Yes, that was wrong to strip search a 13 year old, make her pull her undergarments away from her body. But, who cares. We hadn't clearly told you not to, so we won't punish you for doing it.
“Our new fiscal year 2010 Budget proposes doubling funding for adult, juvenile and family drug court, tripling ….”
Also see:
where he explains that neither he nor Obama understand legalization as a word.
If you would be so kind, please email the White house and explain to them the meaning of term, as well, mention the fact that they are abusing the Constitution, treading on the rights of the people, and contributing greatly to the closing in on the event horizon pointing directly to a bloody revolution, chock full of angry Americans who are tired of this invasion.
Also, if you would, I would appreciate it if you would consider voting on:
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/8560-4049 … A call for civil disobedience
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/8327-4049 ... An affirmation of your 9th amendment right to liberty
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/8316-4049 ... A JFK Quote on Revolution and why it must be violent
and all others that support true liberty, that defend our right to private conduct, to personal arms, and to personal and private property, defense of, and to a true meaning the Constitution.
How the 9th Amendment Prohibits the War on Drugs, Understanding your Liberty.
The source of the 9th amendment is not in controversy. James Madison attempted to answer the argument that a bill of rights would leave future populations vulnerable to government laying claim to any powers not expressly protected in the bill of rights.
The familiar argument: “Where is it listed in the constitution that you have the right to …._______?” and variations on the theme are common in discourse. For example, where is it written that you have a right to privacy, a right to marriage, a right to procreation, a right to freedom of movement, a right to property? Those rights are not enumerated.
Hence we arrive at a distortion that the constitution grants rights, and every once in a while, the Supreme Court tosses you a freebie, like the right to marry and procreate, to travel, to privacy.
The difference between the understanding at the time the constitution was designed and today’s faulty application of the constitution by your power-obsessed government, was that fundamental rights then, were a given. It was inconceivable that government would have any interest in interfering with personal rights. The same is not true today.
There is no matter so personal, so small, or so unimportant to national concerns that our government feels appropriately inhibited to regulate it. Without the 9th amendment, we are free game, experimental social objects for government manipulations, and no matter what our accomplishments may be, or our age, there is no age of majority that government is bound to respect. They take it upon themselves to parent you until you die.
There are legal presumptions the court has made up that govern how they look at controversies at law. One of the most distorted and wicked, when combined with a willful abandonment of the 9th amendment is the presumption of constitutionality.
The Supreme Courts operate on the assumption that if Congress passes a law, it is automagically constitutional until you are arrested, and from that disadvantaged position, prove otherwise.
The true nature of the constitution was to preserve liberty. Liberty of the people.
The courts have read into the constitution a nature that demands they protect government.
If the courts were true to the heart of our supreme law, there would be a presumption of liberty, and government would have to justify a challenged law as necessary to the function of enumerated powers.
There is no government power listed that they should or can operate as parental units, approving or disapproving private conduct. Prohibition is an infringement of fundamental liberty.
That is what the 9th amendment protects—the liberty of the individual to operate free from government constraint. That is why they ignore it. They have, for over two centuries, interpreted the law in reverse—to protect government from inhibition rather than people from oppression. They have interpreted the constitution in such a manner as to deny a fundament right of liberty in and of itself.
Then they add to the abuse by denying you the right to challenge your vulnerability to arrest on improper grounds until you are arrested and weakened. They claim they have no time for such things. If congress wrote a law today that said you must wear beanies on Tuesdays, and go bare-headed on Wednesdays, precedent demands that unless you can prove damages, and then only after arrest for failing to wear the legislated head gear, are you given a chance to challenge the abuse of power.
They can only do this because they are under no requirement to respect a fundamental right of liberty so long as they are permitted to ignore the 9th amendment.
The prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, and infringes on each citizen in their private conduct in their homes, the one territory the founders did everything they could to preserve as your domain.
The single, most vigorous barrier to enjoying the liberty inherent in the 9th amendment does not lie in the courts, it lies in the willingness of the population to be abused. It is time, if not for full revolution, for massive civil disobedience, to overwhelm government’s resources to continue the pattern of abuse.
It is past time. We can’t wait for some politician to see the light of day and be willing to risk votes for what’s right. We must win one all on our own, through our own refusal to recognize their abuse of authority as valid. We win one, we’ll turn the tide. There's no telling how free we can be.
Sobi
Free on SSRN: The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment Volume 2 Edited by Randy E. Barnett George Mason University Press (1993)
Every name on a list, every minute under a watchful eye, every email that is recorded, every phone call that is recorded, every dollar that is spent, every plea that is made, every effort that is taxed, none will be adequate to the task of holding down the American spirit when it is deprived of liberty for one minute too long.
Anonymity is a foundation for political speech. But the UK has done away with it.
Do not let this happen in the USA. Our government watches other governments to see what they can get away with, then follows suit. All over the globe, this happens, and people are ground down to dollars and dust.
If we are to have valid government, we must fight back more effectively than ever.
Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.
Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.
Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.
Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.
Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.
