Redstate

Otherwise they might toss it.

Make them open it.

This is a bit off topic perhaps, because I know you are taking a swipe at the ACLU, but I think you are hinting at a larger, percieved, war on Christmas. Perhaps not though. Please correct me if wrong here.

But you know, I've watched a few of the talking head shows and read a few blogs, and have yet to see a pundit or organization come out against saying Merry Christmas. Is is there an organization that has taking the official stand that people should stop saying Merry Christmas? I know there are a few retailers that have opted not to use the term, but where is this active campaign to stop people from wishing one another Merry Christmas?

More on the ACLU's war against Christianity.

I agree most folks don't object to being wished "Merry Christmas".  That's why the ACLU's uncompromising anti-Christian and anti-religious-holiday position is so extreme.

But look, this is just for fun.  It's just to poke a finger in the ACLU's eye and laugh.    

Krusty the Klown said it best on his non-demoninational mid-December Holiday Special:

"So everyone have a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hannukah, a Krazy Kwanza, a Tip Top Tet, and a solemn and dignified Ramadan."

I'd like to see a movement to pass an ammendment to define the separation of church and state once and for all so that we can stop this nonsense.  

Either define atheism as a religion with protected beleifs (that is, remove any references to any religion in any form from all government activities) or define "establishment of a state religion" in very clear and specific terms.

I'm ok with either outcome if it means we can stop the endless rounds of debates, sniping, and whining on this topic.

and the PC guilt, warped view of tolerance and diversity indoctrination from liberal controlled TV, movies and the universities. And the backlash has caused the PC police to tone down in public.

This whole war over Christmas might be the dumbest subject for public debate I've ever seen.  

If anyone needs a refresher as to why we hate the ACLU, and should pour heaping coals like the above Christmas Greeting upon thier heads, this is a great place to start:

ACLU History

With choice exerpts like these, parusing this page is just like Christmas Morning:

1940 -  "The [ACLU] board and the National Committee adopted a resolution barring from ACLU leadership positions anyone supporting totalitarianism." "Under the policy the board purged Elizabeth Gurley Flynn" who was an outspoken communist party member.  This "episode came to be viewed by many as the Union's most regrettable departure from its own principles."

1977 - The FBI releases its files on the ACLU. They reveal that "several ACLU leaders had sought information about ACLU members from the FBI and, worse, had given the FBI information about the organization and individuals."

Oh come let us attack it

Oh come let us attack it

Oh come let us attack it

It's a joke, for Christ's sake.

Looking over some cases mentioned on this page, it seem ACLU is pretty good with defending Christian's right of expressions too.

Of course it is not defending specifically Christians but everyones religious freedom of expression including Christian one.

Which ones of these cases do not you like?

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

I didn't mean that as any comment on your post specifically, just the topic in general.  And while it may be a joke to you, it's certainly much more than that to a lot of people.

you all should be thankful that there is anybody left in this country dedicated to preserving your right to wish anybody a Merry Christmas, and simultaneously preserving other folks' right to say Happy Holidays, or Happy Chanukah, or Cheery Kwaanza, or anything else they want.

I was being a bit trollish there, my bad; of course I agree with you.

"ACLU hates Christianity" memes really bug me. People pluck one case out of context and make it out to be another attack on God; if you look at the range of work they do, I think it's pretty clear that they are honest defenders of the church-state separation -- which often means defending religious types, especially those in the minority (Jehovah Witness, Mormons, Muslims, etc.)

the ACLU should just stay the h*ll out of everything all together. Especially when you consider the genesis of the ACLU.

This country did quite well for two centuries before the establishment of the ACLU.

Its the ACLJ.  What the ACLU could have been without communism.

The ACLU's founding director and likely most influential official, Roger Baldwin, had long been an admitted supporter of communism as an economic system, and on balance an apologist for the Soviet Union. Though he criticized the Soviets at times, he had also praised the USSR as on balance a haven for liberty. His true break with the Soviets (which ultimately brought him around to pretty vociferous anti-Communism) came not with Stalin's ascent, not with the Ukrainian famine, not with the Terror and the show trials -- he defended the Soviets even after that -- but only in 1939, with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Source:The Volkh Conspiracy

Dude, Santa Claus is a Commie and a Criminal.

