Quite right----Dont bring up slavery though, because that will open the whole other can of worms about things like the teabaggers movement and healthcare.... and how race is NOT AT ALL a huge factor involved this current political scene with the ultra right wing nutjobs, and its really all about peoples rights and protecting the unborn (lol).
I'm sorry. Did you just call me, and anyone else associate with the Tea Party racists? And tea baggers? I think you need to take a break from arguing for a while.
Regardless of any semantics, the legal truth is set by the Supreme Court. So, when the Supreme Court held that slavery was compatible with the Constitution, that was the truth? Your question has been answered by several people.
I never said the Supreme Court was always " morally right." At the time, yes that decision made it the legal truth of the day. Thank god it was changed. However you are wrong, nobody has shown where in the Constitution anywhere that free speech is limited. You quoted part of the Declaration of Independence, yet that is not what dictates the law in this country and does not change what the First Amendment says at all. There is nothing saying that free speech is limited from corporations. If you don't like it, then campaign to amend the Constitution, not blame the Supreme Court and call them a "gang of 5" for doing their job just because you don't agree with it.
On consideration, I must admit that the "gang of 5" remark was over-the-top, disrespectful, and I retract it. I'm new to this medium of communication, and it is easy to get carried away, I apologize for that. Concerning free speech, I refer you to (if memory serves me correctly) the decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes. I do not truly consider this most recent decision to be about free speech, I think the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens says it better than I can. I believe that you believe that you are speaking FOR freedom, I applaud that, I'm just not sure you're on the right track.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Regardless of any semantics, the legal truth is set by the Supreme Court. So, when the Supreme Court held that slavery was compatible with the Constitution, that was the truth? Your question has been answered by several people.
I never said the Supreme Court was always " morally right." At the time, yes that decision made it the legal truth of the day. Thank god it was changed. However you are wrong, nobody has shown where in the Constitution anywhere that free speech is limited. You quoted part of the Declaration of Independence, yet that is not what dictates the law in this country and does not change what the First Amendment says at all. There is nothing saying that free speech is limited from corporations. If you don't like it, then campaign to amend the Constitution, not blame the Supreme Court and call them a "gang of 5" for doing their job just because you don't agree with it.
On consideration, I must admit that the "gang of 5" remark was over-the-top, disrespectful, and I retract it. I'm new to this medium of communication, and it is easy to get carried away, I apologize for that. Concerning free speech, I refer you to (if memory serves me correctly) the decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes. I do not truly consider this most recent decision to be about free speech, I think the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens says it better than I can. I believe that you believe that you are speaking FOR freedom, I applaud that, I'm just not sure you're on the right track.
Well considering the ruling was that corporations can spend money on political advertising, and not directly to campaigns, I don't see how this can be anything but free speech.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
afterthought:
if i am offered a bribe and accept it, i am just as bad as, if not worse than, the person offering. just because a big business offers bribes to politicians (on both sides) doesnt mean the politicians have to take them. but they (on both sides) do this to me may be a bigger problem then the corporations themselves.
what is also interesting is that if this bill passes there will be MORE corporate entanglement with the government. we will all be mandated to buy insurance. isnt that the insurance industry entangling with the government? wont they just have more lobbying leverage?
Interesting point. That's just it, there should be some sort of line if you will. Obviously elected officials cannot take bribes or money directly, but for some reason voting on some bill either for or against solely for the interest of a group that will run ads for you would be the same thing. As you are not doing what you were put in office to do. That would be to do the will of the people who put you in office, the majority of the people in your district or state. Take financial regulatory reform. Chris Dodd has a bill which just came out of committee. I have not read it but I have heard that it does some good things to reign in the frivolous acts that have been done in the financial sector which lead up to this huge meltdown. Though from what I can remember there is to be a oversight comittee ran by the FED instead of an independent organization. Which to me is just not going to work. It's like having the head of the FED a former exec from the very business's who they are suppose to be watching (which is what we have now) Also Dodd has said that he will fight an audit of the FED which passed the house which is something that really needs to be done. Now going back to what we were talking about earlier, why is he and others so against it? Shouldn't the govt find out what the FED is doing and has done? After all they oversee the US's interests and have giving Trillions but will not show where or what they went too. That is yours, mine and every citizens money they have given out.