Except for its expansion of Congressional power in Section 1, this proposed amendment is entirely consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. It merely clarifies the boundary between federal and state powers, and reaffirms the power of courts to police this boundary and protect individual liberty.
Section 1 of the Federalism Amendment expands the power of Congress to include any interstate activity not contained in the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Interstate pollution, for example, is not "commerce . . . among the several states," but is exactly the type of interstate problem that the Framers sought to specify in their list of delegated powers. This section also makes explicit that any restriction of an enumerated or unenumerated liberty of the people must be justified.
Section 2 then allows state policy experimentation by prohibiting Congress from regulating any activity that takes place wholly within a state. States, of course, retain their police power to regulate or prohibit such activity subject to the constraints imposed on them, for example, by Article I or the 14th Amendment. And a state is free to enter into compacts with other states to coordinate regulation and enforcement, subject to approval by Congress as required by Article I.
Section 3 adopts James Madison's reading of the taxing and borrowing powers of Article I to limit federal spending to that which is incident to an enumerated power. It explicitly allows Congress to honor its outstanding financial commitments to living persons, such its promise to make Social Security payments. Section 4 eliminates the federal income tax, after five years, in favor of a national sales or excise tax.
Finally, Section 5 authorizes judges to keep Congress within its limits by examining laws restricting the rightful exercise of liberty to ensure that they are a necessary and proper means to implement an enumerated power. This section also requires that the Constitution be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time of its enactment. But by expanding the powers of Congress to include regulating all interstate activity, the Amendment greatly relieves the political pressure on courts to adopt a strained reading of Congress's enumerated powers.
Could such a Federalism Amendment actually be adopted? Stranger things have happened -- including the adoption of each of the existing amendments. States have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people. And this Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton, 2005).
________________________________________________ For Immediate Release June 11, 2009
PRESS GAGGLE BY DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY BILL BURTON
Aboard Air Force One En route Green Bay, Wisconsin
11:10 A.M. CDT
MR. BURTON: When we land the President will be greeted on arrival by Governor Doyle, Congressman Kagan, and Mayors Schmitt and Barrettt of Green Bay and Milwaukee. At the high school he'll be greeted by the school superintendent, Gregg Mass, and Principal Brian Davis and his wife, Dawn, and their four daughters. He'll have a couple of small meetings, one before and one after, with grassroots activists and local political leaders.
A couple facts about Wisconsin and Green Bay: In Green Bay unemployment is at 8.4 percent; Wisconsin as a whole, 8.6 percent; Green Bay has lost 5,400 jobs since December of '07. Wisconsin is a state, 137,500; and the rate of uninsured in Wisconsin is 8.5 percent.
Q I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
MR. BURTON: It's 8.5 percent. I thought you had that in your story today. I guess not.
Q The activists that he's meeting with afterwards, how long will that be and who are they?
-------------------Below
MR. BURTON: It'll be pretty fast. It will be about 10 to 15 minutes and that's beforehand. They're just local grassroots activists -- he does it at most of these stops, just a normal meeting.
The meeting afterwards are leaders -- I don't have the full list with me, but it includes the Lieutenant Governor, Barbara Lawton and some others.
Q I'm sorry, activists on health care that he's meeting with before?
MR. BURTON: No, no, no, just local grassroots activists, people who are involved in the community in different ways.
-----------------Above
This is a demonstration of the actual thought processes in the Administrative Ranks.
Until they are actually committed to Open Government, there won't be one no matter what Obama says.
Continue to press for Open Government and point out these weaknesses in the support for it.
Memo dated today, from Robynn Sturm, invites the public:
Non-profits Companies Journalists Teachers Mothers Interested Citizens -----***IN THAT ORDER***-----
...to weigh in again. Doesn't say where, limits it to 3 ideas, apparently on how our government can explain to us how it controls our lives, for what purposes, how much it costs, etc., so on and so forth--the whole transparency sham.
Obama,
You need to smack down your minions and make them behave.
Robynn, I want to weigh in on what I want to weigh in on.
And by-the-way, I'm not properly placed last on the list.
I don't answer them either. I fill in with overt lies.
I end up waiting for moderator approval on a regular basis. I'm in there now because I posted on Obama wanting Amnesty and my rather strong objection to the idea. :)
1. Yes, proceed. 2. Stop, you moron 3. Hell fire and damnation 4. Poster's an idiot. 5. Read this. 6. Waste of time 7. Business as Usual 8. Duplicate Idea -- Good, Lather, rinse, and repeat. 9. Duplicate Idea -- Can't stand in-your-face politics. 10. Obama doesn't have the courage to deal with a Free People.
Preach it? I will, thanks. What a marvelous invitation.
Here's the thing. Obama had blacks so ramped up with victory, and so full of hope for their own voices, that they repressed any outrage that the first thing he did was put the screws to them specifically.
He walked into office on their wave of support, and immediately taxed them for SCHIP.
When Obama taxed your smokes, you felt the blow, you felt the resentment, you knew the injustice inherent in it, and you failed to cry out in protest.
He stiffed you because he knew you would take it silently. He played you.
