bravo! And so YOU! Glad to see you're not backing down, you extremist!

I'm sure the ACLU believes in what they stand for, I, for one, have no understanding of what they stand for. So, the stories about being against every icon that reflects Christian emblems seem strange.

http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/villagepeople17.shtml

Good parody, Linda! 5's I'm glad you took on the ACLU.

Michael, what Constitution? Hasn't the fanatical right-wing whittled down the Bill of Rights to "The Second Amendment"?

P.S. Even Guy's parody was deja vu all over again...
http://www.lawsongs.com/listen.html#aclu

I miss guy; I like Guy. Guy made cogent, intelligent arguments. It was always a pleasure to engage in conversation with Guy.

I miss Anita Bryant.

I don't. Linda probably does.

Michael, You are “sure there is a good parody that expresses MY political views” but this was not it? Of course, it expresses my political views or I would not write it, duh. ------------ I am sure that Michael Douglas could care less about how you personally feel about him or his wife and equally sure that his wife would not love you back, (and by the way, who cares?) ------------ Certainly, MOST people in the United States would not brag about being members of the ACLU these days, but it figures that you would. Because you are highly immature, terribly led and fed and ignorant in most political subjects, it would stand to reason you could be persuaded to be a member of such a horrid group. There are endless reasons why I, and many millions of others, would not support or be a member of the ACLU. To name a few, since you asked, they are an immoral and valueless group and should be stopped. They fully supported a “how to” book for adult men to “get” little boys if they so desired to do so. A manual, if you will, on how to lure young boys in order to have sexual relations with them. The sued for this man because he had the right to free speech and should be able to be published and when he was not given the opportunity to do so by a major publishing company, they sued. California, in the mists having a huge financial problem to the tune of billions of dollars and getting worse every day at the hands of Grey Davis (who, by the way went into office with a surplus and a promised refund to millions of drivers for vehicle registration), was attacked all over by the ACLU. First, the San Diego, who for years gave land yearly to the boy scouts for their annual camps (for a small rental fee), because they were renting government land to the scouts who had the word “God” in their oath. They also sued the boy scouts for that very reason almost destroying the scouts in southern California. They went after the city of Los Angles because among other small icons in their seal there was a tiny cross that symbolized the missions who founded that area. Although NO ONE complained about their “civil rights” in any of these cases, they threatened to sue the city unless they removed the cross in the seal. We are talking many buildings, police cars, fire engines, city vehicles, stationary for every aspect of the city, business cards and much more and every single seal had to be replaced with a seal that did not contain a cross. This had a huge cost, millions of wasted dollars because the ACLU is protecting NO ONE! Both of the cities involved had to spend tax payers money that the state, counties and cities did not have to this demand or be sued and pay millions upon millions more. The ACLU ran a campaign that put large advertising banners on buses that put down law enforcement for arresting and jailing people who were caught using marijuana. The government said that the buses could not advertise those banners and expect money from them to help subsidize their services. The ACLU again threatened to sue for 5 billion dollars, sue the US government if they did not allow the anti-law enforcement pro-drug, civil unrest-causing ads that they were running on the buses. They back terrorists and not the victims of terrorists and this is all just a very small sampling of the ACLU’s protection of our civil rights. They are a self-serving rotten to the core group of people, kind of like you, you brainwashed freak. As for your last sentence, that’s just another example of your extreme immaturity and lacking in breeding, both I am sure contribute to your single-hood

I don't see what the big fuss is over someone tying a topic to the same original song. I mean, if you took it to court it wouldn't hold up. Besides the fact that I think that Linda's is better than Guy's, although my opinions have no merit. Are you saying we are supposed to spend more time researching to make sure no one has done a topic tie-in than we do writing a parody? I would think as long as you aren't posting a parody that you copied from someone else it's still your creation. If you do think we should research, how far do we go?? Just on Amiright? The web? Where do we stop?

To Michael and Robert, How does it feel for the two of you to feed off of one another’s distorted, sick, led, fed, terribly misguided and ignorant thoughts? Do you take comfort in being backed up in your crazy thinking by another complete and total immature moron? I would think that it would not give you power to feed off one another in this fashion, but apparently you have chosen to idolize one another… have you no standards in your lives at all?

