(chortle!) You should try paying attention to the thread you're participating in. I know, I know. I'm so unreasonably demanding. Well, in the first place, tubal ligation is probably a better option than actually removing all the ova. I mean, if a guy doesn't want to father children? What do you think? Vasectomy or outright castration? Do you know how birth control pills work? I mean, that's the first thing. Secondly, the Mississippi just went through this question, and banning the pill as part of an anti-abortion policy was too much even for that conservative state. No, really. There were elections in November. Did you not pay attention? Well, that's the thing. If you don't investigate suspicion of homicide, you create a federal case. So ... the whole life-at-conception thing is what, toothless window dressing? An example of forced hospitalization is irrelevant? Is this what "libertarians" call "logic"? What strange realms you encounter along your tangential flight. You still don't seem to grasp the implications of life-at-conception as a legal standard. To revisit a statement that you parsed out of context in order to foster a self-satisfied tangent: If life-at-conception installs in a fetus all human rights demanded for those who exist without dependence on another human being for biological function, then due process and equal protection demand that no potential fetal homicide go without investigation. Or, to revisit what I wrote in October: Meanwhile, how do you propose to enforce the law? Did a woman fail to report an unusual or off-schedule vaginal discharge of blood? Open a case file, then. Investigate her sex life; has she had any sexual contact with a man in the last month? Yes? Okay, now the government needs to force her to undergo a gynecological exam in order to make certain that the discharge wasn't a miscarriage. Did a woman get pregnant and have a miscarriage? Open a case file, then. Investigate her diet, her wardrobe, her everything. Did she slam on the brakes in her car to avoid hitting a child who ran into the street? Maybe the seat belt caused the miscarriage. Uh-oh, now the government is going to file some kind of homicide charges, since she did not just stayed at home like a good woman should. Did she trip over someone's chair mat at the office and catch herself against a desk? Do we know that she didn't fall against the desk? Well, she did not stay at home like a good woman should. Is it a mysterious miscarriage? Did she consume any alcohol? Smoke a cigarette? Encounter second-hand smoke when she failed to stay home like a good woman should? How about this: Should the government force pregnant women to remain hospitalized and under direct medical supervision throughout her term of pregnancy? Or, perhaps, this one: When I was in high school, one of my teachers conceived. That "person", as you would hold the growing organism, developed into an anencephalitic fetus. That she chose to attempt to carry the organism to term despite it having zero chance of being born alive—apparently hoping that God would reach out His hand to change His will and give this thing a brain—and nearly died as a result is actually immaterial to the present discussion unless you wish to install an arbitrary "life of the mother" clause. Rather, what is the legal status of that "person" inside her body? You know, that "person" with no brain and no life? After all, it's a "person" from the moment of conception. Pregnancy is a seemingly unique circumstance insofar as it is one of the only "property" fights to take place within a human being's body. Of course, we could always argue about whether or not one conjoined twin has the right to demand severance at the stake of the other twin. Whose body is it? Life at conception; the human body as real estate. And no, you didn't want to go through that back in October. Actually, while I'm not surprised that's what you get out of it, what I really want is for a life-at-conception advocate to explain how the law works. For instance— —it would seem that you're suggesting that giving a blastula a full complement of human rights would have no impact on society in terms of law enforcement. Actually, what you're missing is that not everyone treats the law like a pretty bauble to dazzle the cult. Some of us actually recognize that laws have functional impacts. As you said: • "When did you explain this?" • "And we went through that?" Don't think nobody sees through your pretense. Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters.
Ya we went through it and it was clear we disagreed. I am not inclined to continue something which I know has no resolution and you won't get because of your view of government. For the sake of argument yes it would be "toothless".
Or a Libertarian. Yes, they do that. But then they lose. I would too. But the GOP won't nominate him, and he won't make it as a third party candidate.
And in this case the American public was stuck with the bill - while 99% of those who immorally profited and should have gone bust continue to game the system and continue to profit. Oh BS yourself. So a couple dimwits got one over on us. Get over it. Did you hear about the 56 year old veteran (working a pizza delivery boy because he can't get decent work) that was shot in the stomach by some teens as he delivered a pizza - for his wallet? Well, he died last week. Believe me there's many MANY more people dieing from violence in the USA than terrorists could ever HOPE to achieve. Now put 2 and 2 together - these laws are to monitor US and now to put US Citizens in prison. Obama already assassinated a teenage American Citizen. Jesus. So, now you're fully behind Bush and Cheney?? Pffff you're no liberal Joe. It's fine by me. I think Libertarians will take in a decent amount of disenfranchised 'real' Liberals like me - as well as some neocons .... I didn't say "destruction", I said severely reducing the influence of .... eventually resulting in monetary competition. Why has more influence over our economy (and thus Liberty) - Obama, Congress or Ben Bernanke? This is a little further than "issue with" Joe. Obama has crossed the Rubicon in terms of Liberal politics. He's a Neocon - no wonder you love him!