Oh sweetie, you are deluded. No one every thought you were a moderator, boob. You can flag anything you want. No one cares.
I was speaking of the mindless arrogance that automatically attaches to an individual who takes it upon themselves to walk into a room, and self-appoint.
You have walking into a room where people have been busy for a month and taken it upon yourself to decide that they need supervision and you will supervise.
The fight for constitutional rights is not properly subject to an auto-filter on a site posing as open government. There is no excuse for this level of censorship, and there is no recovery of integrity afterwards.
Perhaps a little less time trolling you tube for confirmation of what you think, and more time with your nose in a book taking in new information would help.
I can't read your mind. I haven't got a clue where you're coming from on that last post other than you continue to suffer a need to somehow condemn me because I disagree with you.
I'll still disagree. Why do you do it? It doesn't make you look smarter or better in any way.
I watched enough to recognize exaggeration, black and white thinking, otherwise known as absolutes, and I arrived at the point where it said our side is 0% and their side is 100% and I knew it was not a reasoned political argument, it was propaganda.
It isn't hard to recognize. It wasn't even good propaganda. I've seen it done very well. This one is aimed at the unquestioning mind.
It is hardly arriving at the point where one could call it a definition of anything but the lowest common denominator.
There is no rationale that says I have to respect someone's desire to interfere in my personal life. I do not respect, I do not intend to even remotely entertain the concept that someone has any business marching their opinion into my living room and expressing their opinion on what I do there.
That concept is pandering and I will not be guilty of such a thing.
The truth is that there is a whole bunch of people making a living at this running other people's lives thing, and they are not just a huge and incredibly stupid drain on tax dollars, they are bringing down the nation by teaching contempt for the law.
As soon as one learns to hold one law in contempt, it is a short walk to complete anarchy.
Short. I'm there, I'm waiting for enough to catch up, many are already with me, already armed, and it will come.
There is no way it won't.
So play like agreeing is a reasonable thing to do. It isn't. It is self-destructive. You will be armed and ready, or not.
I think the fearmongering has been a daily event for over a century. It is far more powerful than the crap Cheney and Bush pulled.
When you are reared to revere science, and trust in science, and the daily reports from those who claim authority and scientific knowledge is so full of alarmist--we'll take care of this for you--crap, you do not realize how vulnerable you are.
If I were to do my mating and reproductive years over, from the first time I threw up, I would be home with my children until they were of age and begging me to get off their back. I would home school, and since I would be there anyway, I may as well have a bunch of them.
Needless to say, I would have to marry very carefully first.
It is my firm personal belief that once a child is born, it is vitally important that mother and child stay together.
Mothers that are compelled to leave their infant in an institutional day care, so they can work, because as soon as women entered the work force in numbers, capitalistic greed lowered wages to make it necessary, oh drat. I ran on.
Anyway, I do not believe that dumping children in daycare is a good idea. It wrong for the baby, it is wrong for the mother. I believe it affects biological bonding, long-term parenting, all sorts of things.
Before society can even consider limiting the right to abortion, it must take care of the mother-infant bond.
You want the right to do what? To impregnate and walk?
There are any number of men who take pride in doing exactly that, and have for centuries. The problem only surfaces now because now DNA testing takes away the plausibility of denial.
One the infant is born, if the female gives it up for adoption, then you get a walk. If she doesn't, then you don't. If she carries it to term, and decides to keep it, she's taken on her responsibility. What you want is a walk then.
Convince the courts that a squalling little bundle of flesh that you had a hand in producing should not be your responsibility.
Right now the law is deaf to your claim of inequality because men have been walking for centuries, and society is tired of paying for it. So for a few dozen years, women have finally caught up in terms of legal power to claim the right to terminate or the right to child support, and you are stunned that an immediate correction is not taken to pave men's way to walk again?
The other other thing that doesn't come into play once a woman is pregnant is a man's capacity to engage as an equal partner. He forfeited when he left all responsibility for birth control in her hands.
Since he lacks a womb, he is not consulted during gestation.
The whole argument of entrapment is dead. Entrapment can be avoided. It is more difficult if you don't take responsibility for your own biological product, but none-the-less, it can be avoided. The level of difficulty is all yours to own and enjoy.
Since the vast majority of men fail to cover the cost of their offspring, I think it is safe to say that your implied argument that women benefit by trapping poor helpless men through pregnancy is weak if not imaginary.
How many advertisements for chemically-driven male birth control products do you regularly see?
Underlying that lack of marketability is an attitude that men waving their winkys want to play, but haven't taken the initial responsibility for birth control at conception.
I'll consider men's right to abandon children when they own the responsibility for conception at time of conception.
I'm hoping the health-care mandatory insurance thing passes so we can challenge the hell out of government mandated contribution to the profits of obscenely rich and exploitive third parties.
Once that's done, we can go after the states and mandated vehicle insurance.
Sedition is a repression tool. I do not advocate its use, which is actually merely a legal application that allows punishment for expression.
I do not believe expression should be punished.
I thing Rush is an extremely distasteful demagogue, but that has nothing to do with sedition.
