Ordering pizza in the near future

[Chassit]

I was gonna' post this in General, but then I thought, nah, this group might create some lively political discussion over it first, which could be sort of fun.

I think this is so close to true now that it isn't quite as funny as it would have been 10 years ago...

www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927

[Avatar]

Well, it was amusing anyway, and it might be even closer to true than we like to think. Don't know how much stuff you buy over the 'Net, but a lot of people do which means that bits and pieces of a lot of information is out there...somewhere.

Now tell me, was that made by the ACLU? I thought conservatives hated the ACLU?

--A

[Marv]

yeah, I've actually seen that before written down but I hadn't seen the video. Sprout pizza-

[[Syl]]

Now tell me, was that made by the ACLU?

Yep. Saw it months ago on their site.

[Lord Mhoram]

By the way, looks like they're using and outdated version of Windows.

[Chassit]

True, the ACLU and those on the right have a mutual dislike for each other.

But if they did create this, all I can say is it's dismaying to consider. We have enough nanny state already.

[Edit: I thought I saw something about "40 condoms" when I was watching that. ]

[[Syl]]

And thank god that George Orwell guy's political career never took off.

Chassit, I don't think it's as mutual as you'd like to believe. The ACLU has supported many 'rightist' causes over the years.

[The Laughing Man]

www.aclu.org/pizza/


hahaha! it's not an ACLU campaign for them, it's about Bush's surveillance programs! way better with sound too....forgive me if I thought that this thread was meant to criticize the ACLU...

The government and corporations are aggressively collecting information about your personal life and your habits. They want to track your purchases, your medical records, and even your relationships. The Bush Administration's policies, coupled with invasive new technologies, could eliminate your right to privacy completely. Please help us protect our privacy rights and prevent the Total Surveillance Society.

[Chassit]

And thank god that George Orwell guy's political career never took off.

Chassit, I don't think it's as mutual as you'd like to believe. The ACLU has supported many 'rightist' causes over the years.

Well, Syl, I'd have to disagree with you on "many". It might depend on the age-old question of what is left and what is right also.

I do recall a case here and there of the ACLU standing up for some Christians (the right to read their Bibles, or something like that). But all in all, I think they're clearly a lefist organization. Left libertarian, you could say.

As far as the nanny-state issue, the problem is-- and I'm NOT saying this to be diplomatic; I really believe it-- that both the left AND right are fine with their own nanny-state issues, just not the other guy's. This is why I'm not a Republican. Some of the things Bush does worry me, and some don't.

I'll do some looking into ACLU, its cases over the years and its foundations, and get back to you later or tomorrow...

[Chassit]

Good morning!

Well, since I'm not working today (it's just too nice today to work, even though I need the money, but never mind that now), I thought I'd post a little info I'm finding on the ACLU.

[Disclaimer: The links I post as sources will undoubtedly be biased. That's the nature of this kind of information-gathering. However, some contain direct quotes from the founders themselves, and other factual information. It's up to the reader to decide what to take with a grain of salt.]

First:
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45959

Some excerpts:

From its very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU's devotion to communism. A report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.

Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.

Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin [founder] wrote:

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

Earl Browder, the general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States, admitted that the ACLU served as a "transmission belt" for the party. Baldwin agreed, claiming, "I don't regret being a part of the communist tactic which increased the effectiveness of a good cause."

Eastman was a zealous feminist, an anti-war activist, and a great admirer of the Soviet revolution. Of her many leftist friends and associates, Eastman held the highest regard for Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. According to Eastman, "We [feminists] must all be followers of Margaret Sanger."

But the radical agenda hardly ends there. In his wedding vows, Baldwin called marriage as between one man and one woman "a grim mockery of essential freedom." He added, "The highest relationship between a man and a woman is that which welcomes and understands each other's loves."

The result is that today the ACLU is a leading advocate of same-sex "marriage," and has expressed support for polygamy and polyamory ("open" marriage) as well. The ACLU Policy Guide reads:

The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage [polygamy or polyamory] violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.

So, even from its foundations, ACLU is not exactly coming from a rightward perspective.

