If she had the proper and legal authority to fire him --
Posted By: Amanda on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: So your in favor of a creep who tazered a child to be allowed - to roam the streets with a gun?
then why didn't she just do it instead of them telling the other guy to do it - then there would not be a problem.
Also, this inquiry was started before she was running for the VP slot - so it was not something they cooked up to get her after she got picked by McCain.
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
fighting fire with fire doesn't work
We have been hitting each other over the head with clubs since Early Man. The American military has killed innocents, too. I do not think Americans are more deserving of anything than anyone else who inhabits this planet. We are all human beings with families and feelings and lives. Perhaps its time to drop the weapons and communicate for a change.
Let's put it in proper context....
she said if Georgia became a member of NATO, then according to the NATO agreement all NATO signatories (US is one of them) have to come to the aid if any of the NATO countries are invaded. She gave the correct answer.
You do know that Obama intends to see the war in Afghanistan continue and wants to send troops from Iraq there, right? The anti-war candidate?
fight fire with fire
We need to **take it there** more often and louder. We have been too quiet, too politically correct and where has it gotten us? The republicans have been smearing democrats and each election has had nothing but dirty tricks from the republicans. This past election, Kerry tried to be on the up and up, not personally attacking..What did the republicans do? Secretly paid for a group to smear Kerry and his Vietnam War record. When Bush was asked, he said he had nothing to do with the group. Baloney! It was backed by the republican party. That is the way Rove and Bush are, they smear their opponents. Time to fight fire with fire. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
touchas -- looked up proper spelling nm
xx
On what authority? sm
What would give Obama the authority to disband Israel? He's not king of the world yet.
And, FWIW, Israel is the rightful owner of that land. God granted it to the Hebrew people thousands of years ago. Palestine has been trying to take it back from them ever since.
Does he have that authority?
He should certainly give them grief about it, but can he actually stop the raise? I thought congress had to do that. I honestly don't know...
So what gives you the authority.......... sm
to declare that the Bible is not a reputable source of historical facts?
Why are scientists suddenly amazed that their findings are completely in line with the Bible?
Homosexuality is, always has been and always will be a sin. It wasn't Christians who "decided" that it was a sin. They were given this knowledge by reading and studying and understanding God's word. But let's put Christians aside for a while. Even without the Christian population, there are a lot of people who believe homosexuality to be sinful.
And you have this information on WHOSE authority?
international politics and Obama are not founded in reality and merit very little comment. Why don't you stick to your wait and see mode from yesterday. Bush is in office, it IS his problem, the Russian action is aimed at Poland, Bush will likely pass on his responsibility because the only thing he knows is "whup up" and "bring it on." The only problem with that is that he has nothing left to work with after all these years in Iraq, new fronts popping up all over the place. BTW, pehaps he has his own party-bound agenda in his nonresponse which may be underpinning the recent outbreak of air space violations and bombing campaigns in three separate sovereign countries in just as many weeks...Syria, Pakistan and Iran. The old saber-rattlesnake is not going quietly into the night and does not give a second thought to what kind of destruction he leaves in his path.
Well now....who do you think gave them that authority?
That would be your democratically controlled congress. Before the bill, the secretary of the treasury couldn't do squat. So if Bush IS making all these decisions, it is because YOUR dem congress allowed him to. So why not go hold THEIR feet to the fire??
This is not a surprise either: Chertoff says US needs more authority. sm
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2308590
And just who made YOU the authority on who is Christian
about that. Don't pretend to judge people as Jesus would. I don't think He would approve of you speaking for Him
but is does not give them the authority to usurp any government leader
We could argue all day on this. This is still in dispute on the highest levels, but the fact remains by congress and by the president that the U.N. does not have the authority to keep us from taking military action against a hostile leader, country, or terrorist group.
fire with fire
Tired of dirty fighting? It is the republican party who was the dirty fighters, not the democrats. and they continue to be dirty fighters and will win again and again if we dont stand up to them. Fight fire with fire. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. In the political spectrum that is America, you dont get anywhere for being the up and up person, the good guy, you win with dirty tricks. If you dont realize that, you need to step back when it comes to politics..I bemoan the situation, for sure, but I will fight fire with fire and the democrats will win once again..and, clue to you, check on Bushs right hand man, Rove, look at his extremely dirty politics and then ask yourself can we ever win against something like that by being nice? I dont think so and the country depends on the liberals getting the country back on track. I will do everything it takes, of course, everything that is legal. I dont break the law like Rove and libby are now being shown that they did.