More BS. A LOT of Americans did VERY well from the housing bubble. Realtors made a mint on their commissions, house appraisers were making money hand over fist, title companies kept recycling the same title data but charging for it, Closing Lawyers were making a mint, Mortgage Originators were flush with commission checks, Globally investors were raking in high returns on risky MB Securities for over a decade (and spending the income) and then there were the many millions of Americans who "Cashed Out", selling their way over priced homes for a bundle and moving to where the costs were a LOT lower. There were Millions more Americans who took out Equity loans, spent the money on cars, vacations, electronics etc and then when it went belly up and they lost their house, they walked away from these debts, by the BILLIONS, which is why so many banks went under. I know you don't think that WE THE PEOPLE were in any way responsible or profited from this, but you are wrong. I know too many people who made small fortunes in the housing bubble run up, saw the writing on the wall and got out before the bubble burst. They are not at all unhappy about what happened, and they aren't bankers either, they are in fact just regular people. No, not get over it. Prevent it from happening again. They weren't dimwits. It was a fairly well planned attack, and they spent about 5 years and $500,000 to carry it out. The DIRECT cost, not counting the intangible value of the ~3,000 people killed, to our infrastructure and economy was about $200 Billion dollars.
Because a third party invariably hurts the party they are most in common with thus almost insuring the election of the party they have the least in common with.
Ron Paul's Supporters: "China Jon" Ron Paul's Supporters Like I said, Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters. A person or group of people operating under the name NHLiberty4Paul posted at YouTube an astoundingly racist spot that even went after Huntsman's adopted daughters, and is so severe that Paul's campaign, presently dogged by other accusations of the candidate's racism, has rebuked the advert: The video, posted to YouTube by someone identifying him- or herself as a Paul supporter (the username is "NHLiberty4Paul"), is at left. It shows Huntsman, the former U.S. ambassador to China, talking to his adopted daughter in Mandarin, deems him "The Manchurian Candidate" and asks "what's he hiding?" Over generic Chinese-themed music, it asks if "China Job's daughters" are "even adopted" and caricatures him as former Chinese leader Mao Zedong. The video ends with a call to vote for Paul. "The video is disgusting," Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton told Hotsheet, adding that whoever "put that up should remove it immediately." (Montopoli) It really is one of the most ridiculous, nauseating political hits I've ever seen. And it will be problematic for Dr. Newsletter if he just leaves this to his campaign chairman to handle. I would expect we'll be hearing from Rep. Paul himself soon; this is not something that can be left to fester. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "China Jon": A dirty trick from the Huntsman campaign? To the other, we can expect Paul's supporters to at least wonder if someone in New Hampshire isn't trying to frame them. In the context of being one of their candidate's biggest electoral hinderances, it's the best they can hope for. Indeed, that response has already started: Jon Huntsman, according to one YouTube commenter, must have done it: The first referral is from Huntsman's site. This is a dirty trick from Huntsman's campaign. Notice how he and his daughters were prepared to go on Fox within an hour of it getting posted. Don't believe this. Fuck Huntsman for trying to pull this. Its a sad day in America when people can try this shit and get away with it.____________________ Notes: Montopoli, Brian. "Paul campaign: Anti-Huntsman 'Manchurian Candidate' video 'disgusting'". Political Hotsheet. January 6, 2012. CBSNews.com. January 6, 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...ntsman-manchurian-candidate-video-disgusting/ NHLiberty4Paul. "Jon Huntsman's Values". YouTube. January 4, 2012. January 6, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZeVqj-t1U0
Brilliant ad. I say we do more of this, start PACs to make ads that seem to be in favor of one candidate but actually make them look bad because it's so over the top. Maybe they will change their mind about allowing unlimited private financing of campaign ads.
Hmmmm. So is it okay for a state to mess with an individuals freedom of expression? Indiana bill would outlaw singing national anthem ‘inappropriately’ At least with a federal system in place, there is a means of recourse. "This makes me want to fly to Indiana, book a gig singing the anthem at a football game, sing it completely incorrectly, and get fined. I'd refuse to pay it, and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Over a $25 fine." -Phil Plait on Google+ (The Bad Astronomer)
Well that's not what they are doing. The legislation doesn't prevent you from singing it any way you want. BUT at scheduled performances at State schools, the legislation would require performers to sign a contract agreeing to follow guidelines established by the State Department of Education. Those who failed to abide by the guidelines would be fined $25 for breaking the contract. So it doesn't really inhibit freedom of expression, just makes sure the schools get what they paid for. Still, as innocuous as it is, it might not be enforceable, I mean what if you screwed up a verse accidentally?
It's Indiana It's Indiana. Typically, these sorts of dumb laws are more of a chuckle than anything else. To the one, this sounds exactly like the sort of moronic crap we've been suffering out of the "middle America" identity politic in recent years. To the other, if the bill passes, so much for the idea of "small government" Republicans. After all, I can't think of a better expansion of state Department of Education dollars than archiving and reviewing performances of the national anthem. I wonder what the job title will be: Anthem Compliance Review Manager? Secretary of Überpatriots? In the end, I just shrug and say, "It's Indiana." (Okay, okay, and then I wonder what they would do to someone who tried to sing all four stanzas. As a poem, they work fine, but trying to set the other stanzas to the music is a little difficult, and requires some license.)