Tim, Strange, but true and thank you!!! -------- John and Adagio, thank you! ------------ Been There Done That, Great parody, I did not see it before you posted the link, good job!

Trite at best.

Gay Author, what a surprise coming from someone who calls himself gay author! I would not expect that you would like it. Trite, maybe, but I think you are just full of sour grapes. I have written maybe 6 parodies so I am not as seasoned as you may like, but I think I am doing okay under the circumstances and I am thankful that I am not the type to care what you would have to say in all your bitterness.

Not vicious like your other ones I've read...that's an improvement, I guess. Not voting because, well...to be perfectly honest, I just don't like you - you rub me the wrong way. I would probably give you lower scores than whatever you might deserve because of that and I recognize that is not fair - so I will not vote on any of yours.

Paul Robinson, Golly, I am so heartbroken because your opinions are so very important to me.

Heaven help us The relentless attack on public displays of spirituality and religion by progressive secularists has been extremely effective worldwide. Churchgoing in Western Europe, for example, has collapsed in many countries. Harvard professor Niall Ferguson calls the decline of Christianity in Europe "one of the most remarkable phenomena of our times." Ferguson cites a Gallup Poll that shows barely 20 percent of Western Europeans attend church services at least once a week. The number is 47 percent and falling in the USA. In Britain, only 10 percent of those polled said they would be willing to die for their religious beliefs. And guess who loves that statistic? Can you say the Islama-fascists? The decline of religious influence in the West can be seen in two very important areas. First, how the world is responding to the terrorist jihad. And second, how societies deal with citizens who commit the most dastardly of crimes. As this column has stated before, if all the world's nations would unite against terrorism, it could not exist. If the fundamental moral tenet of protecting the lives of innocent people superceded all other political concerns, Osama bin-Laden and the boys would be on the gallows right now. But that is not the case as we all know. Terrorist acts are routinely justified and accepted by people who feel little for their fellow man. A once-proud country like Spain essentially surrendered to Al Qaeda after those killers bombed a Spanish train. The citizens of Spain had to know that pulling out of Iraq after that bombing gave Al Qaeda a huge victory. But many Spanish citizens simply didn't care. To them Al Qaeda should be someone else's problem. In America, the anti-religious forces are led by the ACLU and activist liberal judges who are aided by an increasingly secular media. It is no accident that we have thousands of child sex offenders running wild in this country. The crime of child sexual abuse used to be second only to murder. Now the ACLU defends the North American Man-Boy Love Association in court claiming their free speech rights are being violated. The Founding Fathers knew that religion, if handled correctly, could be a powerful force for good. The moral guidance provided by The Ten Commandments constrains bad behavior, that's why the Commandments appeared in Scripture. But now, the secularists insist there is no place in the public square for the Commandments. There is no place for constraints that may offend. Think it over. If every human being chose to set up his or her own moral program, there would never be a consensus of what is proper and what is not. There would never be universal outrage over terrorism or terrible crimes. Moral outrage is the only way to defeat terrible behavior. Today, many of us don't even know what terrible behavior is. Could gangsta rap music have existed 30 years ago? How about partial birth abortion? Hitler and Tojo were defeated by men and women who were willing to die so those villains could not enslave and kill other human beings. It was moral outrage over Pearl Harbor that led to the demise of the dictators. We had a semblance of the same moral outrage in America after 9/11 but that is ebbing away. The terrorists and perverts understand that only moral outrage will beat them back. A person or nation with no moral compass will never be able to summon up that outrage. A human being that lives in the gray area of right and wrong is likely not to make a stand against evil. And that's what the evildoers are counting on. B.O'Reilly Aug. 8, 2005

Well... Linda: The ACLU is "an immoral and valueless group"? Tell you what: I'll condemn them as that very thing if you'll say the same thing about Pat Robertson and his acolytes. Deal? No, the right-wingers don't make deals. They don't believe in moral equivalence even when the shoe fits. The NAMBLA thing is impossible to defend. But here we go again with moral equivalence: If "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," then pedophilia books don't molest children. You lose. As for "lacking in breeding," well, this is America, and that sort of thing isn't supposed to matter here. But take any one of my relatives, and they have more class in one finger -- guess which one -- than a hundred fascists like you. Yes, Linda, we have standards, and you don't meet them, by choice rather than by incompetence, though that also applies. Until the former no longer does, even if the latter still does, your candidates will be unworthy of the votes of non-extremist Americans.

