posted
This is in response to Omega's list of questions from SeanR's "Give Thanks To Our Founding Fathers" thread. Omega apparently skipped over my last post, which said I would no longer reply to responses in that thread because a few people were complaining of "thread-jacking" and other things.
Anyway, on to the questions ...
Do you agree with what Sol just said? If so, what beliefs and experiences lead you to believe that a woman has a right to control the body of her child, even to the point of harm?
Omega, I have answered this question REPEATEDLY. Do you think I'm going to change my answer because you phrase the question differently?
Maybe I think its because women can think for themselves and don't need others telling them what to do.
It is wrong to tell someone what to do with their own body. Keep your laws off my body! Outlawing abortion is only going to force women into unsafe procedures, where both lives will be lost.
What led me to this belief? Well, its simple -- it was pointed out to me quite a while ago, that I am a) not a woman and b) it'll be a very cold day in hell before I ever become pregnant myself, and c) therefore, I've no right to judge someone's decisions in a situation I will never be in.
What do the ladies around here think about pro-choice?
What would happen if the Democratic Party got everything it wanted? Analyze programs such as HillaryCare and deduce the possible results of their implementation. As specifically as possible, how would you describe the resulting society?
Omega, someday you will write great questions for college exams. However, I'm not being graded on these, so I won't "analyze", "deduce" or be "specific." Unless, of course, you care to pay me? I'm actually rather surprised you didn't add, "in less than ten paragraphs..."
The resulting society ... wow! It would be great. People wouldn't be afraid for their jobs because their boss wouldn't be able to fire them at will (gotta love unions!). People could make enough money to live on (gotta love minimum wage). People could go to the hospital and not worry about paying, because they'd have health care! Cars would be really cool, and go really fast. Republicans would be obsolete!! YAY!!!!If anyone is taking this response to seriously, LAUGH NOW
Why do you believe Bush used drugs?
My belief of it is rather irrelevent. Rather, the question should be, "can you prove he used drugs?" However, you can't ask that because it can't be proved that he hasn't.
Honestly, I find it hard to believe that most of our politicians haven't experimented with drugs at least a little. This is why I don't see why Gore and Clinton smoking a little pot is such a big thing. I also believe that Dubya lit up a few times at Yale.
Why do you favor friendly relations with the government of China, which has killed thousands of people for no reason?
I think the government HAD a reason for killing those people, Omega, they're just not reasons that the rest of the world likes to acknowledge.
Do you think I would prefer a WAR with China? Tianamen Square didn't surpress the rebellion brewing over there, and it'll come sooner or later -- look at the USSR, where Soviet troops, in the middle of a coup to overthrow Gorbachev, listened to a passioned plea from Yeltsin and turned on their officers ... we need to be in a position to help them set up a new government when that happens.
If you believe that 'if you are an individual, it is your body, and that no one can tell you what to do with it, and that no one may touch you without your permission', does this apply to Siamese twins, where affecting one's body would nesecarily affect another person? Also, does it apply to the body of the unborn child in an abortion, who is being touched without his/her permission? If not, why not?
Good fucking lord! Another abortion question? Omega I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION. I have no information on Siamese Twins, but I think I've heard that some live together, co-existing for many many many decades and longer.
Gee, Omega, see that pregnant girl over there? Well, its not your body, so don't touch it, and don't legislate it.
Effectively, what is your position on the right to do what one wishes with one's body, when the exercise of that right involves the death of another?
You mean, if I decide to use my hands to strangle someone? That would be doing what I wish with my body when the exercise of the right would be a death.
Or are we back on abortion? Let me sum up (don't ask me again, Omega
It's not your body, keep your laws off of it
Can you think of, and provide evidence of, an instance where George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, et al. lied to the people of the country?
God, you'll be a good lawyer ... "provide evidence of" ... no, I'm sure its all locked away very well at the CIA, where Bush sr. used to be boss.
Do you believe that the unauthorized actions of a few under a previous administration are equivalent to the ordered actions of a current administration? Do you believe that previous crimes commited by people claiming to represent this country justify dealing with murderers?
Omega, look at it this way:
The U.S. sent Lt. Calley on a mission to go into My Lai. Now, why did what happen happen? Did he recieve orders for that massacre? Did he interpret his orders wider than he should have?
The point is, when people say, "don't deal with China, they've killed thousands for no reason" ... you make it too easy to point at the US and say, "so have we."
This is how you should have phrased the question in the first place.
How do you know that the Chinese officers implementing these murders were actually ordered to do so? That one man, acting on his own, didn't give the order without authorization from his superiors?
Second, how can they be murderers? By your own definition (re: US executions, and the difference between a "murder" and a "killing") the killings would be legal under that government, thus, not murder.
Or does your definition only apply to the United States?
Do you believe that all intentionally caused human death, including capital punishment, is murder. If so, what is your position on abortion?
What is your fascination with abortion?
No, capital punishment is archaic and should be abolished, but sadly enough, it is legal, therefore, not murder.
Do you believe the Chinese would cease their attrocities if we traded with them? If so, why?
What attrocities have they committed recently? Best of my memory, Tianaman Square, 10 years ago.
Do you believe that the right to speak automatically converys a right to be heard, in any medium desired? If so, how does this apply to the property rights of the owner of the press? Further, how does this apply to the freedom of expression of the published of the paper.