Please fire them all. sm
People are losing their jobs, homes, and on the streets - and a mouse gets 35 million.
Cease fire.
No canned text for me. The tone of our posts are set by these my-way-of-the-highway / scorched earth approaches to opposite views. I have very exhilarating exchanges when the 2 parties are respectful, informed, flexible, open-minded, focused and on task, more interested in finding common ground than sowing the seeds of division, looking for solutions as opposed to validation and understanding that no political problems will ever be solved without bipartisan participation, mediation and compromise.
Plagiarizing and paraphrasing an opponent’s text and ideas and trying to throw them back at them does not an effective argument make. Furthermore, it is childish…like those playground disputes between children…“you did, no you did, no you did”…etc. It is not your ideas that I find so distasteful, it is your presentation. Not to be cliché, but you attract more bees with sugar than vinegar. I am not intolerant of Hannity…watch him frequently. Cannot have an effective debate without becoming familiar with the “cons” side of the argument.
On the bigot thing. Remember me? I’m the one who is hawking inclusion, supportive of minority interests, and has the audacity to suggest that Americans are not the only ones who just might deserve some equality, dignity, respect and basic human rights…even if they are illegal. I suppose it is a positive sign that you at least take offense. There’s hope for you yet.
On racial purity. You are really big on maintaining American cultural integrity and identity. But when it comes to extending the same consideration to our immigrants you go ballistic…clear off the map, at times. They can walk and chew gum at the same time…it is possible to preserve ones’ native culture AND be a good American. These are not two mutually exclusive concepts. If our democratic principles are all they are cracked up to be, it would not be so painful to see them behaving like Americans.
Going to go out on a limb here and to use and example. Mexican-Americans gathered together (right to assemble) waving their flag in protest (freedom of speech) of harsh immigration laws or working conditions in the maquilidoras are trying to bring these issues to the doorstep of the government who created those conditions (right to redress grievances). What could be more American than that? You cannot look at that crowd and distinguish between which among them are legal and which are not…after all, those are issues of ALL Mexican natives. Should we deny all of them these rights, implying that such rights are reserved for the REAL Americans? Being American is not simply a matter of a piece of paper, some arbitrary degree of language proficiency, some certain level of income or education. They should not be required to melt into the pot and disappear, renounce their birthrights and turn their backs on their own people just to qualify. Can’t have it both ways. If you want them to be Americans, then you have to LET them be Americans.
Ask yourself this question. If you saw 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants doing the same thing in NYC, would your reaction be the same? The bottom line is this: Our new wave of immigrants does not look like the ones from the past. You seemed to enjoy the DAR bridge party swapping stories of how they all came from different countries and cross bred with one another …even had a occasional Indian in the wood pile…and produced this great nation of mutts. But the breed was selectively white. If it was okay then, it should be okay now. The problem you are grappling with is that the results would produce all these mongrel shades of God-knows what. If this make you uncomfortable in the least little bit…if you are now feeling driven to slap me up side the head…that’s the voice of bigotry.
On elitism. Your posts are full of strict, literal reads and “tudes” as you call them. Sue me if I took a page from your book. At least you sort of tried to address the “academics,” still not calling it by name. If you could stop slaying the messenger long enough to hear the message, you would understand that there is nothing condescending about wanting to engage in informed debate that orients itself around reaching mutual respect and understanding. It has absolutely nothing to do with being angry or feeling superior. Think what you like, but I am neither of those. I simply enjoy using my language and have an affinity for broad vocabulary. It’s just who I am. Blame it on the docs. They certainly sent me to the dictionary too many times to count and I lingered there for a while, that’s all there is to it. This personal trait should not in any way exempt me from debate, nor should I be subjected to ridicule, name calling or unfounded accusations because of it.
There is something you and I have in common. We are 2 American gals coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, locked into the extreme divisions that plague our fellow citizens from shore to shore. If we cannot find our way past this kind of bickering in which we both find ourselves ensconced, we all are in big trouble.
Believe it or not, Sam, I actually enjoy our posts. Okay, go ahead if you like. Send me to the therapist again. Call me masochist, bipolar, schizo, whatever. I just think we could do better than this.
Speaking of therapy, I have a life-long friend, an endearing street thug / bad boy from younger days, who grew up and became a therapist. He works with drug addicts, adult children of alcoholics (being one himself) and dysfunctional families. He said something to me that made a lot of sense. One of the first challenging pieces of advice he throws out to a new patient is to “try to keep things in the third person,” in an effort to “dial back” nonproductive confrontations with family members. I thought he was crazy at first, but I started trying this with my husband and to my surprise, it really did seem to help us to better understand one another, even after 18 years. That is what I will be trying to do next time you and I visit the water cooler. If you want to chill on the immigrant dialog for a while, that works for me.