Seems to me that he and many others are doing the will of people other than who they represent and in the best interest of this country. How to stop it? Well that's tough. Yes I'm sure it could never be stopped as people are greedy and when in power they change. Then again some people are just that way. But having stricter laws prohibiting them from doing these things would certainly help. I heard somewhere that if you want to run for congress you need to be raising apprx 2500 dollars a day and that's a low estimate. Now how are people suppose to do that without having ties to donors? I'm sure it's tough. Some where along the lines it became more about making money than doing what is best for the growth of this country.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
The three most important women in my life were raped at one point in their lives. I'm a huge supporter of Pro-Choice! This is one of the very few reasons I can't vote Republican. If it wasn't about moralities, I'd probably vote Republican every time, but their moral agenda always leaves me no choice.
ps.... I'm not trying to argue to anyone that their opinion about abortion is wrong. This is just my instinct feeling of what is right. I respect and understand why some would have a different opinion than mine.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
Unbelievable.
Oh come one people! How many times have you looked at someone and said, "Damn! That person should really never be allowed to reproduce?" Some of you are probably thinking that about Vulchor and Squirrel right now. ((((this is said half joking.... because I know it's hard to show sarcasm while typing))))
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
**** HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???" You and I should propose this to congress and we could truly say it is a bipartisan proposal! hahaha
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
Unbelievable.
no dude, really. I was in a apt last week and 2 women just hade babies, one was on her third strike and while I was there she was saying she couldn't go to the store or she might have to stab this woman (woman was not named nor any story given to why this was said). Both dads were in jail for some crime. The other woman seemed more upstanding though she and the other were complaining about being broke and mad that their welfare check hasn't come yet and that they were going to be short for rent as they just bought a new tv. So they were hounding the mom of one of them for money to pay for smokes and rent. So while I was getting done one started to smoke a bong while they had their child right next to them. The other who was nursing was smoking. so you see these children will grow up in this world with these people teaching them. Who knows maybe even wind up in foster care. It's easy to get knocked up and have a kid, it's really tough to be able to support that kid and give it a life that will benefit it in a positive way.
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
**** HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???"
lol, holly crap a huge wedge issue and you and I seem to find some sort of common ground. Though it may be a violation of rights but what about the child? The child has no idea what kind of life they will have or get. Why should they be punished by their parents lack of responsibility? I've often wondered this but I usually get called things for saying it. And I would think it would appease those people who wish to tell a woman they can't do something with their body if they wish... There would be no abortions.
Ohhh yeah baby. I'm gonna go Pop some pop-corn for this one !! LMAO
This has been and WILL be my only comment on this thread.
OK Get 'em Pheebs and Vulchor,
One more thing comes to mind here... JP will you ask that lady in your avitar to STOP playing with herself like that...it's distracting. You know when I think of you, I see her, but I don't mean that in a sick way or anything
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
**** HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???"
lol, holly crap a huge wedge issue and you and I seem to find some sort of common ground. Though it may be a violation of rights but what about the child? The child has no idea what kind of life they will have or get. Why should they be punished by their parents lack of responsibility? I've often wondered this but I usually get called things for saying it.
Yea, check my last edit where I added something. I think it's a golden idea! lmfao
Ohhh yeah baby. I'm gonna go Pop some pop-corn for this one !! LMAO
This has been and WILL be my only comment on this thread.
OK Get 'em Pheebs and Vulchor,
One more thing comes to mind here... JP will you ask that lady in your avitar to STOP playing with herself like that...it's distracting. You know when I think of you, I see her, but I don't mean that in a sick way or anything
Oh come on Laker, don't let this be your only comment... What are you thoughts on the sport of Midget tossing? lol
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
**** HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???"
lol, holly crap a huge wedge issue and you and I seem to find some sort of common ground. Though it may be a violation of rights but what about the child? The child has no idea what kind of life they will have or get. Why should they be punished by their parents lack of responsibility? I've often wondered this but I usually get called things for saying it.
Yea, check my last edit where I added something. I think it's a golden idea! lmfao
Freak and Squirrel here... Yes Mr. President here is our proposal for balancing the budget and for getting rid of this abortion issue......
Ohhh yeah baby. I'm gonna go Pop some pop-corn for this one !! LMAO
This has been and WILL be my only comment on this thread.
