"If the laws in this country are not going to be enforced, what's the point of having them?
Posted By: Patty on 2009-06-12
In Reply to: This isn't a matter of degrading ourselves...(sm) - Just the big bad
Would that include Proposition 8 that was recently upheld as lawful? ;-)
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Read up on the laws of this country
A president, vice president and most/all members of congress and the senate get to go to safe places in case of attack or threat of attack. It's the way the government can keep going in case of an emergency.
Don't post something you know nothing about. Come to this board with FACTS. That's what this board is supposed to be about.
to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
nm
Pardon me. Are you saying the rules are not enforced equally? sm
I asked for an example, i.e., a specific post. Which post is it specifically. I do not have time to read every post on this board. Also, you said insults. I asked for examples of that. Again, you did not provide any. I am not quite sure how I am to do something about anything when you are not cooperating. I have, in the past, posted equally on both boards regarding sticking to the boards you belong on. However, I can't assume that simply because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they are of a certain political persuasian. That would be, indeed, labeling and unfair on my part. I will post another reminder about which board to stay on, but I don't appreciate your insinuation that there is favoritism here. As the board owner has said before, if this board is not to your liking, you certainly have options.
You still miss the point that 48% of the country....
don't see Obama as the leader you see and have no faith that he can "change" anything for the better. He talks a lot of "unite" but not much about "compromise." He wants to bring US to HIS side, not meet us in the middle. His whole career has been that, his voting record has been that. What, I ask you, is there other than his word for it that he means to change anything other than taking everything we the 48% believe and demolishing it so that nothing remains but HIS view? Where is ANY tangible proof of that? He is immovable on abortion and extreme far left radical on it. He means to change the face of the supreme court and remove all semblance of conservatism. He does not want to "unite" conservatives, he wants conservatives to become liberals. As do his followers...it is readily apparent from the posts you read here. No one here is interested in uniting anyone, unless you adopt their thoughts, their values, their vision. If you don't, you are an ignorant redneck and so many other colorful adjectives I can't name them all.
So you tell me...where in anything Obama says does a conservative find hope for compromise or positive "change?" Please direct me there.
As to party rubble...not a republican...that party left me a long time ago. I personally think the party system is divisive and I think the idea of only 2 candidates reeks. But...oh well. The powerful higher-ups know the more candidates you have, the harder to get a majority...and they don't want that.
Oh well...off my soapbox. In closing...very simple. If Obama truly does start to "compromise" in his effort to "unite" then I might really believe he is reaching out to those of us who don't trust him. Until then...just words.
No "If"
He didn't say "If I am president" He said "When I am president"
I'll try to find a clip where he says it, but I remember him saying it because I remember commenting to my husband that it was odd to say that instead of "If"
Correction - This..."If you are not with me, you are against me."
is Bush's motto.
Yep, the "if its true" factor.
What part of "if and when" did you not understand?
Please go back and read the post slowly and pay attention.
I didn't say that depends on what the definition of "IF"
There is a big difference between IF and WHEN. IF I said "...If I go to the store" or "...when I go to the store" IF means I may go to the store, WHEN means I WILL go to the store.
The other poster said that Mccain was saying he was going to be president and I pointed out that so did Obama and I gave PROOF from his OWN site.
No. I love the country side in Alabama...I'm a country girl...nm
Tax laws are always about
Secondary effects such as the impact on jobs, if any, are much more debatable, are often very difficult to prove and take much longer to materialize.
As I posted on the Company Board in a similar thread, these issues are very complex and this administration has made them even more difficult to determine by cleverly lumping "jobs saved" (which can never be proven because you have to prove a negative hypothesis - i.e., that a job was not lost that would have been lost if not for their programs) with "jobs created", and "jobs created" was already hard enough to prove anyway.
As I also said, the "other side of the coin" is that there was obviously some reason that the tax breaks were created in the first place. In this case, the main reason was that it would allow US companies to compete globally with foreign companies that enjoy low labor costs.