Thanks for the good luck wishes on the job search. Hope I can find a decent company that is not just another maquilidora masquerading as an MTSO!
Where there is smoke there is fire!!
xx
Well sh1t fire...ain't that the truth!
In America, anyone can be President. That's one of the risks we take.
Fire-and-brimstone campaign
You can go to your fire-and brimstone rallies, wallow in your misery, and try to think of more ways to smear the finest candidate this Country has seen in decades.
I will go to the joyful rallies, full of hope for the future of this great Country.
No smoke, no fire, only mirrors. LOL!
.
Who's God? Your God? My God? Earth, Wind and Fire?
x
Okay. Where is the petition to fire that CNN reporter
nm
They will think whatever they need to think to stoke the fire that feeds their hatred. nm
Boy, your cease fire didn't last long....LOL
Just in case you are interested, and I doubt you are, I wrote this BEFORE you wrote your cease fire, not AFTER. Which makes your cease fire ring all the more hollow, especially in the face of this..."Okay you want to keep the gloves off..." LOL. And if this dialing it back a notch...yes, frankly, I would suggest you go back and talk to that family friend because you haven't got the third person thing down yet. Every post flies in the face of what you try to say. You ARE angry. You DO need to feel superior. You want what you want, I want what I want. I make specific examples of specific Americans I have personal knowledge of who immigrated from Mexico and that is their experience, and the experience of many others. But you could care less. If it doesn't illustrate your point, you don't care about it. You don't care that it costs your fellow citizens millions every year to support illegal immigrants...money that could be going to the needs of citizens of this country. And where do you get that illegals don't stay anyway? Got any of those 4-letter words to support that?
Yes, my feelings extend to ANY nationality illegal immigrant. Why on earth do you think I hate Mexicans? I don't hate ANYONE. I just want them to come here legally like other immigrants have, get a green card, go through the process, become citizens if that is what they choose to do, or go back home when their visas expire. Draw and quarter me for that if you like. I couldn't, at this point, care LESS.
Again you completely missed the fact that I grew up and went to school with Mexican immigrant children and knew their families and keep in touch today. I have no problem with Mexicans. It is a fact that the biggest problem we have with immigration is from Mexico...welll duhhh...we share a border with them. Much easier for them to immigrate illegally, much easier because of the porous border for folks to get in that we don't really want to get in. But of course, you would
As to it takes a long time to become a citizen, yada yada yada...well, good things come to those who wait. It has always taken a long time to become a citizen. Since there are millions here who are citizens, obviously they thought it was worth the wait. Excuses, excuses, excuses. It is the LAW. Do you pick and choose what laws you want upholded and those you don't?
You say NONE of them want to change who we are or what we are. Did I miss the part where you were named national spokesperson for illegal immigrants? You don't even realize you said the same thing I said. Yes, they come here for a better life. That's fine. If I immigrated to Canada for a better life, I would not carry the American flag down their streets in protest, out of respect if nothing else, but I suppose that is something that does not matter to you either...it certainly is not present in your rants. If I immigrated to Canada to a part where they spoke predominantly French, I would learn French. I would be embracing of their culture. Because I chose to make that my country and my home. I would not have to be asked to do so. But obviously I am the exception and not the rule.
Again with the languages. I don't care how many languages are spoken here. My sole point is that for preservation and protection of the United States of America we should be united...and you don't see that either. I belive what I believe, you believe what you believe. And never the twain shall meet, it would appear. Does not make me wrong, does not make you wrong. I will hold my hopes for the America I long for and you hold the hopes for the America you long for. The years to come will tell the tale. And if all this comes back to bite you years down the road...and we are too old to care...that little voice in the back of your head that said "I told you so..." That will be me.
The Civil War...geez. It was all ABOUT preserving unity. If it had not been fought to preserve the union we would be two countries today fighting back and forth across the border like Iran and Iraq for example. Slavery was only part of the issue of the civil war. But a brilliant man (and Republican I might add) Abraham Lincoln saw the folly in splitting the union, and another fine man, Robert E. Lee, saw the same folly...but chose to be a Virginian before an American, though it broke his heart to do so (to use his own words), and we see where that led. After the civil war and the slaves were freed, we came back together as a country, stronger than before, and never since have Americans chosen to be anything but Americans first. So far. That is what I would like to preserve. That is all I am talking about. Unity. Read up on the civil war. Read up on Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee. Both great men with great vision. The Civil War was about unity.