Stirring up discontent is expression.
Crying out for revolution, begging people to pick up pitchforks, like I do, that's closer to sedition.
But sedition is contrary to our fundamental laws.
Not that it is relevant, but I abhor the Iraq War, in particular when my son went for a year, and I always felt it was a lead in for Bush to take on Iran. Cheney wanted to so bad he smelled of it, but they didn't make it. It was a pretense, and putting my son in danger for the shallow purposes Bush had did not make me feel warm and fuzzy.
I always thought the proper response was to go find Osama, kick ass, get out. Should have been done inside of six months.
There is a point where the subject matter ceases to be rants against the government, and starts to be rants against people.
Obama is fair game for a new posting.
I'm not at all opposed to taking another poster to task. Go for it.
IN COMMENTS. Not as a post.
I didn't take him to task because the subject matter was Obama's legitimacy.
I played very minimal in those posts because I do not care. He's there. It is a done deed. The time for challenge was prior to seating him, it was tried and failed.
Whether that failure is right or wrong, I'm not going to say. I didn't look at it closely enough.
I've said here and there, in the beginning of the spam campaign, that it is as valid an issue as any other.
I've also said, and wished rather strongly for a getta outta my facea button.
It was a spam campaign. I'm not even saying a spam campaign, or keeping it in the public forum is wrong. It is a valid strategy. I just wanted that damn button to control my experience.
Do I care if he is there illegitimately? Not nearly as much as I care about trillions of dollars going to corporations.
And I've said before as well that if the objective of the campaign is to unseat Obama, then it is faulty reasoning to continue doing what doesn't work. Try another approach.
Because it really isn't the horror of the possibility that he was born in Kenya. It is the horror of having him in that seat. In that sense, I think the argument is inauthentic.
Besides, If I travel outside the US, and have a baby, I think the baby is entitled to citizenship.
And since I'm indulging here with a lengthy diatribe on what I think, the original clause, I believe, was aimed at a loyalty issue.
It is more important that a President is deeply embedded in the American experience than be born here.
I think it is safe to say that the majority think the wall of prose, and your use of this outlet as a medium for framing your writing aspirations is obnoxious.
It is a lot like the toddler dancing at the wedding because she wants all that attention that belongs to the betrothed to be focused on her.
Now I could be wrong, so immediately write another massive piece of prose and see if your artistic aspirations can elicit votes.
So if God would look past the executioner's deed and into his heart, you think God would give him go. That close?
Yes, government law is a temporary thing. It can turn in a day. It relates though in that I say there is nothing in government law that can properly be called moral. Whether it coincides with moral law or not, it is doomed by its origin. It is always properly called upon for justification.
I'm pretty well aware of the abuse in police powers as permitted by law. It is why I get so disgusted. LOL
So for government, man is law unto himself, and for God, he's obliged to obey?
I tried cooking lentils once. It didn't work out very well. Something about the color.
On the uprising. Yes. I think it must come. Sooner is better in my honest opinion. We are in the final time of a dying nation. That is not a good and happy place.
I doubt this summer. I was hoping. But the voices that I hear, and I listen, have actually quieted into a determined rage. For a while, I think the silence will confuse many that it isn't coming.
While they quietly get ready, many will think it was a silly scream in the night. They will be wrong, but there's nothing to be done about it.
And sincerely, Sobi, it's almost always the same (can you tell me why?), that the Green Peace whale watchers, seal saviors, duckie delighters and goose tuche whiners will complain about an almost non existent problem but which any ordinary farmer can explain, and still, knowingly allow their neighbor killer Tiller to live a respectable and unmolested life.
Very creative. LOL. Personally, it was veal that troubled me. I don't eat it. But I'm moving away from meat generally speaking anyway. I'd like to see us develop better sources of protein that become cultural habits. Just on an efficiency basis if nothing else.
There are lots of people to feed, and if you get your way, there will be more. LOL.
I agree, there are more pressing problems, but it does cause the cringe anyway.
Scrolling through the poetry first every time I come to this thread makes me want for another thread.
The castle law is good law. Should be nationwide. If it were, a lot of genuine crime would be seriously reduced.
Forget what the people would say. I can pretty well anticipate the arguments on both sides. What would God say?
I have no doubt there is a bible in my home somewhere amongst the books. I have too many books. They are stacked everywhere. LOL
But I'm not going in search of it.
Yes, I am fully aligned on jury powers. Maybe he would walk, I'm not sure. Nullification is a good and necessary thing, but in this conversation, it is a predictive hope. Not ready for discussion.
Popular thought, much like popular speech, is not the highest form. I am not inclined to give it credit for being popular.
More coffee. I drink LOTS of coffee in the morning.
A truly expansive black market is a wonderful meeting ground for open government (we make our own again) and a productive collaborative exercise for which we might congratulate ourselves.
What better civil response could there be than that? In spirit and in fact.
Morning, Kinda--my hours get messed up in the light.
Tiller was killed. Yes. The individual killing him, ....even with a private group consensus...is only executioner to those in agreement.
