|
|
|
|
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 2/28/2007 10:38:21 AM | | If anyone of you are fed up with the ACLU then why not join it's enemy, "http://www.grassfire.org/, my hero... You will not believe what all the ACLU is trying to do to Americans. Go check out this website and you will understand more for sure.... | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 27 | |
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 2/28/2007 10:47:18 AM | From the above political extremist site:
As a concerned citizen, I stand against the ACLU’s radical agenda that undermines our nation’s traditional values and rich heritage of religious liberty.
Now, let's see; what is the purview of the ACLU again?
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Freedom of speech, association, the press, and religion, ...not an American "traditional value?"
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Equal rights ...not an American "traditional value?"
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Liberty and due process, ...not an American "traditional value?"
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
Privacy, ...not an American "traditional value?"
Get a clue, don't be a uninformed pawn of a partisan agenda - what next, a petition against the US Constitution? | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 2/28/2007 11:03:05 AM | Most people are unaware that the ACLU has as many conservatives as liberals among it membership. The Constitution is an unbiased document. Rights are not biased.
Like the bible, people read into the US Constitution what they want it to say and only accept what best suits them. They want their own rights protected but not the rights of those that they disagree with. The stands the ACLU take piss me off about half the time and the other half I cheer them. That means they are probably doing something right. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 2/28/2007 12:11:32 PM | Our nation’s traditional values?
Virginia recently apoligized for slavery. That was a bit of a nasty traditional value. It was within my lifetime that we still had "Whites Only" restaurants in the south.
We are not free from those who would silence us from their own narrow religious viewpoint.
We do need watchdogs like the ACLU to constantly remind us that we do have certain rights.
But debate and discussion is needed to remind the ACLU as well. The more we talk, the more chances are, that "we the people" can understand. We can't let fear and anger cloud the real issues anymore.
We do have the right to free speech.
Unfortunately, free speech includes things we don't want to hear. So I won't listen to NAMBLA's crackpot point of view. That is my right. I don't have to listen. No one is forcing me to listen. I disagree with what they say.
I am not threatened by nutsacks rambling about strange crap on a cable access channel at 3 am in the morning. I simply won't watch and listen to them.
We, as a nation, really don't have traditional values. Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, Happy Days, were all television shows. NOT reality. There is no standard. Never has been.
We have one national tradition... the Superbowl..... and that's gathering together to watch grown men knock each other silly over a pigskin.
So, no, I don't buy into this American tradition and heritage argument. Under the the red, white and blue, we screwed the indians and enslaved our fellow human beings.
I may disagree with what the ACLU does at times.... and their methods. But we should always have someone reminding us of things like freedom of speech and the constitution.
Otherwise, it just becomes a moldy piece of paper under glass in a museum somewhere and we take one step closer to 1984 and an Orwellian world. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 2/28/2007 4:56:11 PM | | I'm in the wrong here I kinda understand it only took several vicodens, a couple somas, some atavin, and two small bowls of high grade medical 420, I'm fine now I can accept that I was wrong, for now....I'm a very angry person when it comes to these guys..Anyway I'm Soo..rrrr..y. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 2/28/2007 5:31:46 PM | | an apology is a good thing in a man - good job byrd | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 2/28/2007 7:31:49 PM | Byrd's a good man... we've all got our sore points... and places where we can't quite see clearly sometimes.
I also agree with ^Toonsmith^... especially in his use of my favorite term of the moment... 'nutsacks'. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/1/2007 12:11:09 AM | | If you really want to know just how dangerous the ACLU is...you should do some reading about Roger Baldwin...the founder. Baldwin didn't believe in property ownership and Communism was his goal--but he was crafty wanting the ACLU to not appear socialist, but instead to appear patriotic and as advocates for the disenfranchised. To the ACLU disenfranchised=NAMBLA. | |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 34 | |
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/1/2007 12:20:13 AM | What I find disturbing about the ACLU is their hypocrisy. Notwithstanding the information available on their site, the fact of the matter is that they do exhibit a pronounced bias and that bias is definitely left-wing/socialist.
For instance.
While its commendable how they pursue important cases of merit dealing with First and Fourth Amendment issues, they will steadfastly refuse to defend anyone having a valid Second Amendment dispute (for non-Americans and others, the First Amendment generally guarantees the right to free speech; association and religious affiliation and practice. The Fourth Amendment guarantees freedom from unreasonable governmental search (by the way, there is NO such thing as unreasonable private search. Your hubby/wife/S.O. can ransack your belongings and show any allegedly contraband item to the police and the police would have probable cause to get a search warrant; only the item shown to them (initially) is off limits) and the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms (not to hunt, but to prevent a tyranny from usurping our rights-and it doesn't concern the National Guard- the National Guard didn't come into existence until 1869) or Third Amendment right (for trivia buffs, look that up and try to cite to a case).