There will obviously be ways for companies to counter these proposed tax changes (which face stiff opposition in Congress) - including, if necessary, simply moving their entire operations to another country as some are already thinking of doing.
Every law that Congress passes has unintended consequences. These usually show up to bite us in the assets.
This is not about any laws! This is sm
about Christians trying to have bible study in their own homes which folks have been doing for centuries. If this were any other group, nothing would be said. It is about taking away freedom for Christiasn! I don't care what you say or what your opinion is as to why, Im telling you why, it is Christian persecution! Not religious but Christian.
If Wiccans or Muslims or anybody else did this it would be fine. I live in a city where there are at least 500 different religions practicing here and the only one that EVER gets picked on are the Christians.
As far as the Wiccans.......if they aer over there at their own house doing whatever they do, no I am not going to say a word nor am I going to watch and participate. as far as in the nude, if there is a law that says they can be nude in their backyard, there is nothing I can do about that.
My goodness I know people who have 15-20 people over every week for BRUNCH (why, I don't know) and no one would ever think of saying a word. Bible study where people are sitting in their living rooms discussing God's Holy Word, my goodness what a crime! I just know it is going to cause everyone so much harm!
What about the families who have teenagers that every single weekend there are more than the magic number of 15 gathered, partying in the front yard? Nobody says anything about that? I wouldn't either unless it got too loud. Its their house they can do what they want.
People wake up, this has nothing to do with licenses, laws, law breakers, religious persecution or anything else. It is nothing more than CHRISTIAN persecution. Anyone who is a Christian already knows this.
I assume you are wiccan because you say sometimes "we". That is your business. I am not bothering you, why do you insist on sticking your nose in my business.
If this were a bunch of Wiccans gathering each week and somebody raised an objection, there would be such an outcry of discrimination it would be unbelievable. Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I have seen it where I live.
Hmmmmmm guess they could keep the bible study to 14 people each week or 14 people each night or whatever. I guarantee you there would still be the same objections raised by folks who want to stamp God out of this country.
I refuse to get into an argument with a bunch of people on here about this subject though. It is my right to have a Bible study or whatever I want in my own home.
Sad thing about it is that as Christians, part of this is the Christians (me included) fault for sitting back for so long and allowing our freedoms to be slowly taken away. NO MORE!!!!!
Give it a few more years and it will be just like a communist country and the Christians will have to put black curtains up over their windows to be safe when having prayer and Bible study!
I don't believe he broke any laws
You believe that he did. We're at an impasse. I don't hate America I put America first before the rest of the world, but I guess I'm just selfish enough to take care of my home first. I'm a baaaad person I guess.
The tougher laws I see...
refer to dealers. So far as I can see, she wasn't dealing. She was a user. McCain, so far as I can see, has not wanted harsher penalties against users. He wanted tighter laws so not so much flows over the borders, he supported the death penalty for drug kingpins (like heads of cartels, etc). Again...John McCain, by himself, cannot make law. He can support it and vote for it, but if all the others in the legislature don't vote for it, it doesn't become law.
What he asked for tougher laws on I can't see that his wife did. I am sure Ted Kennedy would probably vote to keep the law that it is a felony to leave the scene of an injury accident too...but that didn't stop him from walking away from a bridge where a young woman was drowning in a submerged car. He managed to get himself out but could not be bothered to try to get her out. And he never did 1 second in jail for that. Which in my book is much worse than what Cindy McCain did.
That being said...The tougher laws McCain (and many others) supported was against dealers, not users. She didn't deal. She used and she stole from herself essentially (her foundation funded the charity) and yes, put pressure on the physicians associated with it to write her prescriptions. Because she was addicted and you know that someone who is addicted does not make good decisions.
The system is not perfect. No, she did not do any time for her crime. Many first-time user-offenders don't. On the other hand, they make deals with people a lot worse than Cindy McCain every day, turn them loose in order to get the bigger fish. That's not right either, but it happens every day. And contrary to what you might think, even people who forged prescriptions have gotten off, people a lot less affluent than Cindy McCain. For a whole lot of reasons.