 * Red Suit

 * Work Camps for little people, in really cold places

 * Does not believe in capitalism, since he just gives away stuff

 * Sneaks into peoples house.

being ill-read about the law in general, I'd never heard of that organization.

But they are "dedicated to protecting [Americans'] religious and constitutional freedoms."  I'm going to go ahead and  assume that includes Americans who are communists?

Do not know about that. Slavery comes to mind as one problem. Jim Crow laws, lynchings and etc. Not every thing was hunky dory in the good old times.

(ACLU was founded in 1920's)

the ACLU was just the remedy to those problems.

Yes, it was the ACLU which put an end to slavery, the ACLU which enabled the passing of the civil rights laws.

No wait, nevermind, that was the Republican party. :-)

And, if it weren't for Democrats, none of the above mentioned problems would have existed, or at least been public policy.

Democratic party of today is not the same as it was back then. That was the reason why in 1964, Strom Thurmond switched his allegiance to the Republican Party. He was one of the most conservative leaders of the Senate for almost half a century.

Basically back then Democrats were what Republicans are now.

...Passing of the civil rights laws.

No wait, nevermind, that was the Republican party. :-)

FDR, JFK and Lyndon Johnson comes to mind when you mention Civil Rights. Not Republican leaders, or Strom Thurman who tried to fillibuster Civil Rights Act for over 24 hours. In fact, Thurmond switched his party affiliation, becoming a Republican in protest of the Democrats' support and President Johnson's shepherding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

1. commies were brown

cant afford red

2. orphanage for abandoned children conceived thru artificial insemination by  Hollywood starlets after they appeared on a magazine cover with the child, who then became dispensable having served their purpose
   
   
3. Only capitalists have that much to give away
   
   
4. House calls are all by appt each Dec 25

in the mid to late 1800s, early 1900s and the 40s - 60s  as well as anti lynching laws that lost due to dem votes or vetoes. The GOP also passed the post civil war amendments.

The GOP was formed to oppose slavery.

No clue on most what you just said. Makes no sense.

Only capitalists have that much to give away

Commies gave away at expense of their own workers. Kinda liek what santa does to the elfs.

No, I seriously intend that the principals the founders of the ACLU held, some of whom were (or became) communist, stained the purpose of that organization permanently (baring some amazing reform).  As for free speech, if that is all you are concerned with, there is no threat to communists, but what latitude would you personally grant a destructive influence?  Our representative republic, with its capitalist principals, is what should be protected.  At what point does protecting free speech become self destructive to that?  At what point does the secularists "opinion" concerning the constitution introduce rot into the foundation of our state?  These are the fundamental battle-lines.

Interestingly, one of the founders (ACLU) was primarily influenced by Christian Socialists, go figure that one.

As mentioned before GOP no longer represents what they did back then. Now GOP are the anti-thesis of their former values.

The case of Strom Thurmond demostrates is clearly.

While he run as a Democrat in 1948 he said:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Then dissatisfied that the Democratic Party was moving to end segregation he became a Republican, and have been a celebrated one at that.

of the constitution, except that "separation of church and state" is not there.  The actual provision is for the government not to "establish a religion", and we know what it means for the government to support a religion to the exclusion of other religions.

The courts have entered this minefield, often at the behest of the ACLU and the result is a forest of hints and rules that communities must follow in order to not appear to be supporting one religion over another.  The fact that we have had no problem with this until the 1970's goes to show how critical this whole thing is. The recently offended have come forward in droves to sling lawsuits on this issue from every direction - a cross on the Los Angeles seal to the City of Las Cruces NM.  I tell you a whole lot of money and energy is being spent on this issue which is not anywhere near the "establishment of a state religion".

The adults should get involved, and maybe some of them are being appointed to the SCOTUS as we speak.

my no 1 should have been wear not were

Commie and a Criminal  By: masb27  

Dude, Santa Claus is a Commie and a Criminal.

