To 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter rraley
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
There's a reason for that...
...judges ARE lawyers!
Here's your Freud sandwich for the day: Parents are to children as judges are to lawyers.
It is a childs job and only priority in life to grow up. This mean, by definition, testing the limits, making an argument for ice cream for dinner, later bed times, car usage, more allowance, have friends sleep over on a school night, going to age inappropiate movies and having a TV in their bedroom. So on and so forth, ya da ya da ya.
Is parents job to listen to the given argument, to, in fact, encourage growth and to tell them 'no' flat out first time every time. No. The parents job is limit setting. Setting limits by age and by behavior.
Then, they, the jr. lawyers, learn to polish their act and learn all about the appeals process. When your room is ALREADY clean and your chore ALREADY done then we can discuss you case, going to the movies, in a different light.
And there it is. Judges are to permissive and have allowed the lawyers too many victorys with to little responsibility in exchange.
What would a good parent say to the people suing Micheal Jackson? He would say, to their lawyers, 'shut the #### up and take the trash out. If your client is stupid enough to dump their spawn off at La la land, who am I to intefere? THEY are the parents. THEY judged MJ as OK for their kid. THEY are responsible. Have the kid sue them. They're hurting the kid more than MJ ever did. All they want is money. Tell 'em to get a job."
Pick a case. See what a parent would say.
...judges ARE lawyers!
Here's your Freud sandwich for the day: Parents are to children as judges are to lawyers.
It is a childs job and only priority in life to grow up. This mean, by definition, testing the limits, making an argument for ice cream for dinner, later bed times, car usage, more allowance, have friends sleep over on a school night, going to age inappropiate movies and having a TV in their bedroom. So on and so forth, ya da ya da ya.
Is parents job to listen to the given argument, to, in fact, encourage growth and to tell them 'no' flat out first time every time. No. The parents job is limit setting. Setting limits by age and by behavior.
Then, they, the jr. lawyers, learn to polish their act and learn all about the appeals process. When your room is ALREADY clean and your chore ALREADY done then we can discuss you case, going to the movies, in a different light.
And there it is. Judges are to permissive and have allowed the lawyers too many victorys with to little responsibility in exchange.
What would a good parent say to the people suing Micheal Jackson? He would say, to their lawyers, 'shut the #### up and take the trash out. If your client is stupid enough to dump their spawn off at La la land, who am I to intefere? THEY are the parents. THEY judged MJ as OK for their kid. THEY are responsible. Have the kid sue them. They're hurting the kid more than MJ ever did. All they want is money. Tell 'em to get a job."
Pick a case. See what a parent would say.
ylexot
Super Genius
Just a few notes...IMHO...
2A likes to point out that things like SS are illegal and RR's response is to say that if we followed the Constitution to the letter, we'd have no SS. 2A is right that the Constitution does not give the Fed the power to have something like SS, but that doesn't mean it can't exist. I believe that 2A's problem with such programs is not so much that it exists, but that it did not go through the proper scrutiny that the Constitution requires. The power to do just about anything (national highway system, space exploration, R&D, national internet, whatever), can be had, but Congress needs to go through the amendment process to do these things.
On slavery, I think it should have been a Supreme Court ruling. The law established that you could not enslave a person, but what is a person? If a black is a person (which is an obvious "yes" to me), then they are entitled to the same basic rights as any other person in the country. The states cannot overrule that. This is actually similar to the abortion issue. Is an unborn child/fetus/whatever a person? If yes, then abortion is illegal because that person has basic rights. If no, then it can be legislated one way or the other.
2A likes to point out that things like SS are illegal and RR's response is to say that if we followed the Constitution to the letter, we'd have no SS. 2A is right that the Constitution does not give the Fed the power to have something like SS, but that doesn't mean it can't exist. I believe that 2A's problem with such programs is not so much that it exists, but that it did not go through the proper scrutiny that the Constitution requires. The power to do just about anything (national highway system, space exploration, R&D, national internet, whatever), can be had, but Congress needs to go through the amendment process to do these things.
On slavery, I think it should have been a Supreme Court ruling. The law established that you could not enslave a person, but what is a person? If a black is a person (which is an obvious "yes" to me), then they are entitled to the same basic rights as any other person in the country. The states cannot overrule that. This is actually similar to the abortion issue. Is an unborn child/fetus/whatever a person? If yes, then abortion is illegal because that person has basic rights. If no, then it can be legislated one way or the other.
ylexot said:Really? I guess that makes us distant relatives!
By Jove, he's got it!ylexot said:
If SS had had to go through the proper amendment process so that the federal government actually had the power to do it, there would have been far more scrutiny. There may have been far more thought put into it; population growth and contraction, inflation, real protection for the trust. If it had gone through the process, it might not be in the mess it is in, or they may have come up with a better idea.
Same with the miriad programs that have no constitutional authority. Maybe they would have never been started. Maybe we wouldn't have 15 or 20 different agencies doing almost the same thing.
The founders gave us the proper process. Politicians don't choose to use it, because it limits their power, brings greater scrutiny, brings the people into the process at the state and local levels. I don't see these things as bad.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Bottom line...