And I say again...if you had all the means at your disposal the McCains have and it was your mother or sister who, while addicted, did things she would not normally do...if it was in your power to protect her from jail and get her the help she needed to get off the stuff, would you not do it?
Incidentally, McCain also, as part of his advocating harsher penalties for dealers, also advocated increase in federal spending for drug treatment programs: McCain indicates that federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs should be expanded. He says, “Work to expand public/private partnerships in support of such initiatives, and coordinate them with state and local efforts.”
Honestly, I can't find anything where he advocates harsher treatment of addicts and users. Only dealers.
Oh but it does...research the laws regarding...
citizenship.
in-laws are all dems - what to do? nm
x
Laws protect more than that...
You don't have to be a citizen in the United States to be protected from being murdered. You just have to be human and alive, both of which can also be said of UNBORN CHILDREN. Or are we to believe that a tourist, or a person who is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States, is NOT protected from being murdered? Can I just go out and kill anybody I want to just because they aren't citizens? Ahhh, no. I don't think so.
And the whole "mind your own business" argument doesn't hold water. A human life is taken during an abortion, the same as when it is taken during a murder. Are we all to just "mind our own business" and "just don't kill anybody?" No, it doesn't work that way. Just because you don't choose to kill someone, or have an abortion, doesn't mean we can just "live and let live" - particularly since people who commit abortions and murders DON'T let their victim live...at all.
These are exactly the types of arguments/mantra that have been spewed from the mouths of people who TRY to make us believe this is a women's issue to help us make a choice about "our bodies." If it was only my body, I would agree. But it is not my body that is being killed. It is my child. Men, women, children, citizen or not - no one has the right to take a human life.
you are right - but it is the privacy laws -
women's bodies are their own - if they are old enough to see a gynecologist they have their privacy. Now, they can go next door and get treated by the general physician and get the same thing done and mommy or daddy can be involved, just not in the gyno's office.
NY has had laws on the books for
over 5 years. No smoking just about anywhere except Indian-owned casinos and private clubs that do not have employees. No Smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.
I for one, love it!
Yeah......who needs laws?
bang, bang, shoot 'em up.
If there are laws against smoking
at parks, your son's baseball park, or anywhere, marijuana wouldn't be allowed either, because it's also smoking.
Marrying in laws
Was not required, but suggested. They were allowed to decline.
I said SOUND laws..
Giving women the right to vote WAS A SOUND LAW. I think someone has missed their naptime.
what? laws to taze your kid? sheez.
x
Laws protecting from murder
Yes, this country does have laws that protect citizens from being murdered.
A "citizen" is defined someone who "is born or naturalized in the United States."
Fetuses, embryos, etc. aren't born or naturalized. The issue of when life begins is akin to the "chicken/egg" question and will never be answered to the satisfaction of everyone. It relies mostly on religious views, and one's religious views shouldn't be forced on someone else who may not believe the same.
Again, I believe in minding my own business and NOT judging someone who may have or has had an abortion because it's none of my business.
If you don't believe in abortion, then I guess the simplest answer is: Don't have one.
We are governed by laws not the Bible!
In the United States of America, we are required to follow laws, not the Ten Commandments. The last time I checked, raping, killing, and stealing were against the law.
By the way, a lot of good the Ten Commandments do keeping people from breaking laws. I would bet anything that the majority of prisoners in this country consider themselves to be Christian.
There are a lot of anti-smoking laws
I did not realize this was an old campaign. It seemed like a modern idea when the surgeon general came out in 1969 against smoking.
no laws don;t trample people
shoppers do. We need to think our way out of the greedy consumerism that has been force fed to us by the republicans. A democracy needs reasoning participants. In times of economic crisis, saving $49 on a big screen TV should be laughable.
If we claim to be a nation of laws, then
we need to BE a nation of laws. JTBB has said it all and said it well.
Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
links to the COPYRIGHT LAWS
xx
Trying to change sound laws
is just as objectionable as breaking them. ;-) I believe the topic was enforcing laws. Need to leave this one alone so it can be enforced.
