kurtster wrote: 
For one thing, in 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either.

Second, people as important as Ruth Bade Ginsburg have been involved with the ACLU. And the ACLU does a very important service of protecting everyone's Constitutional rights, no matter how controversial, because that is the purpose of the Constitution.

Third, they are an independent org, receiving almost all their funding from public donations and fees, so they are owned by no one. In fact, they rejected money from certain orgs because they had adopted language from the USA PATRIOT Act in their donation agreements, including a clause stipulating that none of the money would go to "underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities." The ACLU views this clause, both in Federal law and in the donors' agreements, as a threat to civil liberties, saying it is overly broad and ambiguous.

I am a card carrying member, btw.

 kurtster wrote:
  I like nostalgia as much as the next guy, but it's 2011, not 1950; "Tail-gunner Joe" is long dead, as is Kruschev.  The ACLU barred communist members in 1940.

"Communist Party attacks on a Socialist Party rally in Madison Square Garden in 1934 led Norman Thomas and John Haynes Holmes to call for banning Communists from ACLU leadership. In this same decade, the Dies Committee (the House Committee on Un-American Activities, popularly known as HUAC) concluded after its first hearings that one could not say with certainty whether or not the ACLU was a Communist organization. The ACLU responded by leading efforts to abolish the Dies Committee, assigning Abraham Isserman to write the first systematic analysis of the rights of witnesses before investigative committees (a report which Baldwin suppressed, perhaps in an agreement with HUAC) and working to clear the ACLU name. HUAC raids beginning in 1939, passage of the Smith Act in 1940 and state laws banning the Communist Party from the ballot served to increase concern about totalitarian organizations. In response to these growing concerns, the ACLU in 1940 adopted a policy barring Communist Party members from official positions in the organization, leading to the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from the board and to the resignations of several others, including Harry Ward."

 kurtster wrote: 
Communists — about 95% of the time — are simply idealists who would like to see a world that is more fair and equal.  There is no doubt that "ownership" is the cause of great suffering.  The ideal of communism takes away that suffering.

I am not a communist, because I am too much of a realist — ie, this ideal is not possible with the mindset of humanity as it stands today.  But I can very much appreciate the beauty of their ideal, and that the goal is one of fairness for all.  It is a very humanitarian ideal.

No, they do not deserve to be cursed.

 kurtster wrote: 
   I think the statement  "Communism is the goal"  is more than enough.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Why ?  It is the truth.

 kurtster wrote: 
That's ridiculous!

 hippiechick wrote: 
The ACLU was founded by card carrying communists.

That is reason evough to curse them and be suspicious of everything they do.

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
What were they defending them against?

Edit: Here we go:
Why did the ACLU represent NAMBLA?
The ACLU of Massachusetts' represented members of NAMBLA because, while the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children, we do advocate robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit struck at the heart of the First Amendment. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something people find reasonable. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people reject. For more information about the case, please contact the ACLU of Massachusetts.
Everyone has a right to freedom of speech, even if the speech seems vile. Because even the most vile must be protected, so that your right to free speech is protected too.

 hippiechick wrote: 



Should NAMBLA have ANY rights? The ACLU has gone to bat for them.

 Beaker wrote: 



Well I know the original post for topic had nothing to do with "conservatives" so I had to ask the question.

 kurtster wrote: 
They didn't do it on Constitutional grounds, they did it because they were short the dough.

You should praise the ACLU, not curse them. They protect your rights, rights that are very much being taken away from you.

The Conservative War on Christmas?

How so? What am I missing?

 hippiechick wrote: 
Santa Claus on the government payroll violates the seperation between church and state doesn't it ?

Only the left can get on Santa Claus ?  What's wrong with someone from the right doing it ?

The left should be applauding the religious right for going along with this.

 kurtster wrote: 
You mean protect the Constitution? Because that is what the ACLU does.

 aflanigan wrote: 
I'm surprised the ACLU never stepped in to get him fired a long time ago.

That's what they do best.

Steve Levy, Suffolk County Executive who switched party affiliation to Republican in 2010, fired Santa Claus in a bid to save $660 dollars for the county.

Cash-Strapped County Fires Santa

Obama Shelves Christmas-Tree Tax

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to delay implementation and revisit a proposed new 15 cent fee on fresh-cut Christmas trees,  sources tell ABC News. The fee, requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009, was first announced in the Federal Registry yesterday and has generated criticism of President Obama from conservative media outlets.

That's crazy!

 hippiechick wrote: 

fixed

 aflanigan wrote: 
Bad link