A member of Bush's 33% told me something I didn't know.

[Atman]

This weekend I did the hangin'-around-with-friends-and-neighbors thing, and got into a discussion with an acquaintence I've metioned here before. He's a veteran, mid-50s, and enjoying early retirement from his state job. He received a great severence package when John Rowland (R) was laying off half the Connecticut workforce before he was sent up the river on corruption charges. Way back when, in the days of "smokin' out the evil doers," he was quick to alert me when BushCo would announce the capture of another #3 Al Qaida mastermind, and was very proud of his great president because he was tough tough tough and didn't take no crap from Saddam. You know where those conversations led! So I try to avoid them.

There was a brief glimmer of hope before the 2004 election, during an earlier opportunity to engage in some casual party banter along with a third friend (also a veteran), among others. The two republicans spit nails and snarled when they spoke of Bush, and what an asshole he was. He'd cut their veterens benefits. The still-working guy was losing most of overtime income become of Bush's labor smackdown. He hated Bush, sorry he voted for him the first time, and he was never going to vote GOP ever again. I'm pretty sure he didn't, too. This weekend, I learned that I'm pretty sure the other guy, the "retired" one, voted for Bush yet again in 2004, and would probably do so again. But for curious reasons.

Among his issues was the flag burning amendment. He thinks there shouldn't be any law or amendment against flag burning because it's free speech and that's all there is to it. Free speech trumps people being offended. A very enlighted attitude, I thought. Surprising in a guy who sounds (and looks) much more like an Archie Bunker than a Micheal Stivik.

But then he really caught me with a couple of issues I was sure were right-wing urban legends of the "Liberals want to give all the welfare queens Pink Cadillacs" variety. He attempted to support Bush by telling me why liberals sucked. One of the reasons he likes Bush is because he is fighting the liberals who are thhiiiiis close to forcing all federal facilities, including cemeteries, to remove any religious references. This would include, of course, even symbols such as the crucifix and the Star of David, etc, on the tombstones honoring our fallen soldiers. I was so dismissive of the total absurdity of it that he didn't dwell, and the quickly moved on to the dreaded ACLU, and how we had to stop the liberals because the ACLU is government funded -- "no it isn't, it's a 501c3...you don't know what you're.." I began, when he corrected me, asserting that funding isn't what he was talking about. He said that the ACLU made it's money off the frivolous lawsuits it files, because the government is required to pay their attorney's fees even if they lose.

Huh? That sounded as looney as his claim about the religious symbols being sandblasted from tombstones of veterans. I protested, but agreed that if he were indeed correct, then the practice probably didn't make sense. "Yah see, that's all I'm sayin'! The liberals don't make sense!" Sheesh. It's funny, because I just stand back and grin when it gets to this. But I proclaimed myself well-informed, so I told him I'd look this up when I got home. And I did.

Not much info when I Googled Bill to Amend USC section 1988. This link to The American Legion was among the top hits. http://www.legion.org/?content=aclu_magarticle">Read a snip of this full text below. It's awash in patriotic imagery, and hard to call exactly non-partisan, but lo and behold, it also seems to mostly back up the guy's rant! Although it is from May, 2005.

I also found this link to World Nut Daily. Aside from an obviously slanted sub-headline, there really isn't anything that nutty in the article, either. Bill to take profit out of anti-religion suits

Damn. While his version of the story appears to be adorned with all the usual Hannity-esque or Limbaughvian bluster and exageration, there appears to be a certain element of truth to it. Here is the actual section of the US code which they are referring to. I'm couldn't find anything about the outcome of this bill. Apparently it is still floating around out there, or is this a long-dead issue with which the right is fanning the flames of the base? I'm not sure if this is really that much of any issue, or what it is costing the the taxpayers for real, but is there actually some sense it what the guy is saying? And, like, he couldn't actually be just as correct about the tombstone sandblasting, could he? Yikes.

I'm not sure what the moral of the story is. He is among the notorious "BackWash," Bush's 1/3 full. One thing I couldn't help but notice, though, is that this ardent Bush supporter, standing firm in the face of his exploding reality, never once mentioned Iraq or Saddam or security among his reasons for supporting Bush. Just flag burnin', evil liberals and religion, and the ACLU. You have to admit...BushCo has got them figured out.

[Staph]

1. ACLU and religious symbols

Check out this entry at Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp). Your retired "friend" is drinking kool-aid.

[Emit]

12. Well, that pretty much sums it up

Accordingly, the ACLU has stated that it is not seeking to have cross-shaped headstones (or headstones bearing any other religious symbols) removed from the federal cemeteries wherein honored U.S. veterans are interred:

The ACLU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued, the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government.

Some people have confused the 2006 court battle over the 29-foot high cross that sits atop city land on Mt. Soledad in San Diego as an example demonstrating the truthfulness of this claim (i.e., that the ACLU is seeking to remove cross-shaped headstones from federal cemeteries). Although the ACLU has played a part in the Mt. Soledad issue, the cases are very different: the Mt. Soledad cross is not a headstone, it is not in a cemetery, and it is not on federal property.

Last updated: 6 July 2006

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp

[Erika]

2. The ACLU also supported Ollie North & Rush Limbaugh

Throw that in his face.

[Lindacooks]

9. And they're supporting those sick fucks who are protesting

soldier's funerals because 'God hates America for tolerating gays'.