From "Crystal Eastman: Founded the ACLU"

As an advocate of civil liberties in wartime and the rights of dissenters and conscientious objectors, she helped establish the National Civil Liberties Bureau in April 1917. (It later became the American Civil Liberties Union.) In 1919, Crystal organized the First Feminist Congress. She founded the U.S. Woman's Peace Party, heading the radical New York branch while Jane Addams served as national president. In 1921, the party was renamed the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, which is today the nation's oldest women's peace organization. Crystal was one of the Equal Rights Amendment's four authors when it was introduced in 1923. She said of the ERA's significance, "This is a fight worth fighting even if it takes ten years."

Crystal Eastman died on July 8, 1928 in Erie, Pa. An obituary in The Nation pointed out "She was for thousands a symbol of what the free woman might be."

The Nation-- leftist magazine. Feminism: Started out as a good idea and now is more commonly called radical feminism and is championed by the left.

From "a religious-right website":

Freedom of association and assembly??

* LOS ANGELES - October 31, 2000 The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California succeeded this week in persuading the National Park Service to respect religious diversity and the First Amendment by removing a Christian cross from the Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County.
* "The National Park Service's decision," said Michael Small, Chief Counsel of the ACLU of Southern California, "represents another ACLU victory for the principle that governments and religions shouldn't mix – because when they do, they produce intolerance, alienation, and division."

The cross, the subject of constant attack by vandals, (including now the ACLU) was constructed in 1934 by a group of World War I veterans. According to a plaque they placed nearby, the cross was intended as a memorial, but has since attracted Christian worshippers. Congress has declared the site a war memorial.

This Cross has stood as a memorial for 67 years to those who died in the service of this nation. It attracted Christian Worshipers-The ACLU has violated the first amendment rights of those that were attracted to it. No one was force to bow before it-no law was created by congress-therefore no violation of first amendment. The ACLU just wanted to desecrate another Christian symbol and with spit on a memorial meant to pay tribute to brave men and women that died in the service of America UNDER GOD. If the Cross offended someone –they have the right to not look at it. Besides if they are secure enough in their belief no matter how false then what difference should it make to them. No one was forcing them to bow or pay homage.

From probably the most neutral, www.answers.com/topic/american-civil-liberties-union

Between the 1930s and the mid-1990s, the ACLU won (as counsel) or helped to win (through amicus briefs) several Supreme Court cases that profoundly changed U.S. law and life. Among these were Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954) (declaring racially segregated schools unconstitutional); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) (severely limiting the power of police officers and prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965) (invalidating a state law that banned contraceptives and, for the first time, locating the concept of privacy in the Bill of Rights); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) (requiring the police to advise suspects of their rights before interrogation); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967) (striking down the laws of Virginia and fifteen other states that made interracial marriage a criminal offense); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 (1969) (invalidating state sedition laws aimed at radical groups); and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973) (recognizing a woman's constitutional right to an abortion).

When you look at what the ACLU does, it champions more "leftist" than "rightist" causes, however you might feel about the causes themselves. I agree and stand behind quite a few of them myself, but by no means can these be called "conservative" causes.

I suppose this would show more why conservatives don't like the ACLU than it does why the ACLU doesn't like conservatives... so I may have to hunt up more quotes from members themselves (like the one above, about traditional marriage and how it is a "grim mockery of essential freedom".

I would like to see the "many" rightist causes.

(By the way, this isn't that personal for me either way. Let's keep it civil... ugh!, bad pun... anyway...)

[The Laughing Man]

hhhmmm...what exactly IS a conservative cause? what do conservatives fight for or want? and why do they 1.)accept the help of the ACLU when it suits them, or they benefit from it, and 2.)turn around and vilify them for standing up to abuses of rights or freedoms?

Forgive me, but this ACLU thing has all the earmarks of fascist propoganda from the conservative side, trying to convince people of some communist conspiracy in order to protect their ability to do what they want, when they want, when they happen to be in power or ownership situations.....too many people hate the ACLU and don't even know why...thats whats really wrong here....

[Chassit]

hhhmmm...what exactly IS a conservative cause? what do conservatives fight for or want?

Conservative causes would be things like free-market capitalism, rugged individualism, traditional values, patriotism/nationalism; things like that. At least this would be current U.S. conservatism.