OK Get 'em Pheebs and Vulchor,
One more thing comes to mind here... JP will you ask that lady in your avitar to STOP playing with herself like that...it's distracting. You know when I think of you, I see her, but I don't mean that in a sick way or anything
Oh come on Laker, don't let this be your only comment... What are you thoughts on the sport of Midget tossing? lol
JP I am not advocating abortion or pro-life, I am simply stating we cannot demand less money on services, health care, etc. and also say that every accidental ejactulation deserves a name----Supreme Court says the same. Women who are below the federal poverty level are 4x more likely to have an abortion-----these are the same ones who use food stamps, medicaid, and other entitlement programs. If you advocate that these are too rampant and should not be as widely used----then abortion is a good way to keep the spending as low as possible.
You ARE advocating abortion and your rationale behind is reminiscint of **** Germany. You have gone out of your way to point out that poor people are more likely to rob a child of their RIGHT to life and then said that abortion is all good because of it. Survival of the fittest right? Your logic is disgusting.
Not to stir up sh*t, but in my line of work I run into people who should be sterile and not be able to breed at all. I'm not for abortion unless it really needed as the Hyde Amendment lays out. Maybe there needs to be a program instituted that when born we are sterilized. And if we want to have children later in life and if we meet a criteria to where the child and the family would be able to have a good environment we get un-sterilized. Simply there would be a better chance for happier families, less dependence on Govt for aid and less crime and children in harm.
**** HILARIOUS!!! I honestly can't argue with you on this one! Of course it would be wrong and a HUGE violation of rights, but trust me, working in law enforcement I see people everyday that just can't help but think, "why are these people allowed to breed???"
lol, holly crap a huge wedge issue and you and I seem to find some sort of common ground. Though it may be a violation of rights but what about the child? The child has no idea what kind of life they will have or get. Why should they be punished by their parents lack of responsibility? I've often wondered this but I usually get called things for saying it.
Yea, check my last edit where I added something. I think it's a golden idea! lmfao
Freak and Squirrel here... Yes Mr. President here is our proposal for balancing the budget and for getting rid of this abortion issue......
Yea, and clearly addressing ourselves as "Freak and Squirrel" will just add to our credibility! lol
Ohhh yeah baby. I'm gonna go Pop some pop-corn for this one !! LMAO
This has been and WILL be my only comment on this thread.
OK Get 'em Pheebs and Vulchor,
One more thing comes to mind here... JP will you ask that lady in your avitar to STOP playing with herself like that...it's distracting. You know when I think of you, I see her, but I don't mean that in a sick way or anything
Oh come on Laker, don't let this be your only comment... What are you thoughts on the sport of Midget tossing? lol
Ohhh yeah baby. I'm gonna go Pop some pop-corn for this one !! LMAO
This has been and WILL be my only comment on this thread.
OK Get 'em Pheebs and Vulchor,
One more thing comes to mind here... JP will you ask that lady in your avitar to STOP playing with herself like that...it's distracting. You know when I think of you, I see her, but I don't mean that in a sick way or anything
Oh come on Laker, don't let this be your only comment... What are you thoughts on the sport of Midget tossing? lol
Ummm, I don't really know.
Can I throw 'em at people who watch Fox News? :P
What if you threw the midgets little people AT FOX News?
Ohhh yeah baby. I'm gonna go Pop some pop-corn for this one !! LMAO
This has been and WILL be my only comment on this thread.
OK Get 'em Pheebs and Vulchor,
One more thing comes to mind here... JP will you ask that lady in your avitar to STOP playing with herself like that...it's distracting. You know when I think of you, I see her, but I don't mean that in a sick way or anything
Oh come on Laker, don't let this be your only comment... What are you thoughts on the sport of Midget tossing? lol
Ummm, I don't really know.
Can I throw 'em at people who watch Fox News? :P
What if you threw the midgets little people AT FOX News?
Maybe MSNBC should broadcast midget tossing! It couldn't hurt their ratings any! hahaha
Ohhh yeah baby. I'm gonna go Pop some pop-corn for this one !! LMAO
This has been and WILL be my only comment on this thread.
OK Get 'em Pheebs and Vulchor,
One more thing comes to mind here... JP will you ask that lady in your avitar to STOP playing with herself like that...it's distracting. You know when I think of you, I see her, but I don't mean that in a sick way or anything
Oh come on Laker, don't let this be your only comment... What are you thoughts on the sport of Midget tossing? lol
Ummm, I don't really know.