1 * Red Suit

2 * Work Camps for little people, in really cold places

3 * Does not believe in capitalism, since he just gives away stuff

4 * Sneaks into peoples house.

vs.

Santa is a third shift philanthropist  By: gamecock  

1. commies wear brown

cant afford red

2.orphanage for abandoned children conceived thru artificial insemination by  Hollywood starlets after they appeared on a magazine cover with the child, who then became dispensable having served their purpose

3.Only capitalists have that much to give away

4.House calls are all by appt each Dec 25

at what point do tired talking points rot our civil society? If you don't like something particular the ACLU has done, challenge it. There are plenty of examples of the ACLU defending religious people -- see upthread.

As for "permanent staining", that's a bit extreme don't you think? Is Congress, and anything else founded by the "founding fathers", permanently stained because they supported slavery?

The record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats OPPOSED civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority FAVORED civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Some maintain that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers,  William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day. In fact, very few party switches came about right after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Some exceptions who did switch were Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.

Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen. He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and  the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere. On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading.

Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage. In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over  730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.

On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart: "There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."

After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause? Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."

The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.

Neither political party, however, has the right to claim it was responsible for making civil rights for African-Americans happen. Changing times and the efforts of blacks themselves, plus the thousands of electronic pictures blazing across the screens on national television, finally brought it home to white America that injustices were being done to their brethren who happened to be black.

The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the Civil Rights Act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity.

1. Well Commies had enough for flags, and could scrape up enough for one fat guy :-P
   
2. Yeah but why then does Santa have to turn them into sweat shop laborers, have not the kids been abused enough?
   
3. Commies gave away at expense of their own workers. Kinda like what santa does to the elfs.
   
4. Yeah I concede that point. But what with a house call in a middle of the night when everyone is sleeping. Not to mention thru a chimney. A bit burglarish I'd say :-P ... tsk, tsk, tsk...

and further afield...

What latitude would I personally grant a destructive influence?  I'm not sure if you're transferring the meaning of "free speech" in terms that I think of it, onto "influence."  I'll grant free speech as much latitude as is laid out in the Constitution.  If somebody tries to influence the public debate toward, say, not allowing corporations to use "Merry Christmas" in their public communications, I would disagree and might wish they would keep their opinion to theirself; but I couldn't in good conscience argue that they should not be allowed to speak that opinion on the basis of it somehow eroding our state, because to gag them would do far more to erode the foundations of this country.

Hmm... That was way too far to stray on this topic.  I must be tired.  G'nite!

Basically back then Democrats were what Republicans are now.

Clarify, please. Because it seems as though you are saying that the Republicans today support Jim Crow.

That was the reason why in 1964, Strom Thurmond switched his allegiance to the Republican Party.

In far greater numbers (in terms of percentage), the Republican party supported the Civil Rights Acts. So, while he may have done so out of protest, it wasn't because the REpublicans more represented his point of view.

FDR, JFK and Lyndon Johnson comes to mind when you mention Civil Rights.

Sure. And if their own party had their way, the Civil Rights acts wouldn't have gotten passed. Kind of like how Clinton gets credit for welfare reform in the mind of some folks.

Not Republican leaders, or Strom Thurman who tried to fillibuster Civil Rights Act for over 24 hours.

Again, your ignorance of history is showing. There was never a single Civil Rights vote in which a greater percentage of Democrat critters voted "yea" than Republican critters, unless you count the institution of MLK day a Civil Rights vote. If you can find me one, I'll eat my hat.

But the main thing you should get from this response is that you need to clarify what you meant by this:

Basically back then Democrats were what Republicans are now.

You're so right.  Good example is that old coot Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK, and right-wing Republican from West Virginia

snark

I don't buy the "Civil Rights Act = Republicans Win in the South" argument.  Take a look at the results of the 1976 presidential election -- a full 12 years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1976-Large.png

(In this map, Red went for Carter, the Democrat).

There was a reallignment that happened, but it wasn't due to race and the 1960s civil rights legislation, as much as it was to cultural/moral and defense issues, and it happened mainly in the 80s and 90s.  