In the past, when the conservatives ruled with an iron hand (in my opinion), the ideals the ACLU chapioned were great ideas by most people's standards today (women's rights, minority rights, etc.). Democrats were the party that represented liberty and equality, and freedom, while the right was banning books or certain speech and not allowing free association, etc. But everything's gone left, and now the conservatives are like what the Democrats were 100 years ago. Again, in my opinion. The ACLU started out with communist ties, which was its essential flaw in the beginning. Now it's gone farther left, beyond women's equality and into radical feminism. And so on.

Conservatives fight for a turn to the right. Not so far right that we're back in the 1920s, making the same mistakes, but rather a return to the things that did work then: traditional family, no eager welfare state to catch everybody when they fall even a little; the religious-right would like to see abortions much more difficult to attain, etc. ... and parents' rights.

and why do they 1.)accept the help of the ACLU when it suits them, or they benefit from it, and 2.)turn around and vilify them for standing up to abuses of rights or freedoms?

I think that's sort of a strawman. Conservatives might seek the help of the ACLU, but you don't see them doing so in any great numbers. The ACLU fights more for leftist causes, so why would the right enlist their help? Besides, this goes against the conservative principle of individualism.

Conservatives do not villify the ACLU for "standing up to abuses of rights or freedoms", so I choose not to take the bait on that one.

Forgive me, but this ACLU thing has all the earmarks of fascist propoganda from the conservative side,

Examples? You might find a few on the religious-right, but even there, you'll find more "let us be free to worship" than you will "worship the way we tell you to".

trying to convince people of some communist conspiracy

Communist ties, and I've documented some of that. Can you refute this?

in order to protect their ability to do what they want, when they want,

Uh... yeah! Don't we sort of all want that? It's called freedom.

when they happen to be in power or ownership situations.....

Can you clarify that for me, please?

too many people hate the ACLU and don't even know why...thats whats really wrong here....

I think they know why, Esmer.

The ACLU no longer just protects people's freedoms; now they push agendas, push-push-push, through the courts if they can, despite what the people want. That's what's really wrong here.

My entire argument is in answer to Syl's assertion that the ACLU has defended "many rightist" causes. I'm neither villifying them nor do I "hate" them. But I can't get behind what they do, for the most part. My personal ideology doesn't allow me to. If they'd stick to simply defending people's civil rights, like they used to, I could get behind them more, with or without the Communist ties.

[The Laughing Man]

free-market capitalism, rugged individualism, traditional values, patriotism/nationalism

what are these to you? I'll get back to the other points, and provide some more insightful commentary, but you seem to be using conservative words and phrases, but do you have examples of how these have been assaulted by the ACLU? Does forcing family values by law sound like freedom to you? Do you realize the welfare state was a direct response to the natural consequences of rugged individualism and free market capitalism? You feel a business should be able to hire children, work 20 hours a day seven days a week, pay it's employees whatever they want, fire them when they feel like it, and charge whatever fees or prices they want for their goods and services? and when they fail, of their own fault, putting people in the poorhouse not of their own accord, left for dead, we should not help these people? the govt can give money to corporations to help them, but not the people destroyed by the abuses of that corporation?

Do you think those WWI veterans would have been able to erect a statue of Buddha? do you allow them that freedom yourself? to erect religious icons on govt property?

and another thing, I can find ties to communist ideology in the Constitution, heh....just depends on whose "brand" of communism you are talking about....

[Chassit]

free-market capitalism, rugged individualism, traditional values, patriotism/nationalism

what are these to you?

Wow, now that could take up an afternoon!

In a nutshell, I guess, these would all be things that would revolve around doing for oneself, one's family and one's country. To me personally, it means I try to live up to standards that I've been taught are important: my belief in a Creator, honesty, loyalty, respect for others and their property, traditional family values (traditional marriage, and not running for divorce court right away just because it's so easy now), understanding how great my country truly is and how blessed I am to live here, doing my best to pull my own weight (refusing, for example, to sign my kids up for reduced-lunch program this year or any year, because I know it's coming out of someone else's pocket). Lots of other things.