And now for Alex, whose motto seems to be, "If at seventeenth you don't succeed..." Churchgoing has collapsed in Western Europe? Considering the corruption in the Vatican, which John Paul did not stop, may he rest in peace, I don't think you should be surprised. As Bill Veeck said, "Religion is like baseball: Great game, lousy owners." Or, as Martin Luther said, "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise." You want a theocracy, go to Iran. Or West Iran, as Iraq will soon be known. "Could gangsta rap music have existed 30 years ago?" Yeah, it could: "I Shot the Sheriff" by Bob Marley. Hell, it existed 50 years ago: "Riot In Cell Block #9" by the Robins. "Folsom Prison Blues" by Johnny Cash. I'm sure there are earlier examples. Why is the post-9/11 moral outrage dropping away? How about because Bush diverted troops from the hunt for Bin Laden to go after Saddam? If someone as qualified as John Kerry and as likable as John Edwards had said that last year -- instead of those qualities being split among two men -- Bush's Crawford vacation would've lasted for the rest of his wasted life. Bush's overall and war approval ratings now match those of LBJ in March '68. And LBJ didn't have a "Watergate," while Bush does (Karl Rove). We saw with Clinton what might have happened had JFK served two full terms. Now we are seeing the second full terms of LBJ (who chose not to seek one) and Nixon at the same time. Enjoy your "victory." You may not live long enough to see another. At this rate, millions of us won't.

Alex, you wouldn't by any chance be producing your comments here by merely cutting & pasting someone ELSE'S words DIRECTLY and taking credit for them, would you? Wondering because right smack in the middle of your remarks we see this line: "As this column has stated before " If you are then you ought to be putting it in quotes and crediting or naming your original source, just so we can all know who is putting words in your mouth. Of course, if they actually ARE your remarks, right from your yap, you ought to either identify the "column" or remove that part of your comment here. But, hey, I'm sure it's just an innocent error on your part...otherwise that would indicate a certain degree of intellectual dishonesty, Not to mention flat-out sloppy carelessness, don't you think?

Paul Robinson - dweeb, I put the credit in the "column" - you either do not read too terribly well or you are an idiot. --------------- And Michael, (you bitter little misinformed imp), JFK would not have lied under oath or been on his forth public affair.

Oh, Geez, Alex...so SORRY! I didn't realize you copied and pasted an ENTIRE column of SOMEONE else's to fill that big old space in this thread. How imaginative. Wow, you know it WAS really dumb of me to think you could write that many words. Problem here is, I only see quotation marks (you know..."___") at one area near the beginning. They end...and then much more, including the, "As this is column has stated before...", is said without any further punctuation or comment to indicate that these are actually Mr. Ferguson's words and not yours. I thought maybe you wrote a column somewhere after I read that. Guess it's because I read so badly, huh? Anyway, maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem clear which words are yours and which are Ferguson's. Hey, I've got an idea: Why don't you separate YOURS from FERG's and put them in SEPARATE comments here so we can measure and evaluate them better. I think it might be quite instructive for other reader's as well, don't you?

Man, Alex, I goofed AGAIN...I didn't actually read all the way to the bottom of that thread. I stopped during the last line or so and didn't finish it. So I must apologize, you didn't crib the whole comment from Nial Ferguson at all...No, your word-for-word copy and paste was from somebody named "B. O'Reilly". WAIT! "B.O'REILLY"!!!!!! ??? HA-HA-HA-HA-HA...Oh, Man...I can't even think of anything more than that to say now...You went and copied and pasted that entire mess from something Bill F*cking O'Reilly said and you have the utter gall to call ME an idiot. See you in the Funny Papers, man...