In sum (its late and the whisky is almost gone), my disagreement with the ACLU is not on legal grounds-they are absolutely correct when they say a lawyer who represents an odious defendant or a political view that is repugnant to the mores of society doesn't mean the lawyer believes in the views of the client. When a lawyer represents an unpopular client, he is not representing the client per se, he is representing the Constitution.
Unless you are the ACLU and you don't like certain Rights. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/1/2007 12:44:09 AM | When did the ACLU take part in a child abuse trial on the behalf of the abuser?
Did that EVER happen?
10 yr old Jeffery Curley was abducted by 2 men who killed him and then sexually abused the body and then dumped the body into a river. The men were convicted, but during the trial, it was revealed that one of the men accessed the NAMBLA website at a public library and in his diary he wrote that the NAMBLA website encouraged him to act out his fantasies on young boys.
Not all freedom of speech is protected--you cannot yell 'fire' in a theater. And while the ACLU did not take part the trial for these abusers--it does support NAMBLA's 'right' to post a website that is an encouragement to men who would abuse boys and the most popular publication by NAMBLA is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships". The parents of Jeffrey Curley brought civil suit against NAMBLA and of course the ACLU ran to NAMBLA's defense. Can there really be a defense for an organization that exists only for the purpose of promoting child abuse?
And just as an aside...it is also the ACLU that wants there to be no restrictions on public library internet access. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/1/2007 12:45:13 AM | I have to support ANY idea.......we all should. That is the balance we need.
I am not right, you are not right. It is open discussion that keeps all of us in balance. HONEST.
To **** and moan about the ACLU is to say..... I have the only voice "SHUT up."
Like the spoiled child do you want to hear only what you want to hear?
----------------------------
Can there really be a defense for an organization that exists only for the purpose of promoting child abuse?
-----------------------------
If they were so illegal......yes.
However..... I know it is not that clear cut. If everthing were so black and white life would be easy....
I want the NAZI's to be able to march.......
I want the bad guy to know his rights........No matter what.....
These are the make up of my country....
| |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/1/2007 1:15:42 AM | http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/6/2009 7:16:28 PM | Who should interpret the Constitution? Why do we have a Supreme Court that is chosen by a president who was elected by a majority? Now I'm no genius but Ill guess that it is so that the Supreme Court will interpret unresolved issues in a way that jives with the view of the people. Something about Democracy I guess.
So if I had personally invented the ACLU I would fight for the general publics interpretation of Civil Rights. If you don't do this then you are just another interest group that works over the heads of everyone. The ACLU is so focused on minority rights that they are willing to disenfranchise the majority. "Tyranny of the Majority" is their common quote. So one day they might stick up for you and then the next day you find that your vote got overridden. In the short term you got represented but then you realize that in the long term it was only by coincidence. Now and your offspring have little incentive to participate in government. How do you have order when your vote no longer means anything? This isn't a rhetorical question. Those who support the ACLU; answer the question. I want to hear your answer.
They forget that concept of Democracy is the ultimate embodiment ( although not perfect ) of civil rights on the largest possible scale. They forget that there is no perfect government that will represent every last person. And they will apparently accomplish this "100 %" representation at all costs ( including the destruction of democracy). They are at best a living oxymoron. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/6/2009 11:37:15 PM |
o if I had personally invented the ACLU I would fight for the general publics interpretation of Civil Rights. If you don't do this then you are just another interest group that works over the heads of everyone. The ACLU is so focused on minority rights that they are willing to disenfranchise the majority.
If you'd invented the ACLU essentially you would have invented a pointless organization. As defending the rights of people to express a popular opinion is something that is rarely if ever required.
Complaining that something you voted for was over ruled by the constitution shows an inherent lack of understanding of what the purpose of the constitution is for. The constitution exists to restrict the power of government. If you want to hold some hateful or repressive opinion that is fine, but as soon as you "vote" for it in order to place it into law, congratulations, you're now taking part in a tyrannical process, and the constitution exists to provide a framework for exposing and neutralizing your actions.
The ACLU defends the rights for racist and bigoted organizations to express their feelings as well, they just combat these organizations same attempts to make their bigotry into law. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/7/2009 12:25:47 PM | Many organisations have had members who did bad things. But their actions were only considered representative of the organisation when they refused to condemn the actions of those members, or when the organisation was found to be actively encouraging those actions.