Oprah on child molestation laws...sm
I found this article on Oprah's website and thought this excerpt was powerful on the anti-child abuse/molestation movement. The underlined areas are links, please help out with this as you can.
*This is a full circle moment for me. For me to have been raped at 9 years old … this is so big and so gratifying that I now get to put people behind bars who did to me what they've been doing to other children. This is it. And so I am going to spend my own resources, and I am going to work with law enforcement, and I'm going to change, with your help, the laws in this country state by state by state by state.
We are not going to be a country that talks the talk about how we care about children, and then we let these people back out on the street. It's Joseph Duncan all over again. We have got to let Shasta Groene and all the others be the last children. Let their lives not have been in vain. Let's stand up, and change the laws.
Take a look at these accused child molester profiles, and see if you can be the next person to put a fugitive behind bars.*
I am SO with you on the religion in your face thing. My in laws are so sm
judgmental of nonChristians that it literally would make you ill. I am a Christian and a strong one, but I wasn't a Christian I would probably divorce my husband and move 3,000 miles away from all of them.
Nice talking with you.
Copyright laws forbid it. Nothing to do with the length. nm
.
Not to mention, THE PEOPLE vote for these laws and
People vote to place ridiculous bans on things because they saw on the news that a so-called scientific study told them it's for the good of all. Don't bother to trace back to who paid for that study and who will reap the rewards of the ban. My oh my, they said it's for the good of the people, so therefore, I shall vote as they instruct. The latest? They've now banned fast food restaurants in California because they apparently feel that poor people can't make good health choices. What an insult! If people are that poor, they probably can't afford fast food anyway because fast food ain't all exactly cheap these days.
But you go right on blaming the Democrats or the Republicans or whichever group you see fit. The vote still lays in the hands of the people of this country. The more I see so many Democrats here acting like everyone is a complete moron for having any kind of opposing view and touting every single thing a Democrat does as the holy grail, the more I feel like moving to another country. Wake up! If you can't admit that even Democrats make mistakes and aren't saviors, then you are prejudiced.
By law he can detain illegals......unfoturtunately our laws
nm
Yes killing this country - have you been out of the country the last 3 months or so
Don't you have a clue as to what is happening in America? Where have you been? Don't you listen to what is happening or are you still drinking the kool-aid. That time is over. Put the aid down and wake up. The country is being destroyed. These have been the worst 4 months in the history of bad presidents. Foreclosures are on the rise, unemployment is on the rise, 3+ trillion more in deficit and on the rise, companies shutting down, Clinton for SoS. Napolitano - one of the biggest tragedies to happen to America. The list goes on and on and on and on.
Dubya is not in office anymore. You think dubya "pulled the trigger", well the O keeps reloading it and continues to pull the trigger.
Bush Ignores Laws He Signs, Vexing Congress
President Has Issued 750 Statements That He May Revise or Disregard Measures.
WASHINGTON (June 27) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not, said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.
Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.
There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview, Specter, R-Pa., said.
It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, he added. I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.
A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements.
Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events, said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11..
Congress has been more active, the president has been more active, she added. The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.
Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.
But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.
There's less here than meets the eye, Cornyn said. The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is.
But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.
The president is not required to (veto), Boardman said.
Of course he's not if he signs the bill, Specter snapped back.
Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.
It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed, said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?
Why does the Government have to create Laws to make people Volunteer?...
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/meet-the-compulsive-service-orwellian-give-act-to-be-voted-on-this-week/
Next up on the agenda this week is the GIVE Act, short for the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act”.
The ABC News headline ‘GIVE’ Act Would Give Back. Volunteer Programs Would Provide Jobs to Unemployed, Assist Those in Need says it all.
In his address to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called on lawmakers to expand federally funded national service opportunities.
“To encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Sen. Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country — Sen. Edward Kennedy,” the president said.
Democrats say they may be able to respond to that call by the end of this month.
