Financial Shakeup this weekend

[emayer]

Wellardmac wrote:

emayer wrote:

I agree with everyone's comments regarding religious intolerance and the fact that this should have no role whatsoever in politcs. That said, I find some of the ACLU's positions equally offensive. We should be just as wary of those pushing a socially "progressive" agenda under the guise of constitutional protection.

Wayne, you still have my vote...

Thank you.

I give the ACLU credit because they don't care how unpopular your opinion is they will look at it only from the perspective of the law in question and whether it is constitutionally sound.

They have defended both sides of the political extremes without regard for how offensive people might find the opinions of those they're defending - really that's the way it should be.

The ACLU stands up and defends only one thing and that's the Constitution. They're defending it from the whims and swings in public opinion and most of all they're defending it from the government of the day that almost always seeks to pass laws that would erode it.

Believe me, this country would be very different and have A LOT less freedom without the ACLU being around. I could argue that all patriotic Americans should be members of the ACLU.

I agree that the ACLU is necessary and performs excellent work protecting our constitution. While their overall cause is noble, they are highly selective of cases to pursue and I disagree that they represent both political extremes equally. I would go so far to say that some positions they've taken should give pause as to whether they are seeking media attention or truly looking out for all of us folks.

Looking at their Homepage today: "The ACLU advocates for the rights of immigrants, refugees and non-citizens, challenging unconstitutional laws and practices and the myths upon which these unfair laws are based."

Unfair according to whom? The constitution? Immigrants entering legally? Taxpaying American citizens?

How about their class action lawsuit in West Palm Beach Florida proclaiming low graduation rates are a constitutional violation. Did I miss something in the document that mandates a GED for all citizens? Are the parents and students themselves not primarily responsible for their own education and upbringing? Is this not one of the Constitutional premises this country was based on?

Perhaps you could enlighten me further, but delving into their current projects I could not find a single example of a case represented by the ACLU that could be considered to be representative of a conservative mindset. Please understand that I feel the ACLU plays a vital role, but certainly has a progressive agenda. There are groups on the opposite side of the political spectrum performing the same function, each attempting to influence constitutionality in order to further their mindset.

I'm becoming increasingly disgruntled with all our current presidential candidates. Am I alone in having a centrist, pragmatically based and fiscally conservative philosophy that emphasizes personal responsibility and abhors religious or progressive mandates on the way we should live? Once again, it seems as though the silent majority will lose elected representaion.