The map doesn't lie.

that the defense of the religious pertains to individuals and public space as far as the ACLU is concerned.  Not the defense of public institutions to retain anything religious.  As far as your command of history, we had a permanent stain of blood via a civil war regarding the slavery issue and federalism.  Fallacious analogy.  And you seem to overlook my qualification of reform.  What part of a fundamental difference in philosophy do you deem a tired talking point?  Simian tactic.

If Strom Thurmond is fair game, then so is Robert Byrd - who is not only still alive, but also still representing your party in the Senate.

  1. flag dye left over from Tzar

  2. see Boy's Town with Spencer Tracy or my  childhood-dad called it chores

  3. Dad was able to tithe more to the church with the difference between allowence vs. union wage labor - Boys Town boys given a suit, suitcase and 20$ when 18 - do elves grow old or co-star on Fantasy Island

(I apologize in advance to any offended height challenged. Feel free to imagine yourselves superior to Southerners. I can take it!)

  4. agoraphobia?  fear of crowds

That just goes to show there are decent people on both sides.

Still the point remains GOP today are the opposite of what the GOP were more then a hundred years ago.

The hole you are digging grows deeper by the minute. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for just a moment, against my better judgment, to give you the opportunity to prove your contention (implication) that the Republican party is opposed to the Civil Rights legislation in question.

point 1 agree

point 2 disagree, and I would appreciate you not insinuating that all of us here are racists (or would be party to racists)

West Virginia v. Barnette

As a liberal, I'll never understand ya'll hostility to the ACLU.  They are one of the most principled organizations on the planet, to a fault even.  C'est la vie.

1. flag dye left over from Tzar

hehehehe, thats really funny....

1. Well it hard to really know where the dye came from. But regradless Santa choose to wear the colors of the commies.
   
2. I would not call it chores. There are well over a billion Christians in the world. And every person asks for different toys. To make that many DIFFERENT toys those little people would have to work non-stop all year long. Its not just an assembly line.
   
3. They probably co-star in Oz as munchkins.
   
4. agoraphobia?  fear of crowds In the middle of the night? when people are sleeping? Telling ya, there is something not kosher about it.

I am much more confident that the new justices will overturn the school prayer and other free speech-establishment-states rights  decisions that even Roe, based on their work for Reagan and on the bench.

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/12/5/17271/0307/7#7

I would appreciate you not insinuating that all of us here are racists (or would be party to racists)

Perish the thought. Being a Republican does not equate one with being a racist. Sad to think you somehow thought the comment above implied that.

  1. Santa pre-dates Lenin and probably Marx. Listen to the lawyer here: colors cant be trademarked.  Southern Cal lost their attempt to copyright "USC" when the Academic power and first USC in SC filed its amicus.

   2. sub-contracting?

  3. Churchill Downs? again hillbilly jokes welcomed

  4.  Santa is not Jewish

its the wrong principal at times.  Of course I agree with there defense of many freedom of speech cases.  And no real patriot would force anyone to salute the flag.  Its much better to just brand on the forehead those who refuse.  (obv. sarc.)

Two major problems.  As it stands now, if they win, your tax dollars pay their lawyers.  Whether you agree with the case or not.  Second, this is not a atheist country, or a secular government.  Irregardless of your religion, the framework of our  union is a government founded in Christian and Enlightenment thought and formed to govern Christians, but not at the exclusion of anyone.  In this is not the promotion of a religion.  What the atheistic screamers want, and modern liberals seem to approve of, is secularizing our government.  I say move to France.  (more obv. sarc.)

That's what ConservativeD said. You can respond to him if you like. The point you have explicitly made is that the Republicans today would be opposed to the Civil Rights legislation they voted for in the past, thus implying they would have supported Jim Crow. To clarify, that's a bannable offense.

The other thing you have said is that the Republicans today are the Democrats of yesterday. Now, you can throw lacquer on the situation all you want, but the Democrats of the past were the insitutional party of slavery, it was Democrat governors who defied court orders of integration, and Democrats in greater numbers who opposed Civil Rights legislation and yes, primarily Democrat Senators who filibustered the same legislation.