Most papers have what are known as "editorial pages", where readers may write responses to pieces within the paper. Therefore, the paper is already conveying readers' right to be heard in that desired medium.
What is your response to the accusation that the DNP ignores the consitution wherever it proves inconvenient, given the list of events at the top of the page?
Er ... what list? Could you repost them here and I will then reply? Thank you.
What is your basis for the belief that an unborn child is not alive?
Do you get off on abortions? You couldn't have had all those under just ONE question? Noooooo, half the questions are on abortion! Sheeeesh ...
Omega, the basis for my belief is irrelevent. The only thing relevent is my stance on the issue. If you don't know what that is, kindly scroll up. I think I've said it about ten million times in this post alone.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 11, 2000).]
"It is wrong to tell someone what to do with their own body."
I agree. Do you believe that this does not apply to a mother and her unborn child's body? If not, why? I have asked this question multiple times, and have yet to recieve an answer. Your only response has consistantly been, "Keep your laws off my body!" or some variation thereon. Your response was not an answer to my question.
"Gee, Omega, see that pregnant girl over there? Well, its not your body, so don't touch it, and don't legislate it."
I have no desire to do so. However, if I do not have a right to affect the mother's body without permission, why does she have the right to do the same to her child's body? Are they both not human?
Liberal programs
Your response, judging from your final sentence, is meant in jest. Your response was not an answer to my question.
Bush and drugs
"My belief of it is rather irrelevent."
Irrelevant to what? My request was that you explain your beliefs. There is nothing for this to be related or not related to. Your response was not an answer to my question.
"Rather, the question should be, 'an you prove he used drugs?'"
This is not what I desire to know. I desire to know WHY you believe he did, not whether you can prove it.
China
"I think the government HAD a reason for killing those people, Omega, they're just not reasons that the rest of the world likes to acknowledge."
Do you believe that peaceful protest constitutes a reason to kill two thousand people?
Siamese Twins
"I have no information on Siamese Twins, but I think I've heard that some live together, co-existing for many many many decades and longer."
What if one decided to commit suicide, an act which would nearly inevitably lead to the death of the other? How would your beliefs regarding one's right to one's body apply in this situation? Your response was not an answer to my question.
Alleged GOP lies
I will take your response to mean "no." Therefore, my question becomes this: "Why do you believe that these GOP politicians have lied, even though you have no evidence of this?"
Trade with China
"The point is, when people say, "don't deal with China, they've killed thousands for no reason" ... you make it too easy to point at the US and say, "so have we.""
"We" have not killed innocents. A rogue lieutenant did. He did not have orders to do so, and was punished for his actions. The Chinese government, OTOH, ordered the deaths of innocents, and is still in power. They would constitute murderers and criminals. My question remains, as your response was not an answer to my question.
"Second, how can they be murderers? By your own definition (re: US executions, and the difference between a "murder" and a "killing") the killings would be legal under that government, thus, not murder."
The Chinese government was not instituted by popular consent, and thus does not constitute a legitimate government. Therefore, all laws enacted by this government, and all actions taken by this government, are not legal, as the government itself is not legally instituted. This is all by my definitions, which are the one's you're calling into question.
My beliefs stand explained. How 'bout yours?
Capital punishment re: abortion
"No, capital punishment is archaic and should be abolished, but sadly enough, it is legal, therefore, not murder."
A valid answer.
Chinese attrocities
"What attrocities have they committed recently?"
How is timing relevant? The dictator that ordered the murders is still in power. Why should we believe that he has changed? Your response is not an answer to my question.
"Fairness Doctrine"
"Most papers have what are known as "editorial pages", where readers may write responses to pieces within the paper. Therefore, the paper is already conveying readers' right to be heard in that desired medium."
These are instituted voluntarily. I asked your opinion on forced equivalents. Your response is not an answer to my question.
DNP's disregard of the Constitution
"Er ... what list? Could you repost them here and I will then reply? Thank you."
The attempt to prevent the FL legislature from doing its constitutional duty The support of the Fairness Doctrine The support of banning firearms The support of banning school prayer The support of Bill Clinton, a man who commited a crime and thus, according to the constitution, should have been removed from office The DNP inniated attempt in the Senate to dictate what isles food products would be placed in in supermarkets 90% of the programs that FDR implemented The existance of the FCC The abduction of Elian Gonzales from his court-appointed guardians Democrat judges writing new laws that do not exist
Status of the unborn
"Omega, the basis for my belief is irrelevent. The only thing relevent is my stance on the issue."
The basis of your belief is the only thing I'm requesting you tell me, and is therefore by definition relevant. I ask not for your beliefs. I ask for the reasoning behind them, and how they apply to certain situations. Your response is not an answer to my question.
I count twelve questions. One was responded to with a valid answer. One was responded to with a request for more information. One was responded to with an answer, but what I believe to be an invalid or unclear one. The remaining nine were not answered at all.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
The attempt to prevent the FL legislature from its constitutional duty
The Florida legislature? Aren't they trying to bypass the voters?
The support of the Fairness Doctrine
I wasn't aware the support of a person's free speech was un-constitutional.
The support of banning firearms
When *exactly* has the Democratic Party tried to ban firearms? As a matter of fact, handguns weren't even an ISSUE in this election ... did you hear either candidate mention this? This is just NRA propoganda which you foolishly believe.