A lot of the things I believe in and respect also fall on the left side. But then, you asked me what these things mean to me, so there ya go. [Edit: They may mean different things to other conservatives, such as more religious overtones, etc.]

By the way, as a digression but to maybe clarify a little bit where I sit, I'm not a Christian, but I'm a believer in God. I'm somewhat of a social conservative, but even there, once you factor in my pro-drug legalization and pro-euthenasia positions, that becomes iffy.

You and I could sit across the table from each other or next to a warm fire in winter drinking Starbucks (or whatever you like) and I guess we'd both soon find that it's hard to box people into neat little categories of "left" and "right", while at the same time realizing that you're probably best described as "left" and me as "right". Right?

I'll get back to the other points, and provide some more insightful commentary, but you seem to be using conservative words and phrases, but do you have examples of how these have been assaulted by the ACLU? Does forcing family values by law sound like freedom to you?

No. But if by that you mean that conservatives resent having someone tell them what the new definition of one of their most cherished instituions is supposed to be, then yes, it's being assaulted by the ACLU and other activist organizations. (But I really don't want to get into a "gay marriage" debate with you. I've had so many of those over the last three years, and to be honest, I'm just tired of it. No one ever convinces anyone of anything on that issue anyway, and I'm just tired of... fighting about it. It almost always leads to ad hominem (sp, ugh!) attacks, so I don't want to go there.)

Do you realize the welfare state was a direct response to the natural consequences of rugged individualism and free market capitalism?

Well, I'd disagree with how you're spinning that. I don't think there's anyone who is against helping the impoverished. And again, it's one of those things that started out with wonderful intentions and became over time a monster. I've been on welfare myself, and believe me, there's absolutely nothing there-- at least, not in the 1980s-- that promoted personal responsibility at all. Helping people who cannot help themselves is great and necessary in a society that is supposed to "promote the general welfare" of its people. But we've gone from that to telling able-bodied people they need not work! They can have as many children as they like, and as long as they're NOT married in most cases, the government (my tax money and yours) will support them and their seven kids. If you've broken our laws by cutting in line to cross the borders, don't worry, we'll "take care of you".

Is this what welfare was originally designed to do? I don't think so. But I'm ranting... sorry...

You feel a business should be able to hire children,

Forgive the interruption here, but yes, if the children's parents give permission and the child wants to. I think it would be great if my 10-year-old could get a little after-school job should he want one. But he can't now, and it's not because right-leaning totalitarians say he can't.

work 20 hours a day seven days a week,

No. I'm pretty sure the American Pediatric Association would have something to say about that, not to mention the children's parents and guardians. This is one of those practices I was referring to when I talked of old times. I don't believe there is any way in the world 21st-century America (or Europe) would abide such practices, and such companies would go out of business, not to mention imprisonment of whoever tried to force a child to work such hours.

pay it's employees whatever they want,

Yes. My company is doing this right now. I just asked for a raise yesterday, in fact, and was told that the company finds it cheaper to hire new transcriptionists than to raise the pay for older ones like me. I can whine about it, I can deal with it, I can find another job, or I can do any number of things besides make them pay me what I'm worth by enlisting the help of the ACLU!

fire them when they feel like it,

Yes. Just like I can quit when I feel like it. Most companies have contracts, though, which make this fire-or-quit process much more amicable.

and charge whatever fees or prices they want for their goods and services?

Yes, as long as they're not a monopoly in their field. People who don't like the pay can go to work elsewhere, people who are fired can also work somewhere else-- and they can file a wrongful-termination claim-- and companies who charge too much for their services will be undercut by companies who don't.

and when they fail, of their own fault, putting people in the poorhouse not of their own accord, left for dead, we should not help these people?

But Esmer, I didn't say anything like that. I feel you're reading between lines I haven't even typed. Do you believe there would be no one to help the truly poor, the starving, the homeless, if government welfare programs ended? There are alternative private programs now that would grow to fill the need, like Step 13, which promotes rugged individualism, hard work and self-reliance while feeding and housing them.

the govt can give money to corporations to help them, but not the people destroyed by the abuses of that corporation?

If by that you mean the government gives corporations tax breaks, I'm for that. At the same time, I'm for them giving me a tax break! In other words, the government doesn't take as much money from corporations as it could. That is not "giving" them money. Corporations hire people and keep the economy strong. But correct me if I'm misconstruing your meaning, please.