Now, you can say that the Democrats have reformed all you like, but what you can not say is that Republicans today stand for what Democrats stood for in the past, or that they would oppose now what they stood for in the past. Not without concrete evidence.

I'm not looking for an apology - we're past the point for that. I'm looking for justification.

Thats way to tame, I mean towards systematic sedition, or promotion of dissolution of our form of government.  Sleep well.

Oops wrong post.

I would appreciate you not insinuating that all of us here are racists (or would be party to racists)

Perish the thought. Being a Republican does not equate one with being a racist. Sad to think you somehow thought the comment above implied that.

1. Maybe Santa was Marx or Engels, or at least a relative of one of them. I mean the beards are suspicious.
   
2. Well the toys are supposed to be made by the little people at the pole. Subcontracting is not allowed.
   
3.  Churchill Downs? again hillbilly jokes welcomed Nah..
   
4. Kosher in this case is a term that means somethign is not right.

Our choice not to allow you to continue to post.

Blam.

Actually I was in a middle of typing up a response for your.

The subject of Civil Right legistlation is quite large. It takes a while to do research and answer your question

You will not find the answer you are looking for. However, if you wish to try, don't post anything else until you have it.

In some way my comments have dug a hole.

There are several faucets to arguing this point.

One is the definition of the Republican Party which is no monolith.

The other one is the definion of Civil Rights.

Third is that the subject is so huge, no signle response would be sufficient.

Lets start.

1. How do you define a Republican Party? While a core set of values have proposed it surely does nto apply to every person who is considered to be a Republican or consider themselve a Republican. For the purposes of the argument I put forth the the action of Republican Leadership are the ones I will addressing.
   
2. It appears different people have different definitions as to what Civil Rights legistlation is. Or how much legistlation it might require. Here is one of the best examples of that:

Example 1: Affirmative Action is considered to be Civil Right legislation what would allow to close the gap between disparity between people of color and whites. Despite what many might say, it is a lot harder to break out poverty then most will have you belief. Of course not everyone agrees it does anything for Civil rights. But those who see Republicans who vote against (and they have, I am sure you agree) as opponent of Civil Rights.

Example 2: One more example would be the current problem with Patriot Act and certain things it implies. For example National Security Letters which provide no recourse and effectively gag anyone they are presented to. Or governmental ability to cease library and book store records to see who has been reading what is a huge afront to Civil Rights. Or wire taps without court orders. Or keeping an American civilian (Padilla) in a military brig (if he commited a crime, we got more then enough crminal laws to deal with that).

Republicans voted overwhelming for it and so did the Democrats. The blame lies equally on both. That still however shows that Republican Leadership oppose Civil Rights if they belive it is acceptable to infringe upon them. While some might belive we need to d it in the name of security, many others hold that belief to be flawed.

The original point was that GOP values from a hundred years ago have changed.

Back to my original point. There are examples of Republican Leadership offering high praise to the people who spent their entire careers opposing Civil Rights legistlation.

As mentioned before, Strom Thurmond. It does not behove Trent Lott, a man who was a Republican Leader to say this:

"When Strom Thurmond ran for president (in 1948), we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." about a man who said this on that same year:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Mostlikely you will not agree with what I said for you have different assumptions, beliefs about what is acceptable for this country. We all have our colored lenses.

Regardless, for those who do see Republicans votes on issues mentioned above do believe it they are attacking Civil Rights.

P.S.

I did not mean any of my arguments to have any malice. I simply tied to put forth a point that of why people regard nowaday Republicans as anti-Civil Rights. I personally visit this site to see what the folks on the otherside of the "Divide" are thinking so not to simply engage in perpetuating cycle of reaffirming my own beliefs by only talking to people who share them. Also despite being labeled a liberal here I am not a liberal on whatever sense you believe it is. For example, when was the last time you met a Green who is pro-guns :-P .

Well, hopefully you would unban me. Otherwise, "Goodbye and thanks for all the fish".

Example 1: Affirmative Action is considered to be Civil Right legislation what would allow to close the gap between disparity between people of color and whites. Despite what many might say, it is a lot harder to break out poverty then most will have you belief. Of course not everyone agrees it does anything for Civil rights. But those who see Republicans who vote against (and they have, I am sure you agree) as opponent of Civil Rights.