As long as the ACLU condemn the actions of this ex-official, I see no problem. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/7/2009 2:41:34 PM | Bad things? BAD THINGS?! This goes so far beyond "bad things" that I really dont know how to respond to such a statement.
Bad things? * Shakes head* Stealing candy is bad. Burping at church is bad. Stepping on my shoe is bad. Farting at the dinner table is bad. Politicians that lie are bad.
These things are not even on the same planet as bad.
To: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales & the U.S. Justice Dept.
Whereas Charles Rust-Tierney, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and recent ACLU board member, was recently convicted of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 8 years in prison,
Whereas Federal Judge Theresa Buchanan concluded in her sentence of Mr. Tierney that this was "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she had seen all her years on the bench,
Whereas, according to Judge Buchanan, the material Mr. Tierney obtained and viewed for his sadistic pleasure included a video containing the sexual torture of children,
Whereas the federal indictment on Mr. Tierney stated that he willfully and knowingly downloaded videos and photos showing young teens and preteens engaged in sexual activity,
Whereas there has been no mention of Mr. Tierney’s actions and prison sentence anywhere on both the ACLU of Virginia’s web site and the national ACLU’s site in New York, nor has there been any press release from either office to disavow its association with him or publicly apologize for his actions,
Whereas the ACLU has a long history and tradition of defending pornography, including child porn and advocated its use without any restrictions,
Whereas the policy manual of the ACLU, chapter 4, states that (excerpts below, thanks to ProtectKids.com making this available):
(a) "The ACLU opposes any restraint on the right to create, publish or distribute materials to adults . . . on the basis of obscenity . . ."
(b) "Laws which punish the distribution or exposure of such materials [i.e. including obscenity] to minors violate the First Amendment . . ."
(c) "The ACLU believes that . . . all limitations of expression on the ground of obscenity . . . are unconstitutional."
(d) "The ACLU opposes on First Amendment grounds laws that restrict the production and distribution of any . . . materials even when some of the producers of those materials are punishable under criminal law
Whereas the ACLU, according to the chapter “ACLU vs. Children” in the book ACLU vs. America, stated at a commission hearing in the Reagan Administration that while child porn should not be produced, it cannot be regulated once it is,
Whereas the ACLU opposes any and all restrictions of books, magazines and other library materials containing pornographic images and has regularly sued to ensure that none are ever put in place,
Whereas the ACLU opposes and has frequently litigated to block filtering at libraries and other public venues where citizens and public employees would have Internet access,
Whereas the ACLU has taken cities and counties to court for imposing restrictions on adult bookstores, adult video stores and adult entertainment clubs,
Whereas the ACLU defends unrestricted transmission of any form of pornography and opposes any and all regulations on such, be they transmitted on the Internet, thru the U.S. Postal Service, or by any other means,
Whereas the ACLU has and is currently defending the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in a case whereby a 10 year old Massachusetts boy was brutally murdered as a result of images and advocacy of child sex on its site,
Whereas the ACLU, in its defense of NAMBLA, chillingly describes NAMBLA’s depictions and displays on its web site as “robust free speech”,
Whereas the ACLU has sued cities, counties and states on behalf of pederasts, rapists and other sexual offenders to have unrestricted access to public parks, playgrounds and other facilities where children might congregate,
Whereas the ACLU’s timeless alliance with Planned Parenthood, America’s number one abortion provider, has resulted in habitually defending the abortion industry from releasing any information regarding possible sexual conduct between adults and minor teens, also known as jailbait,
Whereas statutes exist in all 50 states forbidding sexual activity between minors and adults,
Whereas the ACLU of Virginia, under Mr. Tierney’s watch, sued the state legislature in 2004 to block legislation prohibiting teen access to nudist clubs in the state without parental accompaniment,
Whereas Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and second in command only to executive director Anthony Romero, publicly states her love and support for unrestricted pornography and wrote a book titled Defending Pornography, proudly touting her views without shame,
Whereas Ms. Strossen has traveled to college campuses across America, such as Yale and her alma mater, Harvard, to defend her support of pornography in the name of free speech and has appeared in the play, The Vagina Monologues, a tasteless performance depicting a lesbian rape among numerous sexual vulgarities,
Whereas Larry Flynt, hardcore pornographer and publisher of Hustler Magazine, is on the board of directors for the Southern California ACLU and represents the ACLU at colleges and other public forums in his defense of pornography,
Whereas the goals of the Communist Party are contained in the Congressional Record Appendix, pages A34-35, three of them being:
· Eliminating all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. (#24)
· Breaking down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. (#25)
· Presenting homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." (#26)
Whereas these three goals (among a total of 45 of record) are clearly identifiable as perversions and representative of the ACLU in the lawsuits it entertains and defends,
Whereas the ACLU’s support and fulfillment of these goals have had a demonstrative negative effect on the welfare of America’s children – in the home, in the school and in society overall,