Do you think those WWI veterans would have been able to erect a statue of Buddha?

That's actually a perplexing question. I don't know. I guess I would answer this way: If they allowed the cross, but not the Buddha, I'd see it as inconsistent and have a problem with it. But until this becomes an issue, I won't give it much more thought than that, I guess.

do you allow them that freedom yourself? to erect religious icons on govt property?

Me personally? Hey, I'm just a middle-aged housewife; I have no power! But I think what you're getting at is, if I were Queen, what would I do, right? Yes, I would allow them that freedom myself, if there was reason, historical or otherwise, to do so. I don't really see a lot of Buddhas going up because, well, we're a Judeo-Christian country, and the cross is as much a historical American icon as a religious one, not to mention that we're majority Christian. But no, being intellectually honest about this, I don't think I could say no to Buddha but yes to the cross in that case.

and another thing, I can find ties to communist ideology in the Constitution, heh....just depends on whose "brand" of communism you are talking about....

The Communist Party was affiliated with the ACLU and saw it as a "conveyer belt" for the Party! Sorry, apples and oranges here.

I sense you're trying to trip me up somehow. Don't try too hard; I'm pretty easy to trip up, actually. I hope that's not what you're doing. I'm an open book. Call me on my B.S. if you see any, please, but all I ask is that you not ascribe motivations to me that I haven't shown.

By the way, I'm an ex-liberal.

[[Syl]]

That's great, Chassit, but I hope you don't think it refutes anything I said. I never claimed that the ACLU wasn't a left organization. I said it's defended "'rightist' causes." Jerry Fallwell, the KKK. Do a google search for "ACLU defends religion" and see what you get. Cons whine all the time about hate speech legislation, yet give no respect to the ACLU for fighting it. Same google search, change 'religion' to 'hate speech'.' Rugged individualism? Hard to be an individual without privacy, isn't it. And who's out there defending your right to privacy? It ain't Bush, is it? Change 'hate speech' to... oh, you get the picture. They've supported the Boy Scouts in their effort to decide their own scoutmasters, so there's your family values type issue.

If you want to debate what 'many' means, be my guest. My point, however, was that, imo, you have more enmity for the ACLU than the ACLU has for the 'right.' I think it's a habit of the right to draw a line in the sand and say, 'You're either over here or over there,' 'with us or against us.' Just as you seem to be drawing a line in the the sands of time. 'Everything up to here is good, but this far and no further.'

[Chassit]

That's great, Chassit, but I hope you don't think it refutes anything I said. I never claimed that the ACLU wasn't a left organization. I said it's defended "'rightist' causes."

Okay. But you said it defended "many" rightist causes, and then when Esmer entered the conversation, I pointed out that they actually defend and stand for many more leftist causes than right ones... while waiting for your response.

Jerry Fallwell

On the right.

the KKK.

!! They're right-wing extremists, radical-right. They are not a typical example of someone on the right.

Do a google search for "ACLU defends religion" and see what you get. Cons whine all the time about hate speech legislation, yet give no respect to the ACLU for fighting it.

I will do that. And perhaps I'll find that they defend rightist causes more than I think. But I doubt I'll find they defend rightist causes in terms such as "many".

Same google search, change 'religion' to 'hate speech'.' Rugged individualism? Hard to be an individual without privacy, isn't it. And who's out there defending your right to privacy? It ain't Bush, is it?

No... but who said it was? Sorry, but what is it with the strawmen here? They're popping up all over! Bush is not a conservative!

Change 'hate speech' to... oh, you get the picture. They've supported the Boy Scouts in their effort to decide their own scoutmasters, so there's your family values type issue.

As I recall, they fought the Boy Scouts' choice! If I'm mistaken, please show me the case. I understood that, from the ACLU perspective, it was about discrimination against gay scoutmasters.

If you want to debate what 'many' means, be my guest.

I don't. I just want to know what "many" means to you, which was my question. And I questioned your use of the word "many". You asserted "many", so I guess I'm challenging you. But no, I don't really want to debate what the word itself means. Where could that go?