Affirmative action is, generally speaking, not legislation. It's policy. For instance, nobody legislated that the University Of Michigan would have an affirmative action admissions policy, they just decided to do it.

You are correct, however, that Republicans are opposed to it, because it is a racist policy, as such, and we are generally ofo the belief that racism is also bad when applied to caucasians and Asians, too.

As far as poverty, I've lived under a bridge. Still never made more than $40K in my life, but I'm working on it. And my way, incidentally, has been hampered substantially by affirmative action.

Example 2: One more example would be the current problem with Patriot Act and certain things it implies. For example National Security Letters which provide no recourse and effectively gag anyone they are presented to. Or governmental ability to cease library and book store records to see who has been reading what is a huge afront to Civil Rights. Or wire taps without court orders. Or keeping an American civilian (Padilla) in a military brig (if he commited a crime, we got more then enough crminal laws to deal with that).

Let's review. Democrat governors used the state militias to keep black people from entering state colleges, and deliberately defied both legislation, court orders, and the fourteenth/fifteenth amendments to the constitution. This is all outside the fact that the Republican party was founded to oppose the Democratic party on slavery.

In contrast, you're concerned about the access of non-citizens and terrorists to U.S. Courts. Not really relevant. And, as you have pointed out, the Democrats are with us on this one.

The original point was that GOP values from a hundred years ago have changed.

The issue is whether those ideals converge with those of the Democrats.

Back to my original point. There are examples of Republican Leadership offering high praise to the people who spent their entire careers opposing Civil Rights legistlation.

As mentioned before, Strom Thurmond.

Democrat. WHo spent the rest of his life apologizing. And again, you have dead Strom Thurmond. I have Robert Byrd.

It does not behove Trent Lott, a man who was a Republican Leader to say this:

"When Strom Thurmond ran for president (in 1948), we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." about a man who said this on that same year:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Trent Lott was censured and lost hiis leadership position within the party for those remarks. How, exactly, does this indicate that the values of the Republican party have changed?

Regardless, for those who do see Republicans votes on issues mentioned above do believe it they are attacking Civil Rights.

You've yet to mention a single vote, actually. ConservativeD has actually demonstrated the exact opposite to be true.

I did not mean any of my arguments to have any malice. I simply tied to put forth a point that of why people regard nowaday Republicans as anti-Civil Rights. I personally visit this site to see what the folks on the otherside of the "Divide" are thinking so not to simply engage in perpetuating cycle of reaffirming my own beliefs by only talking to people who share them.

We don't enjoy "Conservatives in the Mist" style posters. That said, I'll turn your account back on, despite how much I question the good faith of someone so willing toslander the entire Republican party on a Republican site.

we're getting into flamewar territory here, which is partly my fault. Let's step back.

Public institutions should not be involved in advocacy for or against any religious belief. Period. That's what's meant by the First Amendment, as I understand it.

It's a rule that has served us well for hundreds of years, has made this country a haven for dozens of religious groups who have enriched our society, and keeps us far away from the idiocies of, on the one hand, the French system, with mandatory secularism, and, on the other, the theocracies of the Middle East.

If you don't accept this, then yes, I understand why you hate the ACLU. If you do accept this, then I believe the ACLU's record is quite praiseworthy, although they have had mis-steps.

To claim that everything the ACLU says or does is permanently stained by the early -- later renounced -- Communist sympathies of one of its founders, Baldwin, is crazy. Do you want to go dig up the racist and sexist statements that were surely made by Republican (and Democrat) statesmen in the same era? Baldwin made a mistake, he publicly renounced his former positions, and even wrote a book on totalitarianism.

I am not a Conservative in a Mist.

More of an Independent, though some call me a Green with some Liberitarian notions (being pro-guns, and supporting some of what Minuteman are doing, will earn you so odd looks from most what you might consider "liberal").

Affirmative action is, generally speaking, not legislation.

Its legistlation in many states. I do think its somwhat unfair (as a poor white guy, I get no benefits of it, and is still screwed when it comes to financial aid). I just think it is necessary to close the gap.