They took it upon themselves to accuse, hold an improper trial, convict outside of authority, sentence to death, and apply sentence.
In the law, it is murder. They claimed the law failed them, and they took it upon themselves to correct. I'm not entirely opposed to such a thing, and I cannot conceive of a proper reason for late-term abortion, I'll admit that. It doesn't mean there isn't one, it means I haven't come face-to-face with it yet.
So, should he be executed himself? I am opposed to the death penalty on many grounds, none of them are moral. So not by the state to my mind.
I am more interested in what you perceive God will say.
There, I capitalized it. Need more coffee. On paragraph read and responded to.
The good ideas will not rise to the top. The data taken from this site is already complete.
If you have the know-how, you can get a d/l of it. You will find that there was a non-public field rating topical that screened all NAPA considered off-topic.
I have the dump, pretty thinned I must say. Certainly all the passion and angst and authentic pleas for government correction have been filtered.
I can post it, not here, but I can if enough want it.
Sometimes, Elizabeth, it is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The argument sounds silly, but it isn't at core. And people argued this one passionately. It is a form of metaspeech. Underneath are very strong spiritual issues seeing the light of day.
Don's not speaking to me. Sad.
He reminds me of someone from a dozen years back that meant the world to me.
I watched the video. The link in your comment addressed to me didn't work, btw.
The video is a population demographic argument saying essentially, if Christians don't have more babies, Islam will take over strictly through a numbers thing.
What would that have to do with me? I'm not a Christian.
It also weakens your moral argument when you use that as a reason against abortion. That is a religious war.
Having heathens like myself giving birth does not improve your odds on the religious war. Besides, my personal day is done anyway.
It is generally true that repressed and poverty stricken populations reproduce at much higher rates. It seems a confusing argument against abortion.
There, I have commented on your video.
I can see how important this is to you. I don't mean to diminish that. I don't. You could mellow a touch if you want arguments persuasive, but there's no moral argument that says stifle your passion, just your condemnation.
I doubt they can achieve cashless in our generation. There is too much money changing hands in situations where even congress doesn't want watched for that to succeed.
I agree on the currency thing. We need to trash this whole power to manipulate our own personal money.
Imagine if you will, congress explaining to 7-years-olds why they can't trade toys.
This is the problem with discretionary enforcement. If they actually were compelled to enforce the laws equitably, the whole population would rise up against their arrogance.
Dispense with all the posturing, and I be glad to elaborate.
I installed many values. Some in concert, some in direct conflict with the local mores. So the answer is, I did both.
How does that relate to the pledge?
It is not necessary to install loyalty to one's country. It comes. It is unavoidable. It is the nature of humanity to be loyal to one's own.
I can think of no better example than in the display of flags after 9/11.
In that example, there were many flags, and in Los Angeles and surrounding geography, there was a definite flavor of competing loyalties, if you recall.
I lived in Southern California at the time.
The presence and numbers of Mexican flags waving shows in the innate loyalty to one's birth land.
....with liberty and justice for all.
Liberty is the core of the argument.
Compelling children in an act of patriotism is contrary to liberty because it is compelled.
Why are those who are convinced that people asserting a right to an abortion not comfortable with the idea that these same said people will be called to answer.
If you believe your god will do his thing on judgment day, be grateful and content with that faith.
I think twas he who claimed ownership of vengeance, and called upon his followers to leave that job to him.
If there is a need to proxy for the lord, should you not wait at least for the tap on the shoulder before you do so?
There is no such thing as a right to an opinion. People are in possession of opinions because it is human nature. There is no denial of opinion, only a denial of an opinion in itself or a denial of a platform from which one might offer their opinion.
That is called free speech. Selective free speech is an oxymoron. It is free or it isn't. One is pregnant or not.
The President of the United States takes an oath to execute the duties of his office to the best of his ability. Military members take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. Witnesses in trials take an oath to tell the truth.
---The president is not 5, is not compelled, he actually applied for the position, and he's not doing it by instruction under authority on a daily basis. Whole different ball game.
Where you are snarking without accountability on what I believe, and projecting meaning against what you want to argue against, I'll just say this. Your reading of my words has resulted in a faulty conclusion. I'll correct it when you own your words.
Parents indoctrinate away. I did. Everyone leave everyone else's child alone. Your unwillingness to separate the two distinct messages does not lend credibility to your argument. You are not arguing what I'm asserting. You are arguing a deliberate misinterpretation.
It is a nasty rhetorical tool when played upon someone who can't point it out. Here, it is just annoying.
Men are welcome to consider it a social moral issue provided they leave wombs alone.
We were not the source of the fall of morality. That is the same argument that held a young girl morally responsible for a young couple's uninhibited expression of morality. Women are not properly assigned the entire moral burden.
Women's liberation ****IS**** not limited to the workplace. The legal and public face of women's liberation began with the vote.
That horrible, horrible business world out there is a product of rampant greed and capitalism because they are held in high esteem. Of course it sucks.
I am not compelled to pretend much of anything. That's more of a personal choice than something one can assign to women's liberation per say. I never smiled and said I'm happy being wonder woman, doing half the man's job, all the woman's job, getting paid less, and jumping in bed to reward his failure in spite of my lack of interest (translate: exhaustion).