Paul, Tell me why is it that everyone on the left seem to have such problems with immaturity, (among other problems)? Is that the best you can do? On a personal level, how old are you, like 16 / 17 or so?

Actually, Alex, I don't think it's immature to ask you why you find it necessary to use somewhere around 250 or so of Bill O'Reilly's words verbatim in a comment thread - whether you credit them or not. Don't you have any original thoughts of your own, other than calling me names? Uh...oh...let's see...On a personal level, Alex, it's absolutely none of your business how old I am...although it's not really a secret...if you weren't such a jerk I would tell you, but I'll let you hunt for it if you really want to know. Hey, got an idea...why don't you ask "Billy" O'Reilly? It looks like he does most of your thinking for you, anyway.

Paul Robinson - First you gripe about not having a credit listed and then you find out one was listed and then you say it doesn't matter if one was listed or not - geeze! I really do not care how old you are because it is apparent that your emotional age is about that of a 12 year old judging by your comments. Given that, I understand now that you are unable to comprehend much of what is going on in these threads, (even in the threads you are commenting in), let alone in the white house, so I forgive your ignorance.

Alex, you still won't answer the question. Let me re-phrase: Are you capable of forming and articulating any political positions or statements on your own? By the way, you should know that "Maturity" is a purely optional human trait or characteristic. I have enough of it to employ when I need to...which leaves any discussion with you out. Anyway, I won't ask the question anymore because I can see it embarrasses you and you have no real answer, so you just blather on about my supposed lack of maturity...yeah, change the subject...good idea, Alex. When you don't answer the inquiry this time I guess I (and anyone else bothering to wade through this mess) will know it's because you have no answer...and Bill O'Reilly hasn't addressed the issue for you yet...

Paul Robinson, you are such a bore, oh well. I assumed your question was rhetorical - giving you credit for having some brain matter in your head. Apparently, it was not rhetorical and so I must conclude that you are a moron. However, since I am a nice person, the answer is "yes". Answering such a ridiculous question does not embarrass me one bit, but one would think it would embarrass you to ask it. Given most all of your comments in various places, I take it that you do not embarrass easily, at least not as easily as you should.

Alex, good...so you think you can...OK, so when will we see an example? I looked at a couple of threads you have commented in and all I see is regurgitated Rush or Hannity crap, outside of your rather obnoxious personal insults and silly, over-the-top accusations. You're probably the dipward who is haunting my back pieces and dumping "1" scores on some every day...the time-frame coincides with our "discussions", such as they are...it is precisely what I would expect from someone with your limited and narrow perspective and miniscule linguistic abilities. If that's the best you can do then you should know that, yes, it does annoy me...and you should also know that annoying me doesn't make YOU much of anything but a momentary annoyance for a moment when I happen to check. At least I'm not stuck being you...that's YOUR PERMANENT Inconvenience and I'm sure glad I don't have to deal with that. There, that's better...

OH, BTW, Alex...No, I don't embarrass easily...Why, do you? Geez, if you do then I ought to apologize for pointing out so many of the your personal flaws and outright intellectual dishonesty in this thread...I ought to...but I don't...You know, Alex, you might get smarter if you THOUGHT about stuff when you read it rather than either "head-nodding' or calling somebody a name because you don't agree...Oh, and if you think I called you a name in my previous post in this thread it's only true if you fit the profile in the sentence...

Wrote a couple parodies myself which you can find here... ACLU for YMCA, good parody, made me chuckle.

chris -- thanks!

a classic. 5cubed

Ja! Take away civil liberties! Stomp on freedom! Force religion! Burn the constitution! Then put everyone that doesn't look like us into concentration camps! I like your parody, Linda!

Righty: thanks! ----- -- --- --- --- -- Joseph Goebbels - Ja! Pick which liberals have liberties! Help out terrorists! End Religion! Change the constitution! Then jail everyone who looks like us and give freedom to come and go to everyone who doesn't! Thank you Joseph!