Reject Endless War & Torture Cover-Up, Demand Accountability for Torture Now!, Close Guantanamo in 120 Days, Restore the Constitution: libertarian

Protect Women's Access to Birth Control (trying to force pharmacies to offer birth control): unlibertarian

Health Data: Not For Sale: unlibertarian, but I realize it is open to interpretation

Stop Sentencing Discrimination: libertarian-esque

Stop the FCC From Trampling Free Speech,Oppose the FCC's Proposal to Regulate T.V. Violence: libertarian

Investigate Katrina Abuses (of prisoners): libertarian-esque

Urge Your Senator to Fix REAL ID: libertarian-esque

Urge Congress to Stop Racial Profiling: libertarian-esque

Oppose Hate Crimes, Protect Free Speech: unlibertarian-esque

Support the Freedom of Choice Act: libertarian-esque

Help Restore Net Neutrality: how do you rate an unlibertarian regulation of an unlibertarian granted monopoly?

Demand NSA Oversight: libertarian

Support the "Medical Necessity" Defense for Medical Marijuana: libertarian

Help Mothers & Women Around the Globe: unclear

So I'd say more "libertarian" than "unlibertarian" on average. Better than most politicians outside of Ron Paul or the LP!

I wish there was less truth to this.

The ACLU believes that the Second Amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms only for the State – which is impossible because states don't have rights. They have remained adamant in this regard even after the DC versus Heller case.

The ACLU was founded as a communist organization and is very selective in what liberties it will defend.

I found an article with a similar accusation. But the article shows at best that the ACLU founders were socialist sympathizers or feminists (the horror! the horror!). The article quotes a 1931 report without giving any sources behind the statement that "The [ACLU] is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States". Were evolutionists communists? But even this article does not go as far as stating that the ACLU was a communist organization.

Leaving aside blanket statements, in what respect is the ACLU selective? I know that they are for affirmative action (and I think a libertarian cannot really be for it), which is mostly a liberal cause. But many issues (immigration, searches and warrants, executive overreach) cut through both parties. And others (gay marriage) are definitely liberal darlings, but should not irk libertarians. And others (defending on specific issues neo-nazis or the North American Man/Boy Love Association) are universally disliked even by the ACLU, but are defensible on First-Amendment grounds.

Are there issues that, according to libertarian ideals, the ACLU should not take on? And are there issues that the ACLU should take on, based on the same ideals?

My answer to the latter would be to definitely include Property Rights, and maybe School Choice.

Gappy,
Are you famliar with the saying, "I'd rather answer to 12 than be carried by 6."

The same principle applies to the recording, I'd rather have it in a illegal situation, than not have it in a legal situation.

Texas may be unique in its law. Recording is legal if one of the parties being recorded knows it. That makes it kind of a Duh law for me, as of course the recorder knows it so any situation is legal. Other states have varying laws. Check it out.

But as I said, I'd record anyway and then decide whether to use or not use it in the most judicious manner.

Living here in Texas creates the situation where I am constantly ounding into my wife, my kids, my family and friends that any time, anytime at all, one is going to make a phone call about something that could in anyway be controversial at a later date, you hook up a recorder and record the call so you have documentation of what was said.

Divorce
Bills
Custody
Legal
Product failure/replacement
Failure to pay, or insufficient payment
anything at all that you might think could be later denied by the one you're talking to.

I took my pen into court where it was strictly verbotten and I did it strictly to check the accuracy of the finished transcript to make sure that no editing had been done. (For those of you who are still excessively naive about your justice system, trust me, the so-called true and accurate transcripts produced by the court reporter are often edited by the judge, with the help of the prosecuter, before being published and made available.) In my case minor editing had been done, but my team of advisors and I decided that what was left out was inconsequential to the accuracy, so I let it slide.

In order to maintain control and fear the justice system, including the courts, are fanatical about controlling the official record of the proceeding in court. That record is what all appeals will be based upon.

Vidyohs: the idea of a voice recorder in these situations crossed my mind. I have been wondering if recording any conversation without explicit consent is legal.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10001149-93.html

Anyone who does not own one and keep it in his auto is not taking proper safeguards against police criminality. I keep mine clipped to my driver's side visor. If stopped I begin recording as I pull over. If the stop is clean I can erase the recording.

I know of a young man that became moderately wealthy courtesy of the State of Georgia because he had a small tape recorder that he activated on a stop. As he was not speeding, driving recklessly, nor under the influence, he was aggressive in asking why he was stopped. The cops (two of them) ordered him out of his car asked if they could search it, the young man agreed to the search. His small tape recorder clipped to the visor recorded the conversation of the cops as they searched.

The cops arrested him for "possession" of pot and had his car towed and my acquaintance landed in jail. Out on bail he retrieved his car and the small recorder, the recorder had the cops nailed dead. They were angry they couldn't find anything and openly conspired to "drop" some pot and subsequently "find" it. This was all loud and clear.

He made copies of the recording and when it was all said and done the state of Georgia laid a bundle of cash on him to get him to drop his case against them.

Chances are your stop may not go down that road, but increasingly in this country they do.

I also carry a valet key in my pocket. If ever ordered out of my car I will comply but I will lock my keys in the car as I exit. "Gosh, officers, and double damn, I accidently locked my car with the keys in it. Do you know of a locksmith I can call?"

Bob, most people don't even begin to know and understand just how active and intense is the effort of government to instill fear in the people.

Check this website out and read the article to get a good grasp of how your "justice" system works.

http://www.naturalnews.com/z023719.html

"Later, Taylor was told by a court official, "This system operates on fear, you have no fear and that's a problem for us."

http://www.naturalnews.com/z023719.html

Republican and conservative are of course not the same.

Gappy, feigning ignorance as to the ACLU's Left wing foundation either makes you truly ignorant – and thus not equipped for the kind of conversation you seem to be asking for – or it makes you a liar. Which of course no one cares to converse with a liar.

Speaking for "supposed" libertarians we have a general dislike for the ACLU because they are for more government involvement in the individual's life. (BTW, what's your voter registration say? Mine says LBT)

I've always held that a group purporting to be for individual rights would look more like the Institute for Justice.

It doesn't really matter though. Archer Daniels Midland has a much better method: the Combine.

Also, noted is what exactly were the statistics they cite. The article writes like it was written, then the data was sought and sifted for support.