I already have the power I want, thanks. I'm just adamant that no one will be taking it away.
I disagree intensely that my womb is a social issue. It isn't. It is mine. That is the core of my message.
It is a woman's issue. It has always been a woman's issue. It will always be a woman's issue.
The only thing men have contributed to this issue is to cause the death of women on the abortion black market. How utterly human of you.
Women didn't used to even consider consulting men on this issue. It was a common understanding that it belonged, and still does belong, to us.
You are either a moron or a gopher. ???? WTF? You haven't got a clue who or what I am. But, just so you can rest that weary imagination of yours, I'm 54, a widow, mother of 2 sons.
But, just to stir the pot a little more, and to give the pontificating sanctimonious more food for ranting, I'm going to take my turn at the podium.
There isn't a man that has a valid opinion on what I should do with my womb. The logic behind this is simple. It is my womb. You may do what you wish with your own.
In response to reproduction, men claim equal rights, but they do not take equal responsibility. I'm not talking about the proud inseminaters of multiple women, they are irrelevant to my point.
My point is that before men are granted equal say, they must take equal responsibility, and they don't.
How many men fight for male birth control? That is where you take initial responsibility. There is nothing sacred in the male reproductive system that is so above the public concern that it must not be tampered with.
When men genuinely want reproductive equality, they will take reproductive responsibility and there will be evidence on the market of this with a wide variety of male birth control products because the careful male population will demand it, just as women had to do.
Until then, moralize all you want. I don't think your input merits consideration.
The primary expenses for the poor are housing and food. Rent is not taxed because it is not considered retail. Food is traditionally not taxed because it is required.
For most of the poor, that leaves about 30% of their income subject to a 10% tax.
I would just as promptly battle an uber islamic coercion plan.
James,
People are passionate about politics. The way to learn about your government is to start and keep going.
I resorted to name calling in this instance because I wanted to. That does not, all due respects to ladyhawk, make me an idiot.
First, I was likened to a conspiracy theorist by Bob. That's a degrading description in public speak.
Then Rooster attempted to portray me as somewhat bitter and in need of pity, again, a rhetoric device meant to weaken someone's argument by pointing to a person and saying nothing good could come from that person. That's called argumentum ad hominem.
Then Bob tells me my rationale borders on the absurd. That sound like proper argument to you?
Then Rooster tells me my problems run deep. Tee hee. That's again ad hominem in nature. It implies that my arguments fail because I'm some kind of a nut job.
Come to think about it, I think this argument is excellent for you to watch. The attacks are not aimed at you, and you can comfortably watch how they operate and become inoculated.
Then Bob decides I'm "hung up" on the phrase "under god". Amateur analysis is a common device but it falls under ad hominem.
Somewhere in there, he called my argument specious. Meaningless, out there, properly ignored in public speak. He demands I put forth evidence if I challenge his position.
This is an assumption of a position to be answered to, as if some inherent authority lies in his position and the burden of proof falls upon me.
It is incorrect. giggle.
Then he asserts that I do indeed have to put forth evidence and accuses me of ad hominem.
Okay, enough. Wanks like that need to be called wanks.
Anyway, this is not an improper forum for you. It is a nice safe place for you to watch.
They are prohibited if they choose to be. Otherwise, they are infringed upon, and if they weren't poor enough to qualify for Section 8, the challenge would have already taken place.
That's what makes regulations like that so ugly in spirit.
I don't like uber christians trying to cram their belief systems into other people's children. That, in itself, is a hostile move. You should expect retaliation if you attempt to instigate such practices again.
It is hostile to demand my children remain respectfully silent while your children pay homage to an imaginary sky buddy.
It is ad hominem to say that people who disagree with you haven't studied the issue or fail to understand it. It is also revolting.
The second one is alliteration. It is a rhetorical tool. You either get it, or you don't.
Cognitive dissonance is not something properly compelled on little children.
Of course children can think. And before you indoctrinate them, give them a chance to do so. They are not fully armed against indoctrination at that age. Compel them when they are 18 if you can. Leave the little ones alone.
The coercion is the pledge. The indoctrination is the result.
Scientology is crap. Just like your God and your argument.
The reason women entered the workforce was they were needed during WWII. The reason they stayed after the war ended was because they liked the independence.
Granted, capitalists took immediate advantage and lowered salaries, but that is capitalism.
Neither the Pledge nor the daily prayer belong in public schools. That might have something to do with why they were prohibited.
Frankly, if you didn't think it was an indoctrination, you wouldn't care either. Your entire argument is dishonest on that basis.
You want them to say your daily pledge so they experience cognitive dissonance when they begin to question the existence of your deity.
Also, the implicit concept of sacrifice for the greater good is the opposite of the foundation for the U.S.A. It was founded on property rights and individual rights.
Calling an argument specious does not make it so. The evidence is out there. I need not provide it to you. Go get it if you want it.