The support of banning school prayer
The seperation of church and state is consitutional, Omega. However, the support of school prayer is unconstitutional.
The support of Bill Clinton, a man who commited a crime, and thus, according to the Constitution, should have been removed from office
Omega, you are such a fucking moron. It's called a trial -- in this case, an impeachment. Or did you forget about that little party?
The DNP inniated attempt to dictate what isles food products would be placed in in supermarkets
Omega, this just makes you a twit. Food? Aisles? Who gives a shit? You, apparently. Sheeeesh.
90% of the programs that FDR implemented
Like Lend-Lease?
The existance of the FCC
How is the FCC illegal? Shouldn't we get rid of the FBI, or maybe the USDA too then?
the abduction of Elian Gonzales from his court-appointed guardians Democrat judges writing new laws that do not exist
That sentance makes no sense at all.
I agree on one part of this. Elian should have been kept in the United States.
The "writing new laws" thing sounds like our favorite talk show host babbling his nonsense. Frankly, this is why I don't like Republicans -- whenever things don't go their way, its either because laws are being re-written, or because the liberal-controlled (Jewish controlled, in some cases) media is against them (GASP!)
Do you believe that peaceful protest constituts a right to kill two thousand people?
Well, I didn't say that, now did I?
"Why do you believe that these GOP politicians have lied even though you have no evidence of this?"
You're going to hate me, but I will answer this with a question.
Why do you believe Al Gore, if elected, will attempt to ban firearms even though there is no evidence of this?
Besides which, you can't show me a politician on either side who hasn't lied. Fact.
how is timing relevent?
Er ... then you can't really say that what we did to the Indians is "all in the past", now can you?
They are instituted voluntarily. I asked your opinion on forced equivilants
Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't use force to ensure someone's Constitutional rights. We should just let them be trampled on (sigh).
What if one decided to commit suicide, an act which would nearly inevitably lead to the death of the other? How would your beliefs regarding one's right to one's body apply in this situation? Your response was not an answer to my question?
No, it wasn't an answer to your question, but its the most you're going to get.
I'm not in that position, Omega. I can't judge.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 11, 2000).]
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Well, let me have a crack at several of these questions:
3) Why do you favor friendly relations with the government of China, which has killed thousands of people for no reason?
For the record, I don't favour friendly relations with China until they fess up to their mistakes (INCLUDING Tiannamen Square). I take it that the present Administration has decided to take a different approach, that is "try peace first then get them to apologize". Let's wait and see, and not shoot-first-ask-questions-later.
I particularly do not like the idea of taking a warlike stance against countries including Russia and China. We are supposed to live in a peaceful democracy. NMD does not help that one bit, IMHO.
4) Abortion
I keep hearing things such as that it is a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, that is, if she chooses to stretch her abdomen to the size of a watermelon, then that's her business.
So if she chose not to and it still happened? Well, this brings up the next question, is that mass of flesh inside of her defined as "alive"? Personally, I believe so.
This brings two possibilities:
1) She brought this upon herself, having "too much fun" with a certain guy. Well, tough cheese, lady. That is no excuse for the ripping apart of a lifeform. You brought this upon yourself, you have to be RESPONSIBLE for your actions.
2) She did not bring this upon herself, this was "forced upon her" I do not want to go into the literal translation of this. But in this case, her rights to live a normal life in peace were completely violated by the person who forced himself upon her. Forcing her to bear what I would call a "child of a monster" further adds insult to injury, both emotionally and physically (not to forget her rights too). In essense, she should not be responsible for something she herself never did. Forcing her to do so would yet be another violation of her rights to live a normal life that was taken away from her by that so called monster by having to give birth to the Monster's Offspring.
5) Can you think of, and provide evidence of, an instance where George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, et al. lied to the people of the country?
No one is perfect, Omega. If you believe that Republicans never lie, then I don't know what kind of world you are talking about. As well, please do not stereotype Democrats with whatever drivel you provide us with.
If a Republican does happen to lie under oath in the same degree as Clinton, I don't think you'll be saying the same thing anymore.
6)Do you believe that the unauthorized actions of a few under a previous administration are equivalent to the ordered actions of a current administration?
I will point out a couple of things: a) some of the "few" are still alive, those who carried out those massacres, and b) as long as these "few" are still alive, the current administration is still "representing" them, even though they do not hold any power in the administration, voting or otherwise.
Technically, the Vietnam War happened 30 years ago. For many people that was not a long time ago. It is these people who demand some form of admission of responsibility from the Current administration, seeing that these "few" are still under their wing. Admission of responsibility isn't too hard to ask, isn't it?
Unless you guys were talking about some other war?
So if the current administration is not responsible, then theoretically, Germany is not responsible for the actions of the Nazis, and the Vatican is not responsible for its role in the Holocaust. And Japan is not responsible for the rape of Nanking, and so on and so on and so on...........
There is another approach to this point of view, and that is the actions undertaken were caused by a representative of that society. Therefore he represents that society as barbaric and heinous. Because the government is seen as the representative, it should undertake steps to ensure that the undesired label is removed. It doesn't matter which administration is in power. As long as they are the representative, they have that obligation.
Do you believe that previous crimes commited by people claiming to represent this country justify dealing with murderers?
