Not to mention, THE PEOPLE vote for these laws and
Posted By: Congress also. What about that? sm on 2008-09-04
In Reply to: You said you can't legislate morality.... - sam
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.
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
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.
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.
All the people you mention have slants
the fact most journalists do. Just because you don't like Drudge's slant....which I don't get your point because Drudge mostly just posts headlines. He does have a radio show, but on his website he posts mostly headlines...
to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
nm
The people spoke with their vote.
Changes should happen slowly to ensure we really want those changes to be put into place and to give time for any and all actions to be ordered.
It was voted on. It was a legitimate vote.
I think it sends a clear message that everyone is not ready for this type of change yet.
It's our (those who support Prop 8) country, too.
and you know lots of people DID NOT vote for him because he's black -
x
The majority of the people didn't vote him in because of his polcies
They voted him in because he's black. Plain and simple.
BTW - I sitting here with a nice hot cup of coffee trying to warm up these icy toes of mine. Been in reality a long time. You should come join us.
why do we vote for people to make things complicated?
People who make their bills 900 pages should be rejected on the spot. There should be a page max to make sure that the people representing us fully understands what they are getting US into. JERKS!!!! thanks for showing me that!
Totally wrong because the most educated people vote for Obama sm
That is a fact. The dumb, uneducated vote repub, the greedy rich vote repub and the religious right vote repub. The college educated people vote Obama. Why do you think McBush and Failin are out there calling Joe SixPack etc... that's their only hope. They know the filthy rich without conscience will vote for them. They know the religiouis nuts but some of the eehaas and dummies have been going to Obama and McBush and Failin are freaking out a little.
obama won...he wouldn't really because people won't really vote for black and lie to polls
x
I agree neither choice is great, but will vote McCain just as a vote against Obama. nm
x
A vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote. No chance on Earth he can win. sm
Votes for him only take away from the real candidates.
Good point. I don't vote party, I vote for the
person. Every Democrat is not bad and every Republican good or vice versa.
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.
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".
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.
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
.
By law he can detain illegals......unfoturtunately our laws
nm
Then you need to vote for Obama. A vote for McCain will...sm
not help you. Obama wants to give tax relief to 90% of Americans who earn 1% of the gross earnings in this country. The top 1% of earners bring in 90% of earnings. Any one person who earns $250,000 or less will benefit from Obama's tax plan.
they didn't vote - they registered to vote -
that is a big difference. The votes were not counted, they were stopped by the means in which they were supposed to be stopped - ID verification, address verification, etc. The cards were filled out by the ACORN workers and then given to the proper authorities to sort through.
The phony registrations were pulled out by the actual authorities. ACORN is just a middle man.
We get what we vote for. If we vote "party", we get extremes.
If we make it a point to try to identify candidates who hold moderate views and vote for them, rather than voting a "party ticket", we'll have a better chance of getting away from these extremes, whether right or left.
One of the problems, though, is that candidates often play games with their real positions. During the primaries, they talk the "party" line and then they move to the center for the general election. Both sides do this, unfortunately.
The only hope is to look at their past records - and take them seriously. History is prologue to the future. When a man has done certain things in his adult life, it tells us more about him than anything he says. If Obama hasn't taught us this fundamental truth, we'll never learn it. The evidence about him goes all the way back to his days in law school, and it was available for anyone to see. Some didn't bother to look. Others looked and didn't take it seriously. Either way, we weren't paying attention or he'd have probably never made it through the primaries.
No one can pull the wool over your eyes unless you let them, and the way they do it is by making smooth speeches filled with unlikely promises (and even glaring contradictions as they appeal to groups with opposite interests). They believe we won't notice the lies, exaggerations and mischaracterizations of their opponent's positions, etc. Unfortunately, they are often right.
Let's start taking the candidates' prior records and their life histories as the best evidence of who they really are - not their speeches. If we do this, we'll make better choices.
"If the laws in this country are not going to be enforced, what's the point of having them?
Would that include Proposition 8 that was recently upheld as lawful? ;-)
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?
well now that you mention it....sm
Once Foley gets out of rehab, he should go back to his old position over the Missing and
Exploited Children Caucus just to be fair.