As was mentioned the blame lies on Democrats as much for Patriot act as much as on Republicans. I do not favor (or vote) Democrats one bit, just cause they are Democrats.

In contrast, you're concerned about the access of non-citizens

Actualy the comment was refering to US citizens.

You've yet to mention a single vote, actually.

Well on issues that I believe are Civil Rights legislation such as affirmitive action and Patriot Act the votes are clear.

As for the rest.

You seem to think I favor Democrats over Republicans just cause of the name. I am equally disgusted by unscrupulous people on both sides. And I respect people of their words on both sides.

But what you actually said was:

Basically back then Democrats were what Republicans are now.

Not:

You seem to think I favor Democrats over Republicans just cause of the name. I am equally disgusted by unscrupulous people on both sides.

I don't want to beat this to death - but you yourself concede that a) Affirmative action isn't necessarily a good program, and opposing it isn't nearly on the level with supporting slavery/Jim Crow and b) The Patriot Act is not analogous.

Let's review. Slavery and Jim Crow were virtually the exclusive province of the Democrat party. So when you say, "The Republicans now are what the Democrats were then," it's pretty highly offensive, and partisan.

Great articles below on GOP history by Sowell and Elder, two great black conservatives

I can tell you as an activist member of the dem party from teenage years to 6/2001 and 4 yrs as county party chair for 4 yrs, that the notion that repubs are racists or atleast not caring enough about the problem of discrimination to do anything about it and strategies to perpetuate that perception was and is one of the most important dynamics driving the modern day democratic party and is seen as indispensible to its survival.

It is a myth that the media and the dem party constructed in the late 60's and early 70's due to selective news coverage that made JFK and LBJ the face of the Dem Party and Nixon's southern strategy to lure disaffected Dixiecrats to the GOP. Of course, the dem party also had a southern strategy that was over 100 years old but wasnt covered by the media, and  most southern dems, ie see G. Wallace, Byrd, et al, including dixiecrats remained in the dem party at least until Reagan, when race was not a defining issue. Moreover, the GOP never rewarded the dixiecrat converts with any legislation or policies that attempted a return to jim crow or to oppress blacks in any way.

I will say this, although, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, I do think the gop was mostly right on the issues the media and dems CONSIDERED good for blacks,

and a black lady older than me here in ATL agreed with me on this

back in the 70's, most of the people I knew that were actively reaching out to blacks and trying to integrate and reconcile the races were local democrats and I think we bought into the dem rhetoric and came to see ourselves as morally superior to the more silent repoub in our midst, no matter the wisdom of the policies we advocated.

Now, I will say though, that it was a good thing for us to shame people for awhile into doing more. But it went too far and ended up corrupting a lot of whites into self loathing white guilt and fed the poverty pimps of both races as wel;l; as black racists.

Libs actually won the racism battle mainly due to the moral spiritual argument and by the mid 80's I rarely saw overt racism, racist jokes began to fade in private white company and former racists hired blacks.My parents had the first integrated little league and cub scouts and I hired some of the first black paralegals.

But I saw the dems change in to an ugly parody of themselves defining civil rights as being for taxing rich whites and giving more money to blacks for having babies. look, calling repubs racists was a core principle in the dem party And still is. See the James Byrd ad in 2000 and see the Alito hearings next year

Your posts upthread remind me of things I used to say as just conventional wisdom while me and fellow desm discussed how morally superior we were. But i began to get uncomfortable with the rhetoric and I think it hapopened when  a Leon like guy called me on it and I looked at my gop friends and realized they were not racists.

And I saw my many dem friends become racists without realizing it as they justified govt programs by saying they, ie blacks just couldnt make it without them.

Finally, so much of the rhetoric in america and even our history since the 40's and thanks to the leftist takeover of academia  and the media is just wrongly slanted.  