Yes, if we are held accountable for our own actions, as well as they are for their actions as well.
7) Do you believe that all intentionally caused human death, including capital punishment, is murder? If so, what is your position on abortion?
On capital punishment, only those who commit heinous crimes and are not ever likely to be re-integrated into society should be nuked from this place.
On abortion, the unborn offspring of the monsters who have committed heinous crimes and who forced themselves over the rights of another woman and impregnating her with this Monster Offspring should also be nuked from this place, if the woman so chooses.
8) Do you believe the Chinese would cease their attrocities if we traded with them? If so, why?
Tough gamble. I guess the US is simply trying to coerce them down the right path. Let's see what happens.
And the Tiennamen Square massacre happened at the same year 14 women were shot at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal because they were women. So we should ignore the memory of those 14 women as well, huh?
The rest of the questions I basically don't have an answer for, or it is simply none of my business. Thank you.
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited December 12, 2000).]
"The Florida legislature? Aren't they trying to bypass the voters?"
No. The Florida legislature is only intending to be prepared in the event that a judge in FL decides to disregard the law and override the certification. If there is not a certified slate of electors by December 12, the legislature is allowed and REQUIRED to name a slate for the state. They also intend to send a message to the activist FL S.C. In no way are they trying to override the voters, nor could they.
re: 'Fairness Doctrine'
"I wasn't aware the support of a person's free speech was un-constitutional."
Do you believe that the right to speak automatically converys a right to be heard, in any medium desired, even those privately owned? If so, how does this apply to the property rights of the owner of the press or broadcast tower? Further, how does this apply to the freedom of expression of the publisher of the paper?
"[Editorials] are instituted voluntarily. I asked your opinion on forced equivilants
Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't use force to ensure someone's Constitutional rights. We should just let them be trampled on (sigh)."
Do you believe that the right to speak automatically converys a right to be heard, in any medium desired, even those privately owned? If so, how does this apply to the property rights of the owner of the press or broadcast tower? Further, how does this apply to the freedom of expression of the publisher of the paper?
"When *exactly* has the Democratic Party tried to ban firearms?"
They have not, nor did I say they have. I said they support the idea. A north-eastern state governor said that his objective was to rid the state of handguns. He was a democrat. The Democrats constantly attempt to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns, regardless of the fact that this has been statistically shown to increase crime. What other conclusion can you draw from these facts?
"The seperation of church and state is consitutional, Omega."
No, it is not. "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..." does not imply a seperation of church and state. It simply states that the federal government can not establish a national religion. This does not apply to a school district in any way. There IS NO seperation of church and state, in the popular meaning.
re: Clinton
He commited a crime. He should have been tried and removed. The DNP said that neither was nesecary, when the Constitution clearly states that it is.
"How is the FCC illegal?"
It restricts the use of private property beyond preventing harm to others. It is thus unconstitutional.
Your remianing responses are non-points.
"Do you believe that peaceful protest constituts a right to kill two thousand people?
Well, I didn't say that, now did I?"
No, nor did I say you did. Please answer the question.
"Why do you believe Al Gore, if elected, will attempt to ban firearms even though there is no evidence of this?"
I have never stated that I believe this. Your question is moot.
"Why do you believe that these GOP politicians have lied even though you have no evidence of this?"
You did not answer this question.
"how is timing relevent [to the comission of attrocities by a government]?
Er ... then you can't really say that what we did to the Indians is "all in the past", now can you?"
Yes, as this is a different administration. The people in the administration that hurt the natives are all dead. The people that killed 2,000 peaceful protesters in China are still in power. The circumstances are non-analogous.
"What if one [Siamese twin] decided to commit suicide, an act which would nearly inevitably lead to the death of the other? How would your beliefs regarding one's right to one's body apply in this situation? Your response was not an answer to my question?
No, it wasn't an answer to your question, but its the most you're going to get.
I'm not in that position, Omega. I can't judge."
You have beliefs on what is right and wrong. How would they apply to the situation described? Is the outcome of such application acceptable to you?
Tahna:
"If you believe that Republicans never lie, then I don't know what kind of world you are talking about."
I do not believe this. I simply asked whether you could demonstrate a time in which a GOP, say, presidential cantidate has lied to the people.
"If a Republican does happen to lie under oath in the same degree as Clinton, I don't think you'll be saying the same thing anymore."
No, I wouldn't. I'd be calling for his head.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
Do you agree with what Sol just said? If so, what beliefs and experiences lead you to believe that a woman has a right to control the body of her child, even to the point of harm?
Because it's her body, not mine and ultimatly she's gonna have to be the one who gets to live with the fact that she killed her kid.
What would happen if the Democratic Party got everything it wanted? Analyze programs such as HillaryCare and deduce the possible results of their implementation. As specifically as possible, how would you describe the resulting society?
Why, I think it'd be great. 'Bout time this country started taking care of it's people first. As for the analyzing bit, IF I had the time and IF I had the resources of the AMA, Library of Congress, and all that rot and interested in drawing up what could possibly a million page report, well I would. Then i'd make you eat it.
Why do you believe Bush used drugs?
Because he did. And he more or less admitted to it too, only he called it and I quite "A youthful indiscression."
Why do you favor friendly relations with the government of China, which has killed thousands of people for no reason?