And since Studd had a 17-year-old page boyfriend 23 years ago, how dare anyone mention what Foley was doing online. Hassart and the rest of you interested republicans should continue to minimize Foley's actions and play partisan politics (even though this is no political matter and I don't look at it as such). Just so you know, it doesn't look good on you. Daniel Crane (republican, also having an affair with a 17-year-old page back in 1983) didn't resign either - he was voted out. I don't know how or why Studd continued be voted in, but he should have stepped down.
Frank and Clinton were dealing with adults, so I look at their situations completely different. And talk about outrage and hypocrisy, look at the people who were probing Clinton with their own hands in the cookie jar (or should I say intern jar). Still much different than pedophilia.
Now that you mention it
You totally missed the part where I said they were all wrong. They were ALL wrong. Studd did have an underage page boyfriend, physical sex with an underage boy and BRAGGED about it. Foley had internet sex and at least had the good sense to be ashamed of it instead of holding a press conference to DEFEND his behavior, or like Frank, throw out his gay roommate who was running a sex trade out of his apartment (I swear I didn't know he was doing that...YEAH RIGHT). You also glossed over the fact that Clinton, while in office, after an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, lied his rear off on TV in front of ALL of us on national television...this is not disputed, the man committed perjury. And somehow you excuse that kind of behavior, but want Foley's head on a platter? Yeah, that makes real good sense. Inever defended Foley; I don't care what party he is in, what he did was WRONG. I don't care what party Bill Clinton was in, what he did was WRONG. Studd was WRONG. Barney Frank was WRONG. All equally WRONG. I doubt if all the boys Frank's roommate was running through his apartment as prostitutes were all adults. Monica Lewinsky was 21...barely legal. So that somehow makes it okay for Bill to cheat on his wife in the White House and then commit perjury. Yeah, that makes perfect sense (in YOUR world maybe). You proved my hipocrisy point by saying you look Frank and Clinton completely different. I said they were ALL wrong. You continue to say what Foley did was somehow worse. At least he kept his perversion on line and his hands off... not like Clinton and Studd. Get a grip. They are ALL wrong. Mark Foley did not do what he did because he was a Republican; Clinton, Studd, and Frank did not do what they did because they are Democrats. They are all morally corrupt. Period, end of sentence.
not to mention all the
lobbyists on McCain's staff.
Not to mention s/m
Not to mention the half mil or so those execs spent on a luxury vacation just hours after they got the bail-out money. This is INSANE. I think to a large degree things are playing out just as dubya and his side-kick Cheney had planned. Those two, in my humble opinion, are a couple of EVIL men.
I say no bail out for anyone. What's done is done. The idiots in Washington need to SHUT UP and in particular, the sensation-seeking talk shows need to also SHUT UP. They all need to start talking about bringing jobs back to AMERICA and if there was no demand for credit from consumers, there would be no credit crunch. Live without your means. If you bought a $100,000 house you couldn't afford and it's now worth $50,000, tough toenails! People who bought into the "home equity line of credit" BS deserve what they got. I don't believe I would care to subsidize their stupidity. Now it's about the seniors, TV ads for reverse mortgages for them. Seniors who buy into that garbage, I'd like to sell them the Garden of Eden!!!!!
I don't know the answer to immediately get rid of all these bums in the government. I wish we could have a general election and fire every single one of them....DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN!!!!
With that I'm off to cook the trout we caught this morning.
What about it? Do you see any mention of O or B
x
There has been a lot of mention
of God being involved in this election. I do think that God will be involved in this election. However, our country has pushed Him out of our lives so much that it wouldn't surprise me if He let us fall flat on our faces. I hate to say that, but you can't pray in schools. People don't want to say the pledge to the flag because of His name being mentioned. The 10 commandments are being removed from court houses. Seriously....what have we become? I understand the concept of keeping church and state separate but it seems more to me like we are removing Him totally and that upsets me. The mere mention of him by a candidate, particularly a repubican one, gets people in an uproar about religious fanatics and Bible thumpers, etc. It is just sad.
I hope that we pick the candidate who will get us out of this crisis, but maybe that just isn't in His plans. Whatever may happen, I just pray that God gives us the strength to take on any challenge that may face us....because let's face it people....we are going to have major challenges if either candidate is president.
Not to mention, it's
x
|