Whereas ACLU lawsuits defending unrestricted pornography and judges ruling in favor of the ACLU have, by the nature of them, harmed and crippled marriages and families and caused great sorrow and pain to all involved,
Whereas pornography in itself is dangerous as it causes its viewers and supporters to seek out more and more sexually graphic and titillating images, resulting in addictions that parallel with alcoholism, drug use and gambling,
Whereas child pornography creates serious damage to all involved with it, but especially the children who are victims of such abuse, along with the rest of their families,
Whereas downloading and possession of child pornography is illegal in all 50 states,
Whereas the ACLU advocates and sues to ensure that the availability of porn in all 50 states, include child porn, is not restricted or limited in any way,
Whereas the love, gratification and possession of pornography is clearly carried out by the likes of Mr. Tierney, Ms. Strossen and perhaps many other ACLU directors and employees across America,
Whereas the U.S. Justice Dept. is specifically charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes of pornography, especially child pornography,
Whereas the ACLU presents itself as a stealthy organization, regularly concealing and quashing information the U.S. government seeks to obtain from them,
And whereas public access to the ACLU, be it by phone, mail, e-mail, fax and personal visits, is frequently stifled since many branches do not answer their correspondence and communications and because many offices do not identify themselves accordingly on their front doors,
We the American people respectfully urge Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the U.S. Justice Dept. (askdoj@usdoj.gov), along with other related law enforcement organizations within the federal government that it may ask to assist, such as the FBI and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), to conduct a top to bottom investigation of the ACLU and all its offices around the country to assess whether, in part due to the conviction of Mr. Tierney and his extensive ties to illegal activities, this organization may be identified as a criminal enterprise in conjunction with any ties it may have to the porn industry, either at home or abroad, and that the Justice Dept. will report its findings to the public in a timely manner.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?haltACLU | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/7/2009 3:40:44 PM | Charles
Not over ruled by the constitution, the court. Read more slowly.
You still have not answered the question, you guys never do. Who should define rights in a Democracy? Stop beating around the bush.
Next question; How do you stand up for the little guy while keeping a vote meaningful? | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/7/2009 3:53:43 PM | and Charles
You assumed that my views are hateful and repressive without even asking what they are. What does that make you? Should I accuse you of something malicious too? To date everyone I blogged with who supports the ACLU has resorted to this. Without exception. If you cant defend your views without judging before understanding then how good are your views and values? I have had this same discussion with the far right.
I actually agree with a couple of the ACLUs views and so does the majority, but our society should grow because it learns and grows together, not because some organization decided that its going lead us into a better society.
Again answer the question. Whom should the definition of rights reflect in a democracy. Or does this question mean nothing to you? | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 9:20:24 AM | RE msg 41 by Apologist~D.A:
Bad things? BAD THINGS?! This goes so far beyond "bad things" that I really dont know how to respond to such a statement. Bad things? * Shakes head* Stealing candy is bad. Burping at church is bad. Stepping on my shoe is bad. Farting at the dinner table is bad. Politicians that lie are bad.
These things are not even on the same planet as bad. If you want to get angry because you are unhappy with the English Language, then please join the Oxford University Press, and have the ENGLISH dictionary re-writtens to suit your views.
You obviously didn't read what I wrote, because if you did, you would know that I wrote that if they condemned this, then there would be no problem, and ONLY if they condemned this.
You obviously don't understand how people can enjoy child pornography. Sex with children is a form of sex without consent. Just like rape, it is a form of control. But due to its social condemnation, and its lack of availability, it is not something that most men would choose, and so is only something that men enjoy when they don't enjoy sex with women. So this man feels a need to control children, because he feels out of control when it comes to dealing with women.
Sexual desires start in early youth, and are typically programmed very strongly from then on, with almost no changes at all. So this man would have to have been induced into sexually desiring children at a young age. So this sense of lack of control would have to stem with a strong feeling of fear of the women in his childhood, probably with his mother, than conditioned him to feel that all women would turn on him. However, a certain amount of fear of your mother is very common, with no ill-effects altogether. So this man almost certainly had an extremely abusive mother, who scared the living daylights out of him, day after day, until he felt that all women could turn on him, and become equally abusive.
But still, this would not hold if most women were not so abusive. So he would have had to encounter reinforcement of this initial conditioning, by women being abusive to him, again and again, with him feeling impotent to defend himself against this, because the law would protect those women against physical violence and emotional violence, but not protect him.