Find me one country on that planet that HASN'T killed thousands of people. But in China's case, why are you so hell bent in villifing them? Wanna start a war with them that THIS time nobody will win? Would you be willing to FIGHT in that war?
If you believe that 'if you are an individual, it is your body, and that no one can tell you what to do with it, and that no one may touch you without your permission', does this apply to Siamese twins, where affecting one's body would nesecarily affect another person? Also, does it apply to the body of the unborn child in an abortion, who is being touched without his/her permission? If not, why not?
No. Siamese Twins have nothing, nada, zip, ziltch to do with abortion. And you DO seemed a tab obsessed with the topic.
Effectively, what is your position on the right to do what one wishes with one's body, when the exercise of that right involves the death of another?
Then you've crossed the line from choice to actively committing murder? Your question doesn't make sence.
Can you think of, and provide evidence of, an instance where George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, et al. lied to the people of the country?
From the top!
Vietnam (Agent Orange) Iran-Contra (Who was in charge of things when Ollie North and Fawn Hall was playing "Shred the documents which would have gotten Ronnie Reagan impeached? - The REPUBLICANS!) Trickle Down Economics (Which was directly CAUSAL to two economic recessions) The Gulf War (Specifically, Gulf War Syndrome) Savings and Loan Debacle (Yer boy Dubya was in cahoots in that one...)
...and there's prolly a ton more we don't know about yet.
Next go-round, i'll flame a few Democrats i'd love to seen removed from the gene pool.
Do you believe that the unauthorized actions of a few under a previous administration are equivalent to the ordered actions of a current administration? Do you believe that previous crimes commited by people claiming to represent this country justify dealing with murderers?
1) No, they're not. But if said gov't tries to cover it's ass, after the fact, then they're guilty of aiding and abetting.
2) Know what the "School of the Americas" is? We were ACTIVELY training Central/South American Military Junta's how to commit mass-murder and do all kinds of really NASTY things. So, yeah. We'd be guilty.
Do you believe that all intentionally caused human death, including capital punishment, is murder. If so, what is your position on abortion?
1) If I killed you, that would be murder. If they state kills me for killing you, that would be justice.
2) Pro-choice to the point where I don't wanna pay for it. (That takes some explaining)
Do you believe the Chinese would cease their attrocities if we traded with them? If so, why?
Not really. Why? Because basically it's their goddamn country. Let em' eat each other for all I care.
Do you believe that the right to speak automatically converys a right to be heard, in any medium desired? If so, how does this apply to the property rights of the owner of the press? Further, how does this apply to the freedom of expression of the published of the paper.
1) Nope.
2) If someone gets hurt because of it then the person who was hurt has every right to sue the piss out of the person who caused the harm.
3) I really oughta send you the Editorial Section from the Pensacola News Journal. You think YOU'RE conservative? HA!
What is your response to the accusation that the DNP ignores the consitution wherever it proves inconvenient, given the list of events at the top of the page?
That question is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO biased, it borders on the ludricrious.
And for the record, I would have shipped Elian Gonzales back postage fuckin due!
What is your basis for the belief that an unborn child is not alive?
Define life, bucko. Oh...lemmie guess...white, anglo-saxon protestant, straight (that means hetrosexual BTW), and REPUBLICAN. Everyone else can go to hell according to your lil' world view eh?
I support a gun-free enviornment. This won't be accomplished until the black market in guns is abolished, and we get the guns out of the hands of criminals. It will be done.
See, it all depends on how you interpret the right to own guns. When the Second Ammendment was written, the U.S. did not have a regular standing military as we do today (there are many arguments that our current military is, in fact, un-Constitutional in and of itself).
There are no restrictions in Maryland regarding ownerships of Maryland ... obviously, it's illegal to own an M-16 or an MP-5 or those sorts ... I've got friends who own CAR-15s for Chrissake! The restrictions in Md. are on carrying -- in other words, if you're not in the military or a police officer, it is illegal to carry on your person a handgun. If you're traveling to the shooting range, the gun must be in the trunk or storage area, and any and all ammunition must be locked in the glove box.
You know, I've WALKED around Baltimore at night, on the way to bars, etcetra. I'm not talking about Federal Hill or Fells Point, but some rather dangerous areas of the city. In dark. Baltimore's a dangerous city -- Clancy's descriptions in Without Remorse are rather accurate. The drug trade thrives here, despite the BPD's best efforts otherwise. Baltimore ranks 3rd in the nation for homicides. Yet, I feel no reason to carry a gun for my own safety. I'm a fairly big guy, I work out, people leave me alone. I don't carry very much money on me, and I don't dress "rich" when I'm in Baltimore, therefore not drawing attention to myself. My Jeep is usually rather battered and dirty, so people don't feel the need to acquire a "new" vehicle by robbing me. I'm getting rather off tack here.
I also deliver pizzas for a living. Two years ago, when I started working at Domino's in Columbia, two Papa Johns drivers were robbed at a delivery. One was shot through the jaw (she survived). You know what? Even then I didn't feel the need to carry a gun -- why? Because if you're a cautious driver (utilizing call-backs and the like), then you've no need to fear robbers. Cut back on the amount of money you carry on you (I never carry more than $20 as a bank, for example).
Right. Off the point again -- I'm a bit of a windbag, can you tell?
