591–600 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does. What do you mean by your comment?
People who have never been to America are not Americans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't donate to the ACLU because I believe in the civil rights for all people, outside the womb, and inside. Is there a similar organization I can donate to?
That this is being downvoted is extremely telling of the audience here. Engage in a discussion if you disagree. Downvoting unpopular opinions into oblivion is how you get a SV/liberal echo chamber.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just Peter Thiel but anyone of sound mind -- the top 5 countries by Muslim-majority population are not included. * Indonesia 204,847,000 (87.2%) * Pakistan 178,097,000 (96.4%) * India 172,245,158 (14.2%) * Bangladesh 145,312,000 (90%) * Nigeria 75,728,000 (47.9%) If Indonesia suddenly became plagued by radical Islamic terrorism then it would be on the list too. The seven countries targeted by the immigration…
Well there was that thing about Trump calling for a total Muslim ban a little over a yer ago: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. [...] It's entirely reasonable to consider a politician's stated aspirations as well as their…
What do you feel about the argument that we've "figured out" that Muslims coming from these larger countries are not a significant threat, but that our visa and refugee policies are not yet sufficiently reliable for us to say this about the countries that we've recently been bombing?
Do you think there is a legitimate threat, but the measures in the executive order are insufficient to prevent it? That there is a threat, but that there are no positive steps we can take to mitigate it? That the best way of countering the threat is to embrace potentially dangerous immigrants from these countries? Or that there is no particular threat and there is no need to change the current system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Combined with the blanket ban that includes even GC holders, and a clause that due preference is given to one religion over another, along with the way its being implemented (grandmothers detained for 13 - 24 hours on valid visas) with the dark context of the candidate's campaign promise and his administration admission that they "made it legal", yes it is a Muslim ban.
No, it's not but good job reciting the talking points. There are 46 other Muslim majority countries not affected. GC holders are not affected as has been clearly stated by WH.
Is this the first time ycombinator.com has funded a group involved in politics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To really spell it out, as these "pro-life/pro-choice" terms are somewhat esoteric and not always understood by foreign speakers, the ACLU is in favor of abortion rights and many conservatives are against abortion rights.
The terms I usually see are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Everyone on the planet is "pro-life" and thinks abortion is a bad thing, the question is whether outlawing abortion results in better outcomes than allowing it. I think there is room for reasonable disagreement, though legally speaking it's largely a settled issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ACLU has been fighting the good fight for impoverished black people as well. They happen to be in the spotlight at the moment due to the Trump immigration executive order, but it's not as though 100% of the funds raised by YC will go towards fighting the immigration ban. It will support their countless other ongoing legal battles as well. They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization that is deservin…
> They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization The ACLU is wonderful, no doubt about that. But I think some people do put an asterisk next to the group because of their (obviously somewhat strange) categorization of the protections of the 2nd amendment as outside the scope of American civil liberties.
The distinction is frequently omitted, and used to paint the national group with the sins of local ones, and vice-versa.
And that's not the view of the national ACLU, at all. Perhaps they don't place the emphasis on it you'd like to see, but that's quite different than considering the 2nd "outside the scope".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would caution people about how they donate to the ACLU. I made a donation last year and since then have been awash in solicitations for donations from SCLC, Planned Parenthood, Grean Peace, PETA, and other leftist organizations. While I don't object to many of these organizations, I take my privacy very seriously and I wasn't aware when I donated that my personal information would be given/sold out the way it has b…
there's an option on the donation page where you can opt-in to the ACLU sharing your details with other charitable organizations. (the default is opt-out).
I appreciate the ACLU. They make it easy for me to vote. Every election I go through the voting booklet to see how the ACLU recommends I vote on candidates and issues, then I vote the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who have never been to America are not Americans.
It is the American Civil Liberties Union, Not the Union of Americans' Civil Liberties. 'American' in this context refers to the provenance of the civil liberties in question, not some sort of property interest. The more you know!
If American liberties are a concept to apply over the whole world, the ACLU should be encouraging the whole world to a adopt the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.