Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
bring on KSM...he'll end up with a slap on the wrist!!!
So you don't think Americans tried him fairly even though he gets a minimum of 20 years? You were not on the jury so you obviously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about doofus. Maybe you think people accused of crimes should be tried in a way that guaranties they will be convicted of everything to the max huh? For someone who bitches about leftists you have an awful strong streak of Stalinism running through you. Maybe we should just start shooting people in the face instead of trying them under the law, would that make you happy Mr. Idi Amin?
The place where Rand Paul messed up was with his interpretation of the term "Public" in the Civil Rights Act. His confusion is that only government operated entities were "public entities", however, any business that exists to serve (any portion) of the public, without some form of required membership, is to be considered an "public entity".
For example, you could open a club (such as a gun club), and require patrons to go through a membership process, that require your approval. Based solely on the confines enforced by the Civil Rights Act, as the owner of that club, you are free to discriminate during your application screening process.
THANKFULLY, most states have broadened laws to prevent such discrimination.
Personally, I like Rand Paul, and I voted for his father in both the Republican Caucus, and as a write-in in the presidential election. I think America needs more political figures that embrace the Constitution, rather than socialist ideals. However, I do not agree with his take on this issue.
Post by noeysasquatch on Nov 18, 2010 11:09:15 GMT -5
Has anyone heard the news concerning the replacement of the lapsed nuclear treaty with Russia? One of Obama's top foreign policy goals is a new treaty with Russia to resume mutual inspections of nuclear arms between the 2 countries. Now, Senator Kyl of Arizona has removed his support for a new treaty because he wants billions of dollars allocated to funding our nuclear arsenal.
I thought that Republicans ran on a campaign of fiscal responsibility and cutting the deficit, but I guess I was wrong. Obama, Biden, former Pres Clinton, and the military all realize the importance of cooperation with Russia in order to reduce nuclear arms, but Kyl is being obstructionist.
Obstructionism. That's what we got out of the 2010 elections. So much for national security. I guess serving himself and his party is more important to Kyl.
Last Edit: Nov 18, 2010 11:29:55 GMT -5 by noeysasquatch - Back to Top
Post by nitetimeritetime on Nov 18, 2010 11:26:08 GMT -5
Silly liberals. We only have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world five times over. This is America, damnit! We can do better than a measly five. Will you be able to look your grandchildren in the eye and tell them we DIDN'T EVEN TRY for ten? Why do liberals hate children?
Haven't people caught on yet? Politicians who say they are "Constitutionalists" always end up being the first ones to shred the Constitution. Just like the anti-gay politicians always end up being closeted homosexuals. You can't claim to be a Constitutionalist and then turn around and say that you want to repeal the 14th amendment or any other amendment. Why do people keep falling for this crap?
I don't understand libertarians. I just feel as though they don't operate within the realm of reality. Some of their ideas sound OK at first and then you realize you have to live in a vacuum in order for any of it to work.
Haven't people caught on yet? Politicians who say they are "Constitutionalists" always end up being the first ones to shred the Constitution. Just like the anti-gay politicians always end up being closeted homosexuals. You can't claim to be a Constitutionalist and then turn around and say that you want to repeal the 14th amendment or any other amendment. Why do people keep falling for this crap?
I don't understand libertarians. I just feel as though they don't operate within the realm of reality. Some of their ideas sound OK at first and then you realize you have to live in a vacuum in order for any of it to work.
I really do not have a problem with true Libertarians per se, I just do not believe there are enough of them to make a difference in the process. Most of the people now who are calling themselves libertarians have an aggressive social agenda which is based around denying rights to people. Rand Paul is vehemently anti-abortion, does not support gays having the same rights as all Americans, and would like to do away with at least two amendments to the Constitution. That is not a limited gov't constitutional stance. It is somebody who is either trying to co opt the religious right, or a member of the religious right trying to co opt the libertarians.
I'm against abortion, becuase it is unconstitutional, and should be viewed as an act of violence.
I'm also FOR revising the 2nd amendment, to make it unlawful to own hand guns, and any weapon, or ammunition magazine that holds more than 6 rounds. You can still lawfully own most shotguns and rifles. Then, crack down big time on illegal arms... sales, owning, carrying, etc.
At this point, the only rights that gay people are not allowed, is the right to get married, and get those tax breaks. Let them get married, if thats what they want, and take the tax breaks away from everyone. The only way any couple (same sex, or otherwise) gets a special tax break, is if they are the legal guardian of a child, and you only get tax breaks, and federal assistance for 2 children.