...for anyone with a complaint:
...for anyone with a complaint:
Spoiled
Active Member
Regulating the ten commandments is also an 'attack' against islam, they believe in moses, and their prophet re-affirmed them. I would like to see where bibles have been pulled off of shelves in the name of freedom of religion. And Islam is not as present as the other religions in this country, ask 10 kids which countries Medinna and Mecca are in, they wont know. That is because islam isnt popular. Now ask them where Jerusalem is, I bet they know where it is, and if not something about it (relating to Jews or Christians but not Muslims). Now goto the library and ask to see a bible, the torah and the quran, think they will have all of them (not too sure on this one, but it would be intresting).2A said:
edit: and as to the religion of Islam wanting to rule the country, the religion of Islam is very accepting of others. There are parts in the Quran where it speaks of the other 2 major monotheistic religions, and says they have a place in heaven as well. I am sure the muslims which live in the US want to have a theocracy as much as the christians and jews...
Last edited:
Hessian
Well-Known Member
Deluded, confused, naive, deceived, and generally unaware.
Try those terms instead of spoiled.
Islam brings oppression wherever it dominates, it swears vengeance, creates a line of "Faithful" and infidel that shreads tolerance. It crushes human rights, endorses slavery in the Sudan, stomps out free speech, desacrates historic sites...and impresses a fear deeper than Stalinist Russia.
Wake up.
Try those terms instead of spoiled.
Islam brings oppression wherever it dominates, it swears vengeance, creates a line of "Faithful" and infidel that shreads tolerance. It crushes human rights, endorses slavery in the Sudan, stomps out free speech, desacrates historic sites...and impresses a fear deeper than Stalinist Russia.
Wake up.
Spoiled
Active Member
You are talking fundamentalist whabbi islam. Ive met many muslims, from africa, indonesia, the UK, and americaHessian said:
like any religion they have extremeists, and they have moderates... Too bad they are the only ones who get noticed, just like the religious nut-jobs here get all the notice and all the "oh my, he said God" aethiests get it too...edit: how many muslims have you met? where did you meet them? where are they from? how long ago was this?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
*expletive deleted*
You and I have not been reading about the same Islam.
Must be that whole 9/11 thing and all that lead up to it that makes 'em stick out so much, huh? The beheadings, the executions, the bombings...
Like who??? Who in this country is 'just like' Osama or Zaqarwi or Omar or the Taliban?
Name ONE and explain how they are 'just like' these people?
Man, this whole moral equivalency mindset is...*expletive deleted*
People of ALL walks, of ALL faiths, of ALL backgrounds walk the streets of this nation, free to persue their way of life within our Constitutional framework which only limits what they can and cannot impose on others.
Name ONE, just one Islamic nation that can say the same thing. How about just close?
I'll hold my breath.
No, no I won't.
You and I have not been reading about the same Islam.
Must be that whole 9/11 thing and all that lead up to it that makes 'em stick out so much, huh? The beheadings, the executions, the bombings...
Like who??? Who in this country is 'just like' Osama or Zaqarwi or Omar or the Taliban?
Name ONE and explain how they are 'just like' these people?
Man, this whole moral equivalency mindset is...*expletive deleted*
People of ALL walks, of ALL faiths, of ALL backgrounds walk the streets of this nation, free to persue their way of life within our Constitutional framework which only limits what they can and cannot impose on others.
Name ONE, just one Islamic nation that can say the same thing. How about just close?
I'll hold my breath.
No, no I won't.
Thanks Larry, but I doubt that Spoiled will get it. It's that liberal closed mind. That should be an oxymoron but sadly, it is a fact.
Spoiled
Active Member
I asked what Muslims you have talked to... not read about. Do you know any Muslims? Have you talked to any? Have you been around any? As a right winger, you should know how distorted the media is....Larry Gude said:
I don’t know specific people, but I do know the IRA has done many terrorist acts and are Christian, AND THEY WERE AGAINST OTHER CHRISTIANS! What about "The Army of God" and its actions in Alabama?Larry Gude said:
Indonesia and Turkey. You cant blame it all on religion either, after all, it was the Christians, the white people who occupied their nations for years. We had our time being ruled by religion, we had our own movements, they had occupiers. Find me a Muslim nation with problems, anti-west sentiment which wasn’t colonized.Larry Gude said:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Hell yeah...
We go to NYC a bunch and, without fail, our cab drivers are always Muslims. You ask Vrai. I sit in the front and ask 'em about Israel, Arrafat, you name it. Without fail they all think the world could be a better place through compromise. I had a client from Iran but he is not Muslim. He thinks Islam is messed up.
I do think that, compromise, is coming about and I do think it is because W is forcing the issue. It's one thing to decry the great satan and burn our flag if we get hurt at home. It's quite another if we'll come kill yer ass if you kill us. Tunes change.
BZZZZT. Wrong Answer. First off, the IRA ain't us. Second, the name is 'Mcveigh'. As in BBQ. We KILL our freaks when they go overboard.
I'll have to go do some digging but I don't recall Turkey, Persia, Saudi, Syria and a bunch of others ever being colonized.
We go to NYC a bunch and, without fail, our cab drivers are always Muslims. You ask Vrai. I sit in the front and ask 'em about Israel, Arrafat, you name it. Without fail they all think the world could be a better place through compromise. I had a client from Iran but he is not Muslim. He thinks Islam is messed up.
I do think that, compromise, is coming about and I do think it is because W is forcing the issue. It's one thing to decry the great satan and burn our flag if we get hurt at home. It's quite another if we'll come kill yer ass if you kill us. Tunes change.
BZZZZT. Wrong Answer. First off, the IRA ain't us. Second, the name is 'Mcveigh'. As in BBQ. We KILL our freaks when they go overboard.
I'll have to go do some digging but I don't recall Turkey, Persia, Saudi, Syria and a bunch of others ever being colonized.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
So far...
Saudi and Iran look un-conquered by 'the man'.
...
Saudi and Iran look un-conquered by 'the man'.
...
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