The Senate is working on the Kennedy/Hatch Serve America Act of 2008, and the House is working on a similar bill, called the Generations Invigorating Volunteering and Education (GIVE) Act.
McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
nm
I think BB has a point here in that the main point on the board is political discussion, and let'
face it, there is SO MUCH going on right now, changes, problems, disasters, and so much debate on what should/could be done, but so many tims the political discussion disintegrates in a finger-pointing, name-calling exercise, spouting religion all over the place. Yeah, our spiritual beliefs are dearly held and we would all strive to be the best we can be, and do whatever we can whatever the ideology is, but sometimes I wonder, since we have a board EXPRESSLY for Faith isuues, where relgious debates/discussions/forums, etc are welcome, why does THIS board have to be turned into RELIGION BOARD PART II, especially if one ideology wants to dominate or ridicule/condemn those who come on here for lively inteligent discussion, debate of issues in Congress and in our lives, and just want their beliefs held separately? CNN is not EWTN or any other Christian network, and there are constant informative, bright, lively, balanced discussions from all over the political spectrum on the credentialed news stations, as well as C-Span, but they are not constantly hiding behind a cross, rosary, bible, star of David, or whatever....can we not strive to do the same and put religious debate on the Faith board?? Just a thought to ponder, MHO, it might work beter, who knows?
is the the starting point or the end point for the middle class?
x
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.
Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming my world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction. They are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say?
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.
Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming a world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not exactly have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction they employ in order to "secure" themselves.
The Palestinians are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say? This might just account for the lop-sided fatalities/injuries ratios between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In closing, it is worth noting that even with the advantage of all those terrorist toys and tools our tax dollars have bestowed upon them, security and peace of mind just seem to be further and further beyond their reach. Wonder why that is?
Laws vary state-to-state
Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.
CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL
In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.
Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.
It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.
In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.
If your point is that it was 7 years ago, that's not much of a point is it? sm
Not long ago at all in the scope of things. The point is that the same thing could and probably would happen here. 9-11 happened 7 years ago too....I guess that couldn't happen again, huh?
I get your point, but my main point is -
why should the government be allowed to tell people what they can and can't eat? Everyone says the government is too involved in our business anyway, so if they should stay out of one part of our lives, they should stay out of all parts of our lives!
this country
Please remember this country and its founding Christian principles were legislated by slave-owners, a practice that was condoned for another 100 years in this country, along with the near-annihilation of this country's indigenous peoples.
The past may not be as rosy as you might paint it to be.
Well, I don't think this country had anything to do with it....
and I don't think Musharraf himself had anything to do with it. That is not to say that radicals within the intelligence services of Pakistan did not have a hand in it. The way it was done, they probably did. With the goal in mind of stopping the elections and causing destabilization...and perhaps a chance to get their hands on nukes, that we all know Pakistan has. Nukes ready to use.
This is a very scary event, folks. Not just for Pakistan...for the world.
Just as an aside....if you really look at what is going on in this country....
Ron Paul is more of a threat than you think. Evangelical Christians want someone pro-life and they are not going to get it with Guiliani...and whether you believe it or not, there are a LOT of them out there. And a lot of young people are looking at Paul, and that is young people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. And in most all issues, Ron Paul is a strict conservative. And a lot of people out there are VERY sick of tax and spend...even a lot of Democrats...hence the Congress approval rating LESS than Bush's. There is a ground swell going on out there that could very well take over and tsunami the Dem candidate...and if the candidate is Hillary I would be willing to BET it will happen. Your worst nightmare realized. A true conservative in the White House and a Congress to help him turn things around. The purse strings are sure to really tighten (which is what I meant by gravy train about to end...by that I meant the endless tax and spend tax and spend).
Almost makes one giddy thinking about it.
I myself have a couple of real problems with Ron Paul...however...I could get behind him easier than I could Guiliani and so could a LOT of conservatives out there. So....I wouldn't be trashing Ron Paul and hawking that split the vote thing too loud...it could come back to bite you.
Have a good day!
|