I define a constitutionalist as someone who is pro life, pro personal liberty, and against big government spending. I can tell you that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. As far as Rand Paul goes, Im not really sure, Ive never really researched his views, as i have never been asked to vote for him. That said, I do like Rand Paul, his personality, and some of the things he has said, but if those civil rights views are what he truly believes, then I would not vote for him.
As far as the 14th amendment goes, it needs work. It was added to the constitution in 1868, long before illegal immigrants were a problem. I believe that both of our land borders should have higher security, and should be monitored by our military (which gives them a job, since I would retreat from the entire middle east all at once, altogether). Furthermore, the thought that a pregnant woman can run across the border, have her child in america, and get to stay and raise her child, as it is an american citizen is completely ignorant, the child is of it's mother and father, and if its mother and father are not legal aliens, neither is it. However, I should be much easier for Mexican's to apply for and get work visas, and even citizenship, so long as they can speak and read english on say a 6th grade level, and can pass a test that verifies knowledge of american law.
The thing that bugs me about this whole issue: How many jobs have we lost because of the NAFTA? It was designed in part to benefit Mexico's economy, yet we have more problems with illegal aliens now (I can explain why if necessary). So our unemployment rate has gone up dramatically, and the number of illegal aliens residing from mexico has also gone up, how is the NAFTA successful at all?
I'm against abortion, becuase it is unconstitutional, and should be viewed as an act of violence.
Guess you don't believe in birth control pills either? Because quite a few BC pills prevent the implantation of a FERTILIZED EGG. That there is violence
I'm also FOR revising the 2nd amendment, to make it unlawful to own hand guns, and any weapon, or ammunition magazine that holds more than 6 rounds.
Damn, there goes my fully automatic machine gun. Sh!t!
At this point, the only rights that gay people are not allowed, is the right to get married, and get those tax breaks.
That's the ONLY reason they want to get married? How about because they love each other and want to spend their lives together?
I'm against abortion, becuase it is unconstitutional, and should be viewed as an act of violence.
Where in the Constitution does it mention abortion?
A politician's stance on abortion should not matter. The fact that a politician is either prolife or prochoice should not sway how one votes. It was up to the Supreme Court to give women the right to choose. No matter how a politician feels on the issue, abortion will still be permissable and women will have a right to choose because its a judicial decision not legislative.
This is what I'm talking about in terms of not being able to work within reality. Libertarians = Republicans. Republicans <3 guns. There's no way that they are going to give up guns. So I don't know how that plan would work. You'd have to deal with the NRA and they wouldn't be happy about that.
I'm against abortion, becuase it is unconstitutional, and should be viewed as an act of violence.
I'm also FOR revising the 2nd amendment, to make it unlawful to own hand guns, and any weapon, or ammunition magazine that holds more than 6 rounds. You can still lawfully own most shotguns and rifles. Then, crack down big time on illegal arms... sales, owning, carrying, etc.
At this point, the only rights that gay people are not allowed, is the right to get married, and get those tax breaks. Let them get married, if thats what they want, and take the tax breaks away from everyone. The only way any couple (same sex, or otherwise) gets a special tax break, is if they are the legal guardian of a child, and you only get tax breaks, and federal assistance for 2 children.
I define a constitutionalist as someone who is pro life, pro personal liberty, and against big government spending. I can tell you that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. As far as Rand Paul goes, Im not really sure, Ive never really researched his views, as i have never been asked to vote for him. That said, I do like Rand Paul, his personality, and some of the things he has said, but if those civil rights views are what he truly believes, then I would not vote for him.
As far as the 14th amendment goes, it needs work. It was added to the constitution in 1868, long before illegal immigrants were a problem. I believe that both of our land borders should have higher security, and should be monitored by our military (which gives them a job, since I would retreat from the entire middle east all at once, altogether). Furthermore, the thought that a pregnant woman can run across the border, have her child in america, and get to stay and raise her child, as it is an american citizen is completely ignorant, the child is of it's mother and father, and if its mother and father are not legal aliens, neither is it. However, I should be much easier for Mexican's to apply for and get work visas, and even citizenship, so long as they can speak and read english on say a 6th grade level, and can pass a test that verifies knowledge of american law.