Honestly, when I began to see this, I feel cheated and lied to beginning with Walter Cronkite thru Bill Clinton and in re-written history back to the Hiss case and Chambers.

see the links

and then back to santa

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2005/11/17/175888.html

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/11/02/173908.html

Basically back then Democrats were what Republicans are now. Slavery and Jim Crow were virtually the exclusive province of the Democrat party. So when you say, "The Republicans now are what the Democrats were then," it's pretty highly offensive, and partisan.

Aaaah, I understand NOW why you thought it was offensive. That was not at all my point though, though I am realizing now that probably I did not make that point quite as clearly.

I was refering to Conservatism and conservative values. Back then Democrats represented conservative values. Now Republicans do.

Which is why I brought up Strom Thurmond, who was a conservative (whatever that meant at the moment) and was brought up and believed that is what Democrats stood for. And later switched because he now saw that the Republican Party stood for that now. Conservatism is also synonymous with lack of change. And the Civil Rights back then were about the biggest political change in the country.

but you yourself concede that a) Affirmative action isn't necessarily a good program, and opposing it isn't nearly on the level with supporting slavery/Jim Crow

Its is DEFINATELY NOT on the same level as slavery. And yes it looks bad. But I believe it to be necessary to fix the disparity. Sorta like surgery. It hurts, you cut, and maybe cut out som parts but later its better for the body.

and b) The Patriot Act is not analogous

Analogous?

and we both share guilt in this. Given my Jeffersonian existence as an erstwhile 21st century equivalent of a Jeffersonian entrepreneur, you could probably better suggest a sensitivity training seminar and re-education camp, THEREFORE

    1.  Marx and Engels born in 19th C. Santa no later, even in America no later than the 18th C

http://www.the-north-pole.com/history/

     2. I will surprise you and join with you in a union organization drive. We will probably have to go back in 15 years and break it with elfin scabs due to corruption, but what the heck. I used to reprsent railroad labor unions. Im a lawyer. shhhhh

    3. jockeys are short

    4. less traffic at night makes world-wide trip possible

the contribution of either FDR or JFK to civil rights.

Thurmond switched parties, not because of the Democrats support for the Civil Rights Act because they were overwhelmingly against it, but as a protest against Johnson for pushing the bill. There is a difference. Robert Byrd, J William Fulbright and the host of other Dem senators who filibustered the Civil Rights Act didn't switch.

And it was Republican votes that passed the Civil Rights Act.

I've had enough of this. I know it's fashionable to make this ahistorical slander, and yes we all know what you're doing here, but you aren't going to do it in our house.

We've put up with a lot from you. Not this. Go away.

But the ACLU did come to Rush Limbaugh's defense during his legal troubles in 2004:

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

"But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

I agree--it's a lot of work to be in the ACLU, and they could use all the cheering up they can get.  What better way than to wish them a Merry Christmas?  It really is very nice of you guys.

I'm sure you realize that the ACLU workers really appreciate these Christmas well-wishes.  Well, they appreciate them as long as they're sincere and heartfelt.

And if you're not sending sincere heartfelt Merry Christmas cards this time of year, what does that say about your Christmas spirit, exactly?

the godless is not against the Christmas spirit.

Didn't realize the ACLU had done much of that kind of work.

if you want to refine something.  But no slight intended.  However, do you think acknowledging the origins of the court, ala the law as it pertains to Christianity, is advocating a particular religion?  Impossible to separate, and that is what they want to do.  And, if I read many modern decisions in this regard, the ACLU's definition of advocacy is disjoint.  Also, that is not the terminology of the first amendment, and I do not believe it is the specific intent.  Establishment and advocacy are not equivalent.  And, no, I'm not inclined to create a new theocracy.  But we can tastefully argue about the ACLU's intent without incineration.  My comment on the principal that infected the ACLU from its inception is a modern observation, not equivocating the past, so no, we don't have to go back to a different context.  Too rhetorical, my apologies.

No matter how seditious I deem it to be, no matter whether the speaker would like to promote dissolution our government, it's allowed as long as the Bill of Rights remains as a pillar of this country.  I'll let anybody stand on a street corner or go on the radio or type up a web page and argue for whatever they like as long as they aren't promoting violence or other illegal acts.

Mocking the godless is not against the Christmas spirit.

It isn't?  What kind of Christmas is this?