My point, however, was that, imo, you have more enmity for the ACLU than the ACLU has for the 'right.'

Well, I still maintain that it's pretty much mutual.

I think it's a habit of the right to draw a line in the sand and say, 'You're either over here or over there,' 'with us or against us.'

Oh, the other side is equally guilty of that. Hey, you don't agree with gay marriage? You are a [insert attacks here]! You don't believe there's a wage gap between the genders? Get your little arse back to the 16th century! And, as I'm already catching hints of in this thread, you think welfare has gone astray? You must not care about the poor!

In other words, with leftist causes or positions, you must not only agree but approve and endorse, whatever it is.

I will concede your point that there as strong feelings on the right of "with or against", especially when it comes to the current war. I feel the same way: People either are on the side of the West and civilization or they're on the side of the terrorists. I'll proudly draw my line in the sand on that one, yes.

Just as you seem to be drawing a line in the the sands of time. 'Everything up to here is good, but this far and no further.'

You're right, I do, and I admit it's based largely on my view of the world and freedom. We're all going to interpret "the way it should be" differently. As I see it, America was once too rightward, and now it's too leftward. We mess up, we pick up and go on. You know.

You asserted that the ACLU has defended many rightist causes. I want to know what you mean, because yes, we may disagree. That's all... and nothing personal.

[Edit: When I went to Google and typed in "ACLU defends boy scouts" nothing could be found. When I removed the quotes, here are some examples of what popped up right away in the text under the links:

You have the ACLU opposing Boy Scout policy to ban ...

You have the ACLU opposing Boy Scout policy to ban homosexuals as Scoutmasters...

And the ACLU goes after the Boy Scouts for having the guts to want to approve their own leaders...

US Senate Defends the Boy Scouts From the ACLU...

The Boy Scouts aren't the only ones to gather at an ACLU office in protest...

"If this isn't enough already, the ACLU is against the Boy Scouts because ... "

In June 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled against the ACLU in Boy Scouts of ...

Now seriously... this was some of the stuff on page one of Google results for ACLU defends boy scouts.

I'm not trying to prove anything, but I want to know here where you get the idea that the ACLU defended the Scouts, when even if you enter it that way in Google, there's no evidence of it at first glance. I believe you, or at least I have no reason to question your honesty.. but show me.

Show me the many. (Sorry, can't resist a bad pun when I see one.)

[Lord Mhoram]

The KKK may be right-wing extremists, but their cause is still classified as "rightist." As for Bush, he is not really a traditional "conservative," but nonetheless, he's the highest ranking official in and champion of the largest conservative party in the US, the GOP.

[Chassit]

Hey, Syl... I just realized that you asked me to Google something, and I haven't yet. I wll do that now...

Okay, typed in "ACLU defends religion", and what I get is:

...
Let’s not forget when the ACLU defends religion. 1. Aug. 8, 2005 PORTALES, NM — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico today announced that it has ...
stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/03/30/aclus-hypocritical-approach-to-church-and-state/ - 133k - Cached - Similar pages

and that's it.

However, now (as I sit here), I will click on the site and see what it has to offer...

Well, on the site is an article: "ACLU’s Hypocritical Approach To Church And State". Somehow I don't think this is what you wanted me to search for.

So... let me try "ACLU defends hate speech"...

Wait a minute... why "hate speech"? Is this a rightist cause, in your view? God I hope not. Defending "hate speech" isn't a left or a right issue, since "hate speech" can be from either side, right?

[Chassit]

The KKK may be right-wing extremists, but their cause is still classified as "rightist." As for Bush, he is not really a traditional "conservative," but nonetheless, he's the highest ranking official in and champion of the largest conservative party in the US, the GOP.

Okay, you got a point on that last one.

Still, though the GOP might be the more conservative party, they are a poor example these days of what conservatives stand for. IMO and many others'.

[[Syl]]

I could be wrong on the Boy Scout thing. Happens sometimes.

As for the searches, I think you misunderstood my use of quotations. link

Is hate speech a 'right' cause? I've always thought so. I've heard Rush speak out against legislating against it. I've heard Cail do the same. IMO, it's one of the things the riht is right about. *shrug*