The thing that bugs me about this whole issue: How many jobs have we lost because of the NAFTA? It was designed in part to benefit Mexico's economy, yet we have more problems with illegal aliens now (I can explain why if necessary). So our unemployment rate has gone up dramatically, and the number of illegal aliens residing from mexico has also gone up, how is the NAFTA successful at all?
Well I can certainly say we differ on almost every political point. That being said a gay couple can not
1 Make end of life decisions for a partner
2 Visit a terminally ill partner in a hospital
3 They can be forced to testify against a partner
4 In a lot of states they can not adopt either because it is explicitly forbidden, or they back door it and only allow married couples to adopt
etc...
There are a lot more reasons than tax breaks.
As to guns, I am very pro gun ownership rights, you talk about taking pistols away from law abiding citizens, well let me tell you dude, criminals are already breaking the law by definition, and most can not legally carry anyway. I am against the new TN gun s in Bars bill, but I am very much in favor of people carrying handguns.
Abortion, while not listed in the constitution is a choice, it is one I find personally distasteful, but it is a choice I support. Also I can flat out say if the opponents put all their resources they use fighting it, and lobbying into adoption programs, and child placement programs it would almost cease to exist.
I disagree with your last point. Just carrying a child to term is a life-altering act even if you don't raise it. Not to mention dealing with giving up a child - it's a different thing to give it up when it's just a few cells inside of you vs. after birth.
I disagree with your last point. Just carrying a child to term is a life-altering act even if you don't raise it. Not to mention dealing with giving up a child - it's a different thing to give it up when it's just a few cells inside of you vs. after birth.
Still it would reduce them a lot more than protesting outside clinics and throwing red jello on women.
There's a tiny little abortion clinic in my city and I never noticed it - until I saw the protestors. Made me want to stop and tell them that they were actually advertising what the clinic does.
Guess you don't believe in birth control pills either? Because quite a few BC pills prevent the implantation of a FERTILIZED EGG. That there is violence
Negative. The constitutional right to life requires a beating heart in my opinion, which starts at approx 18 to 21 days past conception. Before that, I have no concerns. I believe in birth control, as everyone in the modern age will have pre marital sex. I think the key is more persistant, and graphic sex education in school, and it needs to start in the 6th grade too.
Damn, there goes my fully automatic machine gun. Sh!t!
Indeed, hand guns are designed to be easily concealed, and are responsible for the majority of intentional violent crime in our country, and no civilian has any business owning an assault rifle, or any kind of fully automatic weapon.
That's the ONLY reason they want to get married? How about because they love each other and want to spend their lives together?
I didn't mean that the only reason they want to get married is for the tax break, I meant that they want the right to get married, as well as the right to the tax breaks married people get. I am 100% against tax breaks solely for being married, this is more tax money that might be used to help get this country out of debt.
Some people think, that because I oppose abortion, I'm a gun loving, neo-consecrative, Christian crusader. And that is far from the truth.
I'm against abortion, becuase it is unconstitutional, and should be viewed as an act of violence.
Where in the Constitution does it mention abortion?
A politician's stance on abortion should not matter. The fact that a politician is either prolife or prochoice should not sway how one votes. It was up to the Supreme Court to give women the right to choose. No matter how a politician feels on the issue, abortion will still be permissable and women will have a right to choose because its a judicial decision not legislative.
1 The constitution guarantees every human the inalienable right to life
2 If you fall out of your chair, and appear to be dead, the first thing anyone with good sense will do is check your pulse. Hence, a heartbeat can be considered the determining factor for the idea of life.
3 At 21 days past conception, an embryo has a fully functioning heart pumping blood (it's own blood, different from the blood of the mother) throughout a closed circulatory system.
4 An embryo has been, on many occasions, recognized as an entity in a wrongful death and medical malpractice criminal trial, or law suit. In most of these situations, the defendants were MDs who did something that caused the woman to miscarry.
Putting all of that together, I see abortion as being unconstitutional.
This is what I'm talking about in terms of not being able to work within reality. Libertarians = Republicans. Republicans <3 guns. There's no way that they are going to give up guns. So I don't know how that plan would work. You'd have to deal with the NRA and they wouldn't be happy about that.
I am not a libertarian or a republican, and I am not asking people to give up guns, just hand guns, they can still own shotguns and rifles, to hunt with, target shoot with, protect their home with. And fuck the NRA, they are just a bunch of insecure people that need some way to feel macho.