I do not think young children are free-thinking. That is why I do not want wanks like you putting words into their mouths and compelling them to stand like little robots paying homage to your god.
They are impressionable, open, undefended little innocents. Leave them alone.
Symbolism is extremely important, and it is very powerful. That is why children should not be compelled to pledge allegiance to it prior to the ability to understand what they are giving their innocent little loyalties to.
Rituals, like common utterances from the parent, sink so deep into the child's psyche, that they parrot their parents for many of their adult years without ever having considered the meaning of what they say.
That is the definition of indoctrination. Indoctrinate your own children at will. But leave the others alone.
I do not know what prompts your pity, but prior to offering it, please explain it. Otherwise it is a rhetorical pigeon-holing device and you know what you can do with that, I'm comfortable assuming.
The demand that they waive their 2nd amendment rights would not survive challenge.
Drug testing is considered search. Search falls under the 4th amendment. In fact, it was kicked out on that basis. The same as the 2nd amendment fantasy of the attorney general.
It is not uncommon for unconstitutional provisions to be written. That happens all the time. It proves nothing.
The drug testing routine has been tried, and died.
It is similar to another legal challenge that became popular for a while.
When stores attempt to make you stand in line for inspection after completion of your business, and people rightly objected, the courts explained, slowly one presumes, that the stores have no authority to suspend constitutional rights at their threshold.
As far as labeling me and hoping I give a _______, give it up. You are insufficient to the task. I tire of people like you.
The separate of church and state is there. It is irrelevant what the founders intended. They are all dead. There is actually a lot of legal reasoning behind this concept, but it still simplifies down to the fact that they were not empowered to obligate future generations, nor was the future empowered to telepathy by their pronouncements. All you have is the words of the text. Not what you pretend was their meaning. That's an exercise in self-justification and it is a bunch of crap.
I pledge to no flag, and I expect children to be free of coercion to pay allegiance to a symbol over principle.
Second, there is no God. When I use the term, it is a rhetorical device.
If you think you have an imaginary sky buddy capable of striking me down, call upon him to do so. You probably won't be the first.
No one may properly compel children to silently or openly acknowledge an imaginary sky buddy.
While it is improper, the concept of silence is consent is common vernacular.
Remaining silent in the midst of 29 other children affirming an imaginary sky buddy is indoctrination.
Income tax, progressive or regressive is inherently unfair. Examine it closer.
Doing away with the I.R.S. is a wonderful thought. Let's do. Also, let's get government out of the money market. They have sufficient voice through purchasing power alone.
There would be no drug cartels had government not carved out a black market for them. Black markets exist because government confuses its role.
Black markets are people refusing to be intimidated.
Rooster, I suspect that much of what you say is true about the motivations behind youthful voting.
I suspect hatred is behind much conservative voting.
I suspect poverty is behind much liberal voting.
Voting is the core of democracy. In fact, voting is the only democracy we have. While I am aware of the tyranny of the 51%, we need some democracy or we have a kingdom.
The pledge of allegiance is an indoctrination tool, less offensive prior to the Knights of Columbus adding a religious flavor to it, none-the-less, improper as a compelled ritual.
It does indeed violate the 1st amendment as is. The court opinions fully explain why it violates the 1st, hence I need not.
You are incorrect. My generation is appalled at what is taking place. Perhaps the schools are currently failing, but it is a temporary backlash that will self-correct before we permit an indoctrinate youth agency to exist.
In my core, I understand that human beings are human beings. This has nothing to do with individual worth, personal character, or values. This is a political stance.
Those who object to the drug war are label, ostracized, disenfranchised, forbidden employment, arrested, imprisoned, lose their rights as citizens, and held in contempt by public officials who use the fear mongering to grandstand for votes.
My intention is to return the favor, to suggest to all who oppose the war on people to contribute to the stigma of those who provide the muscle behind the war on people.
It is only fair, equitable, and possible somewhat effective.
They are thugs because they chose to seek and take a job whose primary function is to arm the war on people.
They are ethically and righteously called upon that platform.
I don't care if prisoners are smoking each other's big toes.
There HAS to be a cost to society to throw people in prison. If there isn't, then throwing people in prison will be the first response. It's easy, quick, and now you want to make it free because you have some idea that living behind bars is a better life than it should be.
This is for corporations who are taking taxpayer money.
Bailouts shouldn't happen, but they did. It is obvious that the upper ranks shouldn't take taxpayer dollars and build personal swimming pools with them.
That which is already in the public domain is not subject to copyright. The same reasoning should be applied to patents.
Also, I agree. Living things should be exempt from patents. In fact, genetic tampering, especially, needs to be open to the public for testing, and public warning purposes.
There's a gem of an idea in here, though. Dave's right about the no federal crime on record. There are 4,500 of them on the books. Anyone can be turned into a felon on a whim.
How about this though, For each state, supply federal funding for a citizen to sit in on the senate, including meetings, for the purpose of reporting to the people the contents thereof.
I would be inclined to seek fewer qualifications rather than more, and have an annual turnover so they do not become embedded or need to seek approval for continued employment.