As to now who's arrogant? I am about the most UN-arrogant person you would ever meet. I wouldn't know how to be verbally condescending and you have it down to a fine art. For someone who is not angry and not needing to feel superior, your posts say the opposite.
All this aside, keep safe during the bad weather coming up. I know hurricanes don't go inland very far too often, praying that it won't get to you. Hoping tornados spawned won't get to either. Keep your head down and live to verbally slice and dice me another day. :)
Ever heard of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire? (nm)
x
Not bickering. Holding feet to fire. Like GP...
and I agreed to. Have a good night!
The fire safety argument is a lot of hooey.
Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single party for 30 people?
As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals. Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood. But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.
LEGAL
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DEMMIE!
And yet it is still legal....
@@
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire...sm
My take: If you make a person who does not hold the Bible sacred swear to uphold his office on it, then does that swearing in really mean anything. They don't follow the teachings of the Bible, so why would it be relevant for them to swear on the Bible? (article below)
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire
Decision to Take Oath on Koran Sparks Controversy
..
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON (Dec. 1) -- The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator. In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.
He should not be allowed to do so, Prager wrote, not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture.
He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible -- which America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions.
Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about.
Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of very bigoted and racist e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' Colling said
Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.
They can bring in whatever they want, says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.
Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997.
Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment.
12-01-06 11:28 EST
Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved.
MTPockets posted about SP loving to fire people.
MTPockets could've just kept her post to the issue, but she had to throw in the barb about firing, so the next poster has every right to address it. Or is what she is referencing over your head?
I couldn't get in...crowd already exceeded the fire code.
So, after parking two blocks away and trudging to the party, the fire officials kept us out because the fire code only allows 300, of which there were more than that inside. Then the cops told us we couldn't congregate outside either due to traffic and not having a separate (outdoor) permit.
Not exactly what I'd hoped for since it was a wasted trip for me, but still wonderful.
abortion will always be, whether legal or not
What these anti pro choice people dont seem to realize is, termination of pregnancy will continue whether it is legal or not. The only difference is it will go underground, performed by people who are not licensed and the rich women, they will just make an appointment in a progressive not backward country like America and have their abortion. Essentially women will be baby makers for the government, their bodies controlled by the government. What it comes down to is..the neocons need to mind their own business.
Legal or not, there will always be abortions.
Abortions will always be performed whether they are legal or not. When I was in college, abortion was illegal. Several students became pregnant and had illegal abortions by back-alley butchers, and they almost died from hemorrhage and infection. Others tried to abort their pregnancies with wire hangers, knitting needles, and other drastic measures. I would much rather have legal abortions performed by licensed physicians than force young women to resort to barbaric procedures to terminate their pregnancies.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
Its not a legal issue
its a mental issue. Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.
it's not stealing - it's legal!
They are not married so they qualify for the earned income credit on their taxes even though they pay nothing in. It is based on how many children you have and your income.
It's been there forever! My sister gets upwards of $6000 a year every year and has for as long as I can remember; of course, when the children hit 17 or 18, that is gone, but for now it is like an extra $500 or $600 a month in income if you spread it out.
That's why I cannot figure out why these people are so upset about Obama giving money to poor people - heck, it's been going on for as long as I can remember... it's nothing new that Obama just came up with and decided to do.
Slavery used to be legal. Does that mean it's a RIGHT?
x
Yes, the children are legal but the
parents are not.
I don't know if the law changed, but the mother is also in Mexico. Don't know if she went voluntarily or if she was deported, too. If she went voluntarily, then I feel she really didn't put her children first.
Like I said in my earlier post, I think the children should have gone with them even though they are American citizens. Why let the eldest take care of the younger ones, I think ages 15 and 11.
U.S., France join in cease-fire call in Lebanon war..sm
So we are back bumping elbows with France. If only we would have taken their advice on Iraq too.
Dems leak Palin's SSN, Fred on Fire, Newt
A few tidbits from Rush today. Compare Nancy Pelosi to Newt--not even a contest!
Mr. Newt Rips NBC Reporter
Gingrich fights back
Fred Thompson's speech at RNC video)
dont worry, you wont catch on fire when you read them!
i have to go know and pick up my daughter. I might do some bible thumping on the way to the school, who knows.
I'm not sure of all the formal legal implications, but (sm)
I don't think the lawsuit has anything to do with The Pledge itself except for the words, under God. I'm pretty sure this is the motivating factor of the suit.
