to type this shot up tonight.

Micheal Savage is a patriarcal ass, no matter how shitty the first Ducat card is.

k2

somewere i have good cards[faucault, steinem, freyd, etc] saying that the idea of a mental dissorder is a tool of suppresion(crazy biopower or fem impacts, or better shit if I get around to cutting it).

 

This might be one of the dumbest things i've ever seen!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first point being illustrated here is that Mr. Savage, rather than seeing things in from a standpoint of "which policy is best," takes the stance: "liberal = bad. Me no like liberal."

 

Have you ever actually listened to savage? he is against liberalism because it is no longer the traditionalist stance the party once held (Liberals up to about JFK). He does pick the best policies, it just so happens that none of them are liberal ones.

Also, he's no hard-core "bushie". He disagrees with several policies of the Bush administration because he does want the best policies.

 

Next:

Advertisement for a T-Shirt: "WELCOME TO AMERICA. . . NOW SPEAK ENGLISH!"

Wow; must be a really tolerant and considerate guy. I really think this speaks for itself on the level of idiocy this man displays.

BORDERS LANGUAGE CULTURE!!! you plan on coming to america, learn english. This isn't intolerant, its how we have to work things. If you come to america, you need to learn its language so you can contribute and succede (live the american dream). We cant change the system for the lazy. I wanna still be speaking english in twenty years, not have to know spanish, arabic and french just because those coming in refuse to adapt to the situation they want to get into so bad. Clear communication is very important to a successful society. My dad is a doctor in a area where there are a number of minorities, most of them mexican. They are not all here legally (but that is beside the point). He recently had to examine a man who only knew spanish and had to have and interpreter. A average 1 hour interview took 4. This not prolonged transfer not only took a rediculous amount of time, resulting in less alowable appointments and getting behind on patients and paperwork, but also could mean mistakes in translation that could result in a inproper diagnosis. We should post it on the border! WELCOME TO AMERICA (now speak english/pay taxes)

 

 

Last:

There are no fewer than 15 advertisements on the homepage of this website. Seems like this guy's trying to SELL AN IMAGE rather than constructively comment on issues.

 

Again, listen to his show. he uses his web site to post articles he talks about on his program for the listeners to read to get informed, to find what his listeners are thinking through poll questions, promote causes he finds just and worthy (like the one now with helping a lutenient who is being prosecuted for doing his job in iraq), and to keep his website running he advertises (just like any other common website). These advertisments portray certain opinions because they are the opinions of the majority of the people who are visiting that web site, and so they will buy the product, the seller will gain and continue to advertise with that website. Its not that hard to figure out.

 

Ugh. It makes me sick to think anyone in our age bracket (read: under 25) could fall prey to such a closed-minded and dishonest mindset.

 

WHAT HAPPEND TO BEING TOLERANT? OR DO I HAVE TO BE A MINORITY FOR THAT TO APLY TO ME?

(See below: The same thing can be said about you, and it would actually be true this time)

 

At least MTV doesn't preach a philosophy of blind opposition.

 

I dont wanna get into MTVs politics, but i will say this: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(let me know if you dont get why im laughing [lets hope you do, or you might be falling "pray to such a closed-minded and dishonest mindset"])

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...