When I look at your post, I see such rage, that would reinforce such conditioning. Sadly, you are part of the problem, and NOT part of the solution.
I fully expect you to attack my post, with far more rage than you have already expressed. This is just an indication that you would reinforce such conditioning, and even if the man tried to explain his feelings, so as to ask for help, that you would condemn him more, and the more he tried to explain, the more you would condemn him, until he would conclude that even if he had wanted to give up the child porn in favour of a real relationship, that he would just be condemned more. That would make him feel that he is completely out of control when dealing with women anywhere near his age, which would make his subconscious feel that it would not be possible to have an honest relationship with any women his age, and that would make his subconscious feel that he could only have an honest and open relationship with children, not real women, because you would have shown him that all women are far too aggressive to have a real and genuine relationship with. That would just be you making the problem worse.
So go ahead, attack me. You only convince the subconscious of all men like him, that kiddie porn is the only way to go. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 12:52:09 PM | Snerk. Same old same old.
More people who think they are complaining about political correctness when what they're really complaining about is that is isn't their type of political correctness.  | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 1:28:23 PM |
Who should define rights in a Democracy?
It's not whom, it's what, namely the constitution. Democracy did not elliminate segregation, it did not elliminate slavery. Until the 1980's most people though people of differing races should not legally allowed to be married.
How do you stand up for the little guy while keeping a vote meaningful?
Frankly if the little guy votes to mistreat the even littler guy, the little guy can go screw himself.
You assumed that my views are hateful and repressive without even asking what they are.
No I don't really care what your personal views are, if you advocate people being able to use the electoral system in order to mistreat other people, then it doesn't really matter what your views are.
I actually agree with a couple of the ACLUs views and so does the majority, but our society should grow because it learns and grows together, not because some organization decided that its going lead us into a better society.
Unfortunately small groups of dedicated citizens are the only people who actually create any growth. These movements always start out on the fringe, if they didn't their wouldn't need to be a movement.
Apologist using an online petition is hardly indicative of evidence for the negative effects of the ACLU.
Anyway the amusing thing is any fundamentalist christian claiming the activities of one somehow paints all members of an organization in a negative light. How many abortion doctors have YOU murdered today? | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 1:56:06 PM | The petition was never meant to be used as evidence for anything. I just thought it reading material worthy enough to share with my peeps.
Confucius say "Attempting to predict any woman's motive is most certainly a foolish endeavor." | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 3:12:49 PM | RE msg 47 by Apologist~D.A:
The petition was never meant to be used as evidence for anything. I just thought it reading material worthy enough to share with my peeps. In that, it was most edifying.
Confucius say "Attempting to predict any woman's motive is most certainly a foolish endeavor." That would make women unpredictable and unreliable. No businessman can employ a completely unpredictable person. They could wreck his business. No-one can live with a completely unpredictable person for long. They wreck your life. The only way to deal with unpredictable people, is to ensure that they have absolutely no power to do anything. That way, they cannot wreck your livelihood or your life. Give them power, and in a few months, or at most a few years, and you'll walk out, and never look back.
So I really think that claims like this, are just driving men away into 2 directions: either denying women rights, or leaving women alone altogether. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 6:38:26 PM | Charles
By the time of Brown vs the Board of education the majority of America (including the majority of conservatives) felt that school segregation was wrong. The Supreme Court reversed Plessy vs Ferguson after new knowledge ( the doll experiments). The court interpreted civil rights one way that reflected the times, times changed and it reinterpreted civil rights. At both times it represented the general publics view. Yet you imply that society cannot grow and learn collectively.
So you assumed that I feel the purpose of the system for one group to mistreat another? You are jumping to conclusions. Abortion doctors. Once again, name calling and accusations. Just like the far right.
Here's another question
Do you think it is possible to have 100% freedom of expression, 100% separation of church and state, and 100% freedom of expression at the same time in our schools? If you don't understand the context of my question then feel free to make more assumptions. Or you can just ask me to clarify. I'm not perfect at asking questions, you know. | |
|
| The Dangerous ACLU
Posted: 3/8/2009 10:39:36 PM |
The bottom line here is that this is a dangerous group of people who want to destroy the values important to our society.
Ho-hum...
OP, is this something you're parroting from your favorite conservative radio talk show host?
Joe McCarthy would be proud!
I'm sorry to be picky here, but could you just copy and paste these profound thoughts until you get a better grip on spelling and the usage of the words there, their, they're...
As for the ACLU having "no room for christians in there[sic] world," well, lots of us don't have room in our world for individuals describing themselves as "Christians" who turn out to be, uh, wolves in sheep's clothing; just like other individuals in leadership positions who disappoint and deceive the innocent and those of honorable intent. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