Now here again, I believe in God, but I also respect the fact that there are other Americans who do not. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we fought so hard for indepence? The freedom to choose our religion or not to choose any religion?
Separation of church and state. It boggles my mind that this basic, simple premise somehow is so complicated.
The Pledge did not even contain the words, under God until some time in the 1950s. The Pledge was ammended to include them. The founding fathers did not write those words.
Believing in God should not be a qualification for being an American. Including the words, under God, if one does not believe in God, prohibits them from reciting The Pledge. They don't want to have to leave the room or be silent. They want to pledge their allegiance to their country, but for those words.
It has nothing to do with Americans excluding God. It's just the right of all Americans to practice their religion of choice or no religion.
Proclaiming one's belief in God can be exhibited in so many more meaningful ways than insisting that 2 words be included in The Pledge.
I agree. Women will have them - legal or not
Although I don't think I would ever consider abortion personally and am also sickened by people who have them over and over again (get your tubes tied darn it!!!), I believe women will have them regardless of if they are legal or not, so I think it is much safer if they remain legal.
I also think the woman should have the choice of what to do with something that is actually inside of her body. She is the one ultimately 100% responsible for the medical bills due to the pregnancy, the emotional toll and physical risks of the pregnancy, and the child's well being afterwards. The man can get off scott free if he wants and skip from job to job to avoid paying child support, so it should definitely be up to the woman.
I also find it odd that many pro-life Republicans are so adamant that each baby have a chance to be born, but yet if that baby is born to a lower-class mother many (not all) don't want a dime of their money to go to help that baby with healthcare costs or any other costs that could help the child after it's actually born. Where is the deep concern for the children that are actually living?
Though the thought of abortion is definitely disturbing to me, I do not believe at less than 3 months old a baby's nerves are developed enough to feel pain as they are aborted, but I know for a fact many children in the USA are being abused and neglected on a daily basis because they were unwanted, and my heart breaks for them. There are over 100,000 foster kids in the USA right now that need good homes and more resources, and I think our focus should be on helping these children first. My sister has 2 amazing foster kids, and I really wish the anti-abortion activists would focus on fostering or helping the kids that are here now instead of focusing so much on fetuses that are inside of other women's bodies, and therefore really none of their business in my personal opinion. (I know some do foster and volunteer, but I have a sneaking suspicion that not all of them do!)
Well...I don't think legal abortion exists...
in any Muslim country.
Isn't it pretty much legal in Vegas?
xx
Or she might be almost 18, which would make her a legal adult.
THis was not about deciding whether abortion was legal...
it was deciding to allow an infant who survived an abortion, was breathing and heart beating OUTSIDE the mother, to be left to DIE. ANYONE who would countenance THAT is, to me, subhuman and has no heart. He claims tocare about the poor and downtrodden and wants to deny care to a baby who survived an abortion? What a liar. Barack Obama cares about getting Barack Obama elected and that is ALL he cares about.
I don't understand your question, sorry....if I don't want him controlling my health care why would I want him deciding if an abortion should be legal? I don't want him controlling my health care, and the Supreme Court already decided (unconstitutionally I might add) that abortion is legal. THIS was about INFANTICIDE. Killing a living breathing infant outside and separate from the mother by denying it medical care. Abortion is horrific enough, but that is out and out negligent homicide, and he voted FOR it. That tells me all I need to know about Barack Obama and how he cares about people.
I read your "document". Very legal-looking and all,
How exactly do you know that's legitimate? Did you see the official hard-copy? Likely not. I could have typed something like that myself, and so could you, or any other person who owns a PC. Even a photo of a 'hard copy' posted on the internet can't be automatically assumed to be valid. You do know, don't you, that most of what you read and hear on the internet is suspect in its validity, and nearly impossible to prove? The internet has more urban myths, fantasies and lies floating around on it than Carter's has little pills. So you have to be very careful about making decisions and judgements based on what you find here, and even more careful about what you say.
Anyway, it's a nice-looking document, but again, I could produce something exactly like that with ANYone's name on it, and post it on an internet in a matter of minutes.
Real 'truth' is something that's actually very, very difficult to find under the best of circumstances, and your chances of finding any during an election year?
Pretty much zip.
If Obama is not legal, he is not doing our country
nm
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
The concentration camps were legal, too.
Your argument doesn't hold any water. Just because someone's allowed to murder one type of human being and not another does not make either right or just.
And, FYI, killing an adult with cancer is NOT illegal, so you need to check your facts.
|