Can I throw 'em at people who watch Fox News? :P
What if you threw the midgets little people AT FOX News?
Maybe MSNBC should broadcast midget tossing! It couldn't hurt their ratings any! hahaha
I think it's entirely possible it would HELP their ratings! They certainly can't get any worse... or can they? dun dun duh...
Puro, we should write this day down-----cause Squirrel, you, and I are in agreement on something I work closely with LE on my current job, and worked as a Child Protective Investigator for 4 years. It didnt make me turn pro-choice, but it did NOTHING to make me feel every couple should be bringing a kid into the world.
Soooo many become financial burdens to society, do not contribute positively, and continue the chain of dysfunction that is all they have known for generations. In a perfect world they use protection, or dont screw----but we know thats not happening. Unfortunate, and I wish education would help....but the fact is that those people who have abortions are by-in-large taking up more resources and giving less back to the system that those not having abortions. Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
That protects life for those who are alive, not fetuses that are unwanted----you need to check Roe vs Wade for that one. Again, I am not pro-choice (unless certain circumstances), but despite how I may look like a total liberal here...I am not for paying for peoples need from cradle to gave either. Nor do I think matters like this need to be rehashed, as decisions have been made.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
So what happens when two "inherent and inalienable rights" intersect in contridiction to each other? You argue the fetus' right to life is most important, others argue the woman's right to the pursuit of happiness is most important. Though I do love every aspect of our Declaration of Independence (A framed and matted copy of it hangs on the wall at the entrance of my home), it also certainly must be pointed out that we are not governed by it.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
So what happens when two "inherent and inalienable rights" intersect in contridiction to each other? You argue the fetus' right to life is most important, others argue the woman's right to the pursuit of happiness is most important. Though I do love every aspect of our Declaration of Independence (A framed and matted copy of it hangs on the wall at the entrance of my home), it also certainly must be pointed out that we are not governed by it.
heh, I think the right to life takes precedence over happiness!
Also two more of these whacho's are being investigate by the secret service and FBI for saying they want Obama dead and if they were in Washington would do it themselves. Not to mention the spitting on congressman, calling them the N word. It's one thing to be against someone's policies but to do violence against them is another. Also I'm very surprised that these acts haven't been stricken down by the GOP.
Also two more of these whacho's are being investigate by the secret service and FBI for saying they want Obama dead and if they were in Washington would do it themselves. Not to mention the spitting on congressman, calling them the N word. It's one thing to be against someone's policies but to do violence against them is another. Also I'm very surprised that these acts haven't been stricken down by the GOP.
Kinda like all the hateful stuff that was said about Bush was vehemently condemned by the left wing media, and the democratic party, huh?
Comments
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Seems to me that he and many others are doing the will of people other than who they represent and in the best interest of this country. How to stop it? Well that's tough. Yes I'm sure it could never be stopped as people are greedy and when in power they change. Then again some people are just that way. But having stricter laws prohibiting them from doing these things would certainly help. I heard somewhere that if you want to run for congress you need to be raising apprx 2500 dollars a day and that's a low estimate. Now how are people suppose to do that without having ties to donors? I'm sure it's tough. Some where along the lines it became more about making money than doing what is best for the growth of this country.
ps.... I'm not trying to argue to anyone that their opinion about abortion is wrong. This is just my instinct feeling of what is right. I respect and understand why some would have a different opinion than mine.
This has been and WILL be my only comment on this thread.
OK Get 'em Pheebs and Vulchor,
One more thing comes to mind here... JP will you ask that lady in your avitar to STOP playing with herself like that...it's distracting. You know when I think of you, I see her, but I don't mean that in a sick way or anything
Can I throw 'em at people who watch Fox News? :P
Soooo many become financial burdens to society, do not contribute positively, and continue the chain of dysfunction that is all they have known for generations. In a perfect world they use protection, or dont screw----but we know thats not happening. Unfortunate, and I wish education would help....but the fact is that those people who have abortions are by-in-large taking up more resources and giving less back to the system that those not having abortions. Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
Also two more of these whacho's are being investigate by the secret service and FBI for saying they want Obama dead and if they were in Washington would do it themselves. Not to mention the spitting on congressman, calling them the N word. It's one thing to be against someone's policies but to do violence against them is another. Also I'm very surprised that these acts haven't been stricken down by the GOP.