What studies show guns prevent crimes? You once quoted a number of 2,000,000, Omega, which you said was backed up by the FBI, yet a link you provided actually said the number was 80,000, so I doubt those studies you place so much faith in.
And kindly tell me what is so wrong with requiring people to at least know how to use a firearm before they can buy one? Or be in the correct state of mind to own one? For some reasons, the NRA freaks out about this stuff ("WHAT? They want to limit us to 30-round clips? Dammit, we need FIFTY round clips!").
Frankly, if you can't hit a guy with TEN rounds much less THIRTY, you shouldn't own a gun in the first place, but ...
Church and State
The church can be a great thing. It can also be a very BAAAAD thing. I grew up with prayer in school, but I went to St. John the Baptist School in Silver Spring for grades 1-6. It was nice, but I liked public school better. I don't think kids should be forced to say the Lord's Prayer every morning at 7:30, especially if some kids aren't Christian.
Now, on the other hand, arguing for a moment of silence is something completely different. But not prayer. It's forcing one's beliefs on those of different religions, and is therefore, very much un-Constitutional. Unless of course, you believe that America should be a Christian nation?
China
I didn't say they had good reasons for executing 2,000 people. Well, I take that back. I'm sure they had very good reasons to do so. Same way Fidel would have a good reason to order an execution of someone speaking against him.
You have beliefs on what is right and wrong? How would they apply to the situation described? Is the outcome of said application acceptable to you?
You know, I remember reading once in a newspaper where a cop shot and killed a teenager to prevent said teenager from shooting himself in the head ...
Suicide is sad. It's sad that people choose to take their own lives. It's sad that people can't look around them, and see how wonderful the world is, and to reach out and grasp it and laugh as loud as you can. There's nothing better than shifting into 5th gear as I race down Route 50 towards Ocean City, with the top down, and a gorgeous girl in the passenger seat, and the music blaring. Nothing better than laughing with a girl or some friends at a pool table as we drink beer and laugh away the stress of life. Nothing better then curling up in front of a fire with a good movie on the television as it snows outside, and your cats curled up on the couch next to you as content as ever.
I can't even begin to put myself in a situation where I would even consider suicide. Omega, I can't answer that question, I just can't. It's not that I haven't tried, I have ... but I can't. I can't place myself in that situation, so I won't judge him. I'm sorry, but that's an un-answerable question.
And what DOES this have to do with abortion?
Republican Lies
Considering its what he WON on ...
READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!
And of course, what Quatre said above.
Please somehow distinguish your remarks from others that you're quoting. It's a pain in the ass to have to read through the whole reply, trying to figure out what someone else wrote and you're quoting and what you're replying too, thank you
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 11, 2000).]
Because it's her body, not mine and ultimatly she's gonna have to be the one who gets to live with the fact that she killed her kid.
Could not the same thing be said for, say, the so-called "Christian Scientists?" The parents are the ones that will have to live with the fact that they killed their kid, after all.
And who asked anything about the mother's body? We're talking about the unborn child, not the mother.
IF I had the time and IF I had the resources of the AMA, Library of Congress, and all that rot and interested in drawing up what could possibly a million page report, well I would. Then i'd make you eat it.
So you don't know enough about these programs to give me an analysis, and yet you know the results anyway?
Because he did [use drugs].
Would this not qualify as circular reasoning? "I believe he used drugs because I believe he used drugs."
Find me one country on that planet that HASN'T killed thousands of people.
Is there not a difference between someone who formerly ruled a country a centruy or two back, and someone who actively rules a country? It's not the country China I have a problem with. It's the dictator, Jiang Zamen.
Siamese Twins have nothing, nada, zip, ziltch to do with abortion.
I would disagree. It is an analogous situation, in that it is two beings living in symbiosis. What affects one nesecarily affects the other. Does one Siamese twin have the right to decide for BOTH to die, unilaterally? Does a mother have the right to end her child's life, again, unilaterally? Seems like an analogous situation to me.
Trickle Down Economics (Which was directly CAUSAL to two economic recessions)
I'd love to see how you figure that one. Last I checked, we've only had one major recession since the Reagan tax cut, and that was because of a tax INCREASE.
As for the rest, where's your evidence? In fact, what are you refering to, for some? Your posts seem to be rather disjointed at times.
Define life, bucko.
As death is clinically defined as the absence of a detectable brain wave, life would be defined as the presence of such. A brain wave can be detected at six weeks into the pregnancy.
JK:
I support a gun-free enviornment.
Why?
The restrictions in Md. are on carrying -- in other words, if you're not in the military or a police officer, it is illegal to carry on your person a handgun.
Would this not be a violation of your right to "bear arms?"
Yet, I feel no reason to carry a gun for my own safety. I'm a fairly big guy, I work out, people leave me alone.
Well, if you suddenly disappear from the forums, we'll know what happened, won't we? You think someone with a gun is going to care that your big and work out? Muscle don't stop bullets, mano.
What studies show guns prevent crimes?
"More Guns, Less Crime." By John Lott, IIRC. Available in your local public library.
And kindly tell me what is so wrong with requiring people to at least know how to use a firearm before they can buy one?
Um... that the government was never given the right to do this? What's to prevent the government from upping the standards to an impossible level? There are people that want to ban guns completely (Rosie O'Donnel, anyone?). This would be a simple way to do it. Why should the government have the power to determine whether you can defend yourself or not?