To match how the people would perceive it, one must avoid the personality-stamping filter. I would want perspectives from all types, including factory floor workers, store clerks, unemployed, etc.
Translated: I will work you to death if you are willing. Stop fighting for your own interests. They do not matter. Only profit matters. All profit is mine.
I can't post new ideas right now, caught in some kind of filter and won't play, change my identity to trick the filters.
Pay-as-you-go is current, topical, and needs discussed. It would be good to start with a public that knows that pay-as-you-go means nothing if it provides a new tax base or increases an old one.
Critical thinking and dialog training are both important concepts. I wish people had a firmer grasp on both.
I do not think that dialog training should be combined with political action meetings. That is a strategy used in the libertarian party, and they all parrot each other.
In a partisan atmosphere, dialog training would quickly morph into persuasion and recruitment training and operate as a source of politically-designed answers. That does not foster conversation. It closes ears and minds.
The idea that one can assess morality from what category one tosses the person in is, in my opinion, morally repugnant.
It is no different than assigning a character assessment based on race.
If I decide to identify someone as liberal, then assign moral failure stemming from that identity, and finally condemn them, I have committed what is called a non-sequitor.
It is a failure of logic that means, it does not follow.
All cats are green My dog is green My dog is a cat
I disagree. I think it is a fallacy that morality was more present in the past than currently. It is similar to the common belief that crime is more dominant now than in the past. That one is dangerous.
The reason it feels like it is comes from media exposure to what past generations never knew took place. We are pounded in the face with it on a daily basis. It feels more intense.
I personally do not think that human kind has changed that dramatically over the course of a hundred years, and I take exception to the idea that I am somehow in want of moral education.
Posted successfully, hit a moderator filter of some kind. Bummer.
God must be a forbidden word.
LOL
Idea Posted Successfully If God is content with 10%, why should the Federal Government need more? sobi a few seconds ago Revise Flag Looks Promising! 0 I'm Not So Sure... Pending Moderator Approval LOL.
Repeal the 16th. Add amendment:
Federal Government shall be content with a 10% sales tax, and shall apply no other taxes.
Federal Government shall confine itself to its means and stay within its budget.
Federal Government shall be free to petition God for extra money if they make budgeting mistakes.
All, and I mean ALL excise taxes are prohibited.
Obama, give back the SCHIP taxes. That was wrong, and bad.
Bad, bad, bad.
Corporations must go to God for loans, give aways and redemption.
Why Is This Idea Important? Because people are upset with taxes. Idea # 3649Do-It-Yourself Government, open government, collaboration, participation, tax, fail Comments
Let's just go with the federal sales tax. I don't think they should tax income. It is unpopular, it creates record keeping nightmares, and the I.R.S., as well as provides an avenue for cheaters.
I'm all for fusion. The oil and coal era is over, move on.
On trees, I don't understand why people move into a new home, and don't plant a tree. It should be step one. Okay, step two. Step one is to install toilet paper.
It wouldn't hurt our world if it was a custom to plant a food production tree in every yard.
There are other similar challenges traveling up, one is on Balken's site today.
The doctrine of minimalist ruling at the Supreme Court level is understandable until one takes issues such as these into account.
How many years and bills passed before the reasonable application of an individual's right is enforced in favor of the individual.
At 100 cases a year, it could be another 20-30 years before this is done. Given the temporal distance between miller and heller, it could be longer but I don't want to lend the appearance of alarmist static.
The war on drugs has turned into a war on people. Both are improper.
Illegal and immoral are distinct. The regulations on drugs are both illegal and immoral. If anyone considers it their duty to apply these regulations to me, it is my duty to resist, not be complicit in an act against my own self-interest.
Police lose perspective. It is an affect of their job. I do not consider them professionals capable of making judgments, I consider them armed thugs and an enemy for collaborating in the war on people.
Probably cause can be contrived on a whim and usually is.
Tell your sister to get a job that people can respect her for if she wants respect, others, deal with it. She's made her call.
Just on the outside chance that this is a currently ongoing situation that is real for some person:
If you work at a small company, and you are misnamed a salaried employee for the purposes of avoiding overtime wages, contact the department of labor, give them your job description and it is their responsibility to enforce labor laws. In doing this, you should receive back wages.
If you work for a large company, you must do the same as a collective or you don't stand a chance.
No, I don't remember Jimmy's pronunciation. I certain am old enough.
What I remember most from Jimmy was some reporter accused him of spending $600 campaign dollars on toothpaste and Jimmy saying, "It worked, didn't it?"
I honestly do think he cares. I also think he probably knows more about what's on this site than any agency depending upon a washed dump of data.
He's president. No matter what you think of his politics, thinking he's stupid is, well, stupid. Stupid people don't make it that far. (Bush did shake my faith in that though.)
Perhaps he should have retained more personnel from his campaign staff. They had a pretty good handle on the pulse of the nation.
He needs to dump the professional politicians, I think. They're irredeemably warped. Sad, but not tragic.
Anyway, I do think he knows. He must! I need him to know. LOL
Looks Promising!
I'm Not So Sure...
Report Abuse