Financial Shakeup this weekend

[Wellardmac]

Eric, most of what you said is a repeat of things that we have already said and agree with. There is no disagreement with us on parenting.

Sadly, the steps you advocate are a little extreme and in contradiction of the Constitution and the general actions of a country that values freedom. Are you advocating that most of the country can be allowed free will and the right to procreate, except those that the state deems unworthy? Doesn't that sound a little repressive? Doesn't that sounds like Eugenics? Oh, sorry, the US WAS the first country in the world to institute Eugenics, so what you're advocating is not new and barbaric, but old and barbaric, but still invented here in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Adolf Hitler agreed with you wholeheartedly! Wouldn't it be better to educate people to be better parents than institute draconian measures such as the old tried and discredited ones that you advocate?


Now, I'm going to ask you to elaborate on this paragraph:
"The ACLU does pick the issues and laws that it feels is important to address, and I feel they do this according to their political agenda. Due to California's strict environmental laws (some that aren't based on science) many companies have had to relocate out of state to remain in business. The environmental laws forced many families to leave their friends and family, so they could continue to be employed, while others lost their jobs. Would the ACLU stand up for those who were victimised by the state, but by helping those they would also be big business?"

Can you cite examples of when this has happened? Can you also help me understand this sentence? "Would the ACLU stand up for those who were victimised by the state, but by helping those they would also be big business?"

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying and would like to dig deeper.