I disagree: The bill was proposed by Sen. Vaneta Becker (R). She told The Indianapolis Star that it was inspired by a constituent who emailed her after being upset by a parody of the “Star-Spangled Banner.” “Sometimes it’s just done in a joking manner,” Becker said. “But I don’t think the national anthem is something we ought to be joking around with.”I think that, in the context of Becker's own words, that's precisely what the point of the legislation is. Yes it does. The bill was inspired by a performance made by a student on school grounds. She changed the tune, not the words. Same thing that happens any time you accidentaly break the law (for example, when you accidentaly speed, or accidentaly fail to stop), it gets enforced, because ignorance is not a defense.
What it was inspired by, and even spoken about (for possible political gain) has nothing to do with the actual legislation which was submitted. Which simply says to perform the NA at a sponsored event you have to sign a contract and agree to do it correctly, or pay a 25$ fine that you agreed to pay. The law as written doesn't have anything to do with anyone who hasn't signed that contract nor does it say that someone can't do Jimmy's version of the SSB or any other variation at other events. Again, it's not legislation that has been passed, just proposed. My guess is it probably won't pass because it's just too much of a pain in the ass to enforce.
Not necessarily, that would depend on the wording of that contract, which might very well allow for accidental errors.
OK so far I agree. No I don't. Me too. It's not preventable. Just ask Joe. He was so sure the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act had the banks pinned down. It did nothing. Just ask Corzine's customers when he pilfered their personal accounts as he illegally gambled away their life's savings. Notice I'm not suggesting anarchy, I'm suggesting we need the rule of law and market outcome. In this case we got neither. Arthur you are never going to be safe from terrorists. All a "terrorist" has to do is board a plane, fly to America, buy a knife at Walmart, stab you. See, it's not possible to pass enough laws to make your life perfectly safe. You're much more likely to be hit by a drunk driver. So? Want to ban the sale of alcohol? You're much more likely to be mugged if you're in the inner city. Want to turn the cities into complete police states? And Arthur's answer is YES, take my Liberty, give me a chain and I'll carry your water for you master. My feeling you and Joe would have sided with the King. You for security and Joe for stability. You'd have made the argumen that it was illegal to attempt to over throw centuries of aristocracy and Joe would have said there was no proof life in a Republic was any better and that it was scientifically proven the blue bloods should rule the rabble. As for me, I'll take my chances with the goat f8cking scary "Islamic Terrorists" any day. :shrug: Do you have ANY idea of much the wars have cost thus far? 4 TRILLION dollars. Do you have ANY idea how many American families have been decimated? Husbands killed. Mother's returning home after having been raped. Solders missing limbs, eyes, noses, ears, ... and walking into an economy that shits on them and a public that couldn't give two shits about the wars and are more interested with Who Want's to Be a Millionaire Douche Like Corzine. Talk about a tragedy.
Except MF Global was NOT a bank and there were no insured deposits. MF Global was a financial derivatives broker. Actually it's still being unraveled, you might want to wait to find what the outcome is before you start assigning blame. Not asking to make my life perfectly safe. Doesn't mean I don't think we should go after organized terrorists though. Nope, but I want it restricted to people over 21, and I want severe penalties for those who drink and drive. And you know what, it seems to be working as alcohol related deaths per year have declined from 26,173 in 1982 to 16,885 in 2005, which considering the far greater number of drivers is quite significant. Which is complete BS. My life and my liberty is just as free today as it was on 2001. You on the other hand appear to be one of the most paranoid people about the government that I've ever run across. Convinced that they are out to get you. What a joke. Ooooh, the big bad guvmint is buying all those coffins and getting ready to round us up.... Ooooh, the big bad guvmint is (fill in BS conspiracy here)...... See ya. Though I doubt you would last a week in Afghanistan before coming back begging to be let back into the US. Nah, huge overstatement. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/cost-graphic.html Besides do you have any idea how much WW2 cost? Should we not have fought that war? Yeah, sometimes you have to fight for what you believe in. We do have a Volunteer Military you know.
He stole their money Arthur and he will walk away laughing. Yes, we will. See, here I agree. Osama could have been captured in a few months. Iraq was a total side show. OMG, you agree that the RULE of LAW actually seems to work over Big Government??? I don't see what the age needs to be 21 though. It's only 19 in Canada. 20 in Japan. 18 in Australia. It's not a conspiracy, I already think there's too much Government. Do I think FEMA camps are being built to round up Citizens? No. DO I think the government it WAY TOO intrusive yes. It used to be the government was OPEN and our lives were PRIVATE. Now, it's exactly the opposite. The government is secretive (example: Fed, Pentagon, etc...) and we're being spied on. The next thing you know you'll tell me you support SOPA :bugeye: I'm saying I'll take my changes AGAINST them - I'm not going to go live with goat f8ckers Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It says 3.3 TRILLION officially. You do understand how much the Pentagon wastes? Toss in another 0.5 Trillion just to start. The Imperial Nation of Japan and Nazi Germany were a little bit different than Goat F*ckers in Afghanistan. That sign on to defend the Nation, not to be used like pawns for the Military Industrial Complex (ex: Halliburton).