I don't think kids should be forced to say the Lord's Prayer every morning at 7:30, especially if some kids aren't Christian.
Agreed.
But not prayer. It's forcing one's beliefs on those of different religions, and is therefore, very much un-Constitutional.
How exactly does praying around someone force beliefs on them? That's like saying I'm forcing my opinion on you, by telling you what it is. It's not possible to force beliefs or opinions on anyone. Certainly not by speech.
I didn't say they had good reasons for executing 2,000 people.
Nor did I say you did.
And what DOES [suicide] have to do with abortion?
The question you were asked to answer was: "What if one Siamese twin decided to commit suicide, an act which would nearly inevitably lead to the death of the other? How would your beliefs regarding one's right to one's body apply in this situation?"
Oh, and BTW, breaking one's word is a seperate action from premeditated deception. Yeah, he was wrong, not to mention stupid, to trust the DNP congress to cut spending in exchange for a tax increase, and he paid for it with a recession and his second term. But it wasn't a lie. He did not intend to deceive the people of the country.
------------------ "You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..." - Fraser, "due South"
posted
I forgot to address these statements/questions - MY BAD!
Okay...
10) What is your response to the accusation that the DNP ignores the constitution wherever it proves inconvenient, given the list of events at the top of the page?
"The support of the Fairness Doctrine"
This is a bad thing?
"The support of banning firearms"
Since when did banning bullets that can tear through kevlar vests become a bad thing? To say NOTHING of high-number round clips.
"The support of banning school prayer"
I have NEVER heard a Democrat say that.
"The support of Bill Clinton, a man who commited a crime and thus, according to the constitution, should have been removed from office"
What crime would that be? Sex with an intern? Yes, Billy-boy deserved to get smacked down for that one. But I never saw any proof that he committed a crime. And while we're on the issue of supporting politicians who've diddled their secretaries/inters whatever - does the name Bob Packwood ring a bell? And to say nothing of the fact Newt Gingrich was divorcing his infirm wife who was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatments while he was fucking HIS secretary. If you're gonna say Clinton should be reoved from office on that account, then you'll have to toss out damn near everyone Congressman too.
"The DNP inniated attempt in the Senate to dictate what isles food products would be placed in in supermarkets"
Huh? As if they could.
"90% of the programs that FDR implemented"
Some of which YOU will be the recipent of when you get elderly. Historical Fact - said programmes was instituted during the Depression and helped create some of this country's historical landsites/monument.
"The existance of the FCC"
The FCC regulates frequencies for TV, radio, other electronic media. How is the FCC a bad thing?
"The abduction of Elian Gonzales from his court-appointed guardians"
Oh this is RICH. For start...Elian was removed from Cuba by his mother after his parents divorced. The crazy bitch then took herself, him and a few other people and headed for the Florida Keys in a makeshift raft where during the fall/winter season can be some UGLY seas. SHE put her child in dire risk from being killed on said ill-fated journey. His father had LEGAL CUSTODY of his son in the first place. Not the so-call court appointed guardians. THEY were the ones who polticized this whole matter, forcing the "Midnight Raid" just because this country and half of Miami Florida is still pissed off at Fidel Castro. So you would rather keep the kid from his father just because you're pissed at Cuba?
On a side note - the majority of the Cubans who are plucked from the waters off the Keys are generally processed and shipped back to Fidel. But yet NOBODY in the Cuban-American community protests much over this. Not at the same level they did over Elian. Another side note - I also suspect if Elian was black and maybe a Haitian orphan with HIV, he'd be shipped back REALLY fast and the whole incident would be on the back page of the Miami Hearald.
But I digress...
The whole Elian case was a tragedy. Not just for Florida but for us all because I think the time that came for real rapproachment between the US and Cuba came and went and all we did was hurl insults at each other.
Here's another lil' factoid - Technically, it is illegal for any US citizen to travel directly to Cuba. It's one of the provo's in the HIGHLY IMMORAL Helms/Burton Law which also denies any kind aid except in the most extreme emergencies to Cuba. So, there you have a case where not only is US Law is killing children in other countries, but it was also penned and signed by our lovely Republican brothers in Congress.
"Could not the same thing be said for, say, the so-called "Christian Scientists?" The parents are the ones that will have to live with the fact that they killed their kid, after all."
It could. If your kid gets ill and you deliberatly let the kid die while you're busy praying over him/her, then yep, that's murder.
"So you don't know enough about these programs to give me an analysis, and yet you know the results anyway?"
Well, you seem to know that if the Republicans got their way, everything would be skittles and care bears in the country. And just for the record, I don't support every Democrat project that comes down the pike. There have been some that was incrediably ill-concieved.
Would this not qualify as circular reasoning? "I believe he used drugs because I believe he used drugs."
Evidentially you missed him saying that he was involved in a "youthful indiscression". (Which is EXACTLY what he said.) Or maybe you just blotted it out of your mind.
posted
"He did not intend to deceive the people of the country."
And you know this how?
------------------ Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit? ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
My bad AGAIN! I accidentialy hit the reply button...
Back to the subject...
"Is there not a difference between someone who formerly ruled a country a centruy or two back, and someone who actively rules a country? It's not the country China I have a problem with. It's the dictator, Jiang Zamen."
Who happens to be the duly appointed leader of China. Live with it.