1 The constitution guarantees every human the inalienable right to life
2 If you fall out of your chair, and appear to be dead, the first thing anyone with good sense will do is check your pulse. Hence, a heartbeat can be considered the determining factor for the idea of life.
3 At 21 days past conception, an embryo has a fully functioning heart pumping blood (it's own blood, different from the blood of the mother) throughout a closed circulatory system.
4 An embryo has been, on many occasions, recognized as an entity in a wrongful death and medical malpractice criminal trial, or law suit. In most of these situations, the defendants were MDs who did something that caused the woman to miscarry.
Putting all of that together, I see abortion as being unconstitutional.
I believe that many (all?) of those cases were a way of chipping away at abortion rights.
And while the embryo may have its own heartbeat, it cannot survive outside the mother and as such should be considered still a part of the woman's body.
Well I can certainly say we differ on almost every political point. That being said a gay couple can not
1 Make end of life decisions for a partner
2 Visit a terminally ill partner in a hospital
3 They can be forced to testify against a partner
4 In a lot of states they can not adopt either because it is explicitly forbidden, or they back door it and only allow married couples to adopt
etc...
There are a lot more reasons than tax breaks.
As to guns, I am very pro gun ownership rights, you talk about taking pistols away from law abiding citizens, well let me tell you dude, criminals are already breaking the law by definition, and most can not legally carry anyway. I am against the new TN gun s in Bars bill, but I am very much in favor of people carrying handguns.
Abortion, while not listed in the constitution is a choice, it is one I find personally distasteful, but it is a choice I support. Also I can flat out say if the opponents put all their resources they use fighting it, and lobbying into adoption programs, and child placement programs it would almost cease to exist.
1. That needs to be amended, and would be fixed if gay marriage was allowed 2. Who ever thought that this should not be allowed should receive a firm kick to the taint. I don't care if your life partner is a horse, who is terminally ill and at the vet, you should have the right to say goodbye. 3. Again, fixed by allowing gay marriage 4. Again, total bullshit, i can't see a gay marriage being any more unstable than a common marriage, why can't they adopt?
As far as guns, I am not saying you can't own a guy, just that you can't own a hand gun, or an automatic weapon. The handgun law would help to make a police officer's job a bit more safe, among other things.
1 The constitution guarantees every human the inalienable right to life
2 If you fall out of your chair, and appear to be dead, the first thing anyone with good sense will do is check your pulse. Hence, a heartbeat can be considered the determining factor for the idea of life.
3 At 21 days past conception, an embryo has a fully functioning heart pumping blood (it's own blood, different from the blood of the mother) throughout a closed circulatory system.
4 An embryo has been, on many occasions, recognized as an entity in a wrongful death and medical malpractice criminal trial, or law suit. In most of these situations, the defendants were MDs who did something that caused the woman to miscarry.
Putting all of that together, I see abortion as being unconstitutional.
I believe that many (all?) of those cases were a way of chipping away at abortion rights.
And while the embryo may have its own heartbeat, it cannot survive outside the mother and as such should be considered still a part of the woman's body.
Right, but it's life should still be considered. More on this when I get home, I have an emergency 20 miles away. Talk more later in 3 ish hours
Post by noeysasquatch on Nov 18, 2010 17:26:43 GMT -5
My point was that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. An issue as complex as abortion has to be dealt with in modern times as this was not an issue the framers had in mind. Yes all citizens have an inalienable right to life, but an embryo is not a citizen with rights. And abortion is constitutional as the supreme courts have given women the right to choose. No matter how much Rand Paul and other politicians decry abortion, it is not up to them to decide.
I feel somewhat similarly about applying the Constitution to the right to bear arms. The Constitution was written in a time before we had automatic weapons. I believe that people should be able to carry handguns for protection and rifles/shotguns for hunting, but I don't think allowing people to own automatic weapons results in anything positive.
This is just an idea I discussed with some of my friends, where it would be up to state and local government to determine their own gun laws. I think this approach would make sense especially for state with big cities. I live in Philly and there's almost 400 murders a year and a lot of other crimes committed involve firearms. Hell, I just heard gunshots outside my apt 2 nights ago. I believe with this approach, major cities would be safer by having stricter guns laws, while red states could have their lax guns laws.