[bahrbearian]

3. And the Problem ,,is what ,, the Goverment should...

[northzax]

4. it is fairly common

in civil litigation for the loser to pay attorney's fees. (by the way, your Legion link doesn't work) otherwise, you could never sue the government, because their resources will always be greater than yours.

taking a case to the Supreme Court can cost ten million dollars.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. It's complete bullshit

Snopes has it: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp

[Gloria]

6. Well, my 33%-er brother told me two weeks ago that Saddam

had WMDs and that women were freer now in Iraq than before.

[alfredo]

7. On the ACLU

Here's a typical breakdown of funding of the ACLU:

In the 2005 fiscal year: 46% came from contributions, 19% came from membership dues, 18% came from court awarded attorney fees, 12% came from grants, 4% came from investment income and the remainder from other sources. Much of their work is volunteer. (Pro Bono)

The ACLU is an NGO, a non governmental organization like the Red Cross, and Oxfam.

Tell him the ACLU only takes cases where they see 1st amendment rights are being threatened. The ACLU has defended people from all sides of the political spectrum. They helped Ollie North win his freedom. They supported the Klan's right to march in Skokie, and are now protecting the right of Fred Phelps to protest against gays near soldiers funerals. No matter how unpopular or distasteful the person, they are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. If we allow their rights to be denied, we become less free ourselves.



Standing up for our 1st amendment rights is not frivolous, it is patriotic.

[NVMojo]

8. the air in GOP "reality-land" is getting thinner and thinner and they

are grasping at stupider and point ideations to keep their conservative erections going ...

[Cocoa]

10. it's part of their "Values Agenda"

here's the complete list of issues pandering to the backwash.

http://speaker.house.gov/library/misc/060627americanvalues.shtml

The American Values Agenda

* Pledge Protection Act (HR 2389; Akin)
Summary: Protects the Pledge of Allegiance from attacks by activist federal judges seeking to rule it unconstitutional.
* Freedom to Display the American Flag Act (HR 42; Bartlett)
Summary: Ensures an individual has the right to display the U.S. flag on residential property.
* The Public Expression of Religion Act (HR 2679; Hostettler)
Summary: Ensures local officials and communities do not face financial ruin to defend their rights to free speech under the Constitution (provides that when state or local officials are sued over public expressions of religion, no monetary damages, costs, or attorney's fees may be awarded).
* Marriage Amendment (HJRes 88; Musgrave)
Summary: Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman
* Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (HR 356; C. Smith)
Summary: Requires that those performing late-term abortions inform the woman seeking an abortion of the medical evidence that the unborn child feels pain, and ensure that if she chooses to continue with the abortion procedure, she has the option of choosing anesthesia for the child, so that the unborn child’s pain is less severe.
* Human Cloning Prohibition Act (HR 1357; D. Weldon)
Summary: Bans human cloning and the importation of products derived from a cloned human embryo (e.g. stem cells).
* BATFE Reform (HR 5092; Coble)
Summary: Reforms the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE) to protect citizens’ rights.
* Internet Gambling Prohibition (Leach/Goodlatte):
Summary: Addresses the issue of illegal internet gambling by making gambling laws apply equally to the internet.
* Permanent Tax Relief for Families
Summary: Likely series of votes on the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, tax incentives for adoption, and other priorities for American citizens.
* Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act (HR 5013; Jindal)
Summary: Prohibits governments from using federal funds to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens during emergencies.

###

[bornskeptic]

11. The section of the US Code which you referenced

only provides for legal fees to be awarded to the prevailing party.

(b) Attorney’s fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 <20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.>, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 <42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.>, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 <42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.>, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 <42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.>, or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.

[Atman]

13. His contention was that the ACLU used 42 USC sec 1988 for cash flow

That they took on most of their lawsuits because the code allows for their attorney's to be paid by the goverment even if the ACLU loses the case. The thing is, it seems to be an old bill, most of what I could find written was from May of 2005. Wouldn't this bill have died by now? Or if it has moved forward, where does it stand? It seem like total Limbaughvian whip-up-the-ignorant-base fear mongering to me.

Of course, the removal of crucifixes from tombstones was just plain laughable. Thanks to the other posters for the links about that, too.

This guy is part of a group of several long-time Bushies I know that hang together on the weekends. Nice enough people, I've just always avoided politics because it's weekend time, and I try to keep my weekend place politics-free. But he's literally the last one of them that still support Bush, at least vocally, publicly. One of the women there, a new person this year, got all hot and bothered when the flag burning amendment was mentioned. "Oooh...don't you touch my flag!" She even walked away when I tried to explain to her that people don't really burn flags, and asked her to name just one incident. Easier to walk away.

[Marie26]

16. They've got to win the case

to collect attorney's fees. These guys want to end fee shifting in religious cases. Basically, they're angry that the ACLU & other civil liberties org. keeps taking these cases to prevent creationism from being taught in school. These lawsuits are very expensive & if the att. can't collect fees, many non-profits would be less able to bring these kinds of cases. Which is what they really want; to make it harder to protect constitutional rights.

[Guaranteed]

17. No one gets attorneys' fees paid by their opponent when they lose.

That section is used quite often by civil rights attorneys, not just the ACLU.

[AnnieBW]

14. Religious Symbols On Tombstones

I believe, but I'm not sure, that the ACLU is NOT involved in the case regarding getting the Pentagram on veterans' tombstones. So, they're not even concerned with getting a symbol on a tombstone for people that died in the service of their country, let alone sandblasting the ones that are already there.

[Marie26]

15. They'll always find something

If he has too, he'll resort to how the liberals want to steal Christmas & kill the Easter bunny. It's all about twisting reality to justify their hate, IMO.