"I would disagree. It is an analogous situation, in that it is two beings living in symbiosis. What affects one nesecarily affects the other. Does one Siamese twin have the right to decide for BOTH to die, unilaterally? Does a mother have the right to end her child's life, again, unilaterally? Seems like an analogous situation to me."
So why the hell did you bring up the issue of Siameese twins if it had no bearing?
"I'd love to see how you figure that one. Last I checked, we've only had one major recession since the Reagan tax cut, and that was because of a tax INCREASE."
Wrong! There was one during Reagan's second term and then there was one during George Bush's term.
"As for the rest, where's your evidence? In fact, what are you refering to, for some? Your posts seem to be rather disjointed at times."
My evidence is from experience and from various Governmental sources online. (SELF-CENSEORS snappy comeback about how Omega needs to get his head out of his arse and laid more often for implying that i'm an idiot)
"As death is clinically defined as the absence of a detectable brain wave, life would be defined as the presence of such. A brain wave can be detected at six weeks into the pregnancy."
So? I challenge ALL conservatives here to tell me that while abortion may be bad, state executions aren't. If you're going to have respect for preborn life...why not all life? Even if it is the life of a mass-murderer. You can't it both ways y'know...
posted
"I would disagree. It is an analogous situation, in that it is two beings living in symbiosis. What affects one nesecarily affects the other. Does one Siamese twin have the right to decide for BOTH to die, unilaterally? Does a mother have the right to end her child's life, again, unilaterally? Seems like an analogous situation to me."
You neglect to mention the fact that the unborn child is scientifically unconscious (as opposed to spiritually), while the other Siamese Twin CAN make conscious decisions. You neglect the fact that whatever happens to push one twin to the edge, must also happen to the other twin as well. Since the twins are connected physically and mentally, how are you to know the other twin couldn't consent to the suicide? Analogous situations? You're way off.
------------------ "Solipsism, like other absurdities of the professional philosopher, is a product of too much time wasted in library stacks between the covers of a book, in smoke-filled coffeehouses (bad for the brains) and conversation-clogged seminars. To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he's a liar." --Edward Abbey
Why exactly is a gun-free enviornment a bad thing? Is it because someone else might have a gun and shoot you? Oh, right, gun free enviornment, NO ONE has any guns. Unless you're afraid of the US being invaded, in which case, we'd need guns to fight off enemy troops, right? Which country would invade us, exactly? Canada? Mexico? And do you conveniently forget our military? Or is that what you're afraid of? The United States military coming out and getting you? And why even worry about that? In the end, even the vaunted and feared soldiers of the Soviet Union turned against the generals leading them into a coup and listened to the impassioned words of one Boris Yeltsin, so why would soldiers of the good ole' U.S. of A be any different if ordered into such actions?
And kindly do explain why you need a 30-round clip and kelvar-piercing (aka, cop killing) bullets to defend yourself? It's not like a CAR-15 conceals under your jacket very well, you know? Now, an MP-5, with a collapseable stock, yes, but ... darn ... that's only for police and military use. Good thing, too, its the prefered weapon of terrorists, did you know? Hey, who can blame 'em? Collapseable stock, they come in 10 milimeter firing capacity, silencers ...
I don't fear walking around Baltimore at night. Why should I? Believe it or not, if you get mugged, the guy isn't going to pop you. He just wants your money, and then he'll be gone. I had a guy mug me once. He got the gun out and in my face and then realized the building I had just walked out of was the Baltimore County Police Headquarters in lovely central Towson, Maryland. Suffice to say, yes, it was scary (and I got SOOOO drunk that night), but it was strangely satisfying watch himself pee his pants as about ten cops drew on him. Talk to any cop, Omega. Cooperate, the robber'll leave you alone. Give him your money, and you'll be fine. It's not worth losing your life (or taking his) over a $20 bill. Have you ever killed anyone, Omega? Well, I haven't, but my grandfather has -- over in World War II. Nazis. Worst of the worst. Wanna know something? He still has nightmares about it, every now and then ... not so much anymore. He told me he can see every one of their faces on those nights. Those were Nazis ... how would he feel if he gunned down some poor man who turned to a life of crime through an environment not his fault?
Forgive me for the run-on paragraphs, I just came from "Dungeons & Dragons" and it was the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life -- "Speed 2" was better than this, and that's saying a lot ... part of that may be because I never played "D&D", so nobody take offense and goddammit, I'm doing it again...
John Lott, now there's a reliable source. If I gave a resource as being a speech or report or book by FDR, or Hilary Clinton, you'd shoot it down in a minute, but you expect others to accept a book by John Lott as a reference? Come on ...
Me: I don't think kids should be forced to say the Lord's Prayer every morning at 7:30, especially if some kids aren't Christian
Omega: Agreed
Me: But not prayer. It's forcing one's beliefs on those of different religions, and is therefore, very much un-Constitutional.
Omega: How exactly does praying around someone force beliefs on them? That's like saying I'm forcing my opinion on you, by telling you what it is. It's not possible to force beliefs or opinions on anyone. Certainly not be speech
Is that so, Omega? Where do you get your beliefs from? Your parents? How do they communicate with you? By ... speech, right?
The above statement proves what a ... (ad-hominem self-censored) you are. Kids are impressionable, do you not know that?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
Printer-friendly view of this topic