Your last point, is something I agree completely with. I give IT work as charity to a local organization called Heart to Heart, as often as they need. They are a pro life planed parenting clinic. The provide counseling to help the mother to be decide if they want to keep their child or not, will help to arrange adoption at birth, and also make sure that the mother to be receives all the necessary medical attention, at a minimal cost to the mother to be. They do not offer abortion, but they do offer post-abortion counseling. They truly are a great organization.
Dcbee - Doctors in the past have saved a premature child weighing only one pound. It's an impressive feet, and it has been accomplished. Claiming that an embryo can't survive outside of it's mother's body has merrit, but only if you also approve of a woman murdering a 2 or 3 month old child, because she didn't want it to "impact her life", or she "couldn't provide for it"
The point at which the embryo has a heartbeat is the only logical point to consider it a human, and since it's a human, it has an inalienable right to life, whether it is an american or not. At this point, it should be unconstitutional to provide abortion services.
Noeysasquatch, the term inalienable means that these are rights that can be surrendered to someone else. It does not require a person to belong to a particular group, or even to be a citizen. If you are a human being on US Soil, it is the government's duty to protect your right to life. Also, if a doctor mistakenly prescribes a pregnant woman a medication that has a known side effect of miscarriage, and she loses her baby, she is well within her legal rights to press criminal charges against, as well as bring a civil suit against the prescribing doctor for medical malpractice and negligence resulting in loss of life. This doctor faces the reasonable possibility of losing his or her license to practice medicine, as well as fines, actual and punitive damages, and potential of jail time, if convicted. So, if courts can convict someone of criminal charges stemming from an accident that causes the loss of a embryo or fetus, how can you deny their right to convict who knowingly and willingly takes the life of an embryo or fetus?
As far as gun control, normally, I would agree that it is the state's responsibility to maintain legislator involving a matter, but an issue like gun control is volatile enough, that I believe that the legislator should be uniform from one state to the next. As far as needing a hand gun for protection, I live near memphis tn, and I have been in some of it's roughest parts. I have never carried a gun, and I have never been in a situation where I felt I would have been more safe with a gun. IMO, the people who feel the need to carry a gun "for protection" are just trying to compensate for something. If we can get rid of 95% of conceivable guns, consider how much safer the streets would be.
EAP: I only have this strong stance because so many people support it. I feel it is not right ethically, or legally, so I stand against it.
TO EVERYONE: I am not going to change your minds, I know that, and Im not trying to. I just want every one to hear a common sense side of pro life, rather than the usual biblical side.
The constitutional right to life requires a beating heart in my opinion, which starts at approx 18 to 21 days past conception.
So by your definition, ANYTHING with a beating heart has a right to life. Dogs, cats, chickens, cows. Are you a vegetarian? I have nothing against that by the way, but a beating heart and an arbitrary 18-21 day time frame is too simplistic for this very difficult subject matter.
What makes us different from all other life forms? A soul? And when does that soul become instilled into our physical being? At conception? When viable out of the mother? At first breath?
Yea. Not an easy one.
I don't have the answers. But I do believe in every woman's right to make this decision for herself.
Post by noeysasquatch on Nov 19, 2010 0:44:52 GMT -5
jhammett, we must just disagree on how we define a human life. I would not consider an embryo to be the same as a developed fetus as you would.
As for gun control, I do agree that it would be great if there were 95% less guns out there, but even with 95% less guns I'm still convinced those who would use them for violent means would be able to obtains them. I'm for stricter laws concerning carrying concealed weapons, but I can understand how one might want a gun for home protection. As for me, I use a bat for home protection and I've never owned or even shot a gun, but i don't believe that people carry guns just to "compensate" for something. I think working towards banning automatic weapons and stricter carrying licenses are the best ways to work towards stricter gun control.
The constitutional right to life requires a beating heart in my opinion, which starts at approx 18 to 21 days past conception.
So by your definition, ANYTHING with a beating heart has a right to life. Dogs, cats, chickens, cows. Are you a vegetarian? I have nothing against that by the way, but a beating heart and an arbitrary 18-21 day time frame is too simplistic for this very difficult subject matter.
What makes us different from all other life forms? A soul? And when does that soul become instilled into our physical being? At conception? When viable out of the mother? At first breath?
Yea. Not an easy one.
I don't have the answers. But I do believe in every woman's right to make this decision for herself.
The preamble of the constitution declaration of independence doesn't cover animals, but it does cover humans.
EDIT: also, I love me some meat, my favorite restaurant is Texas de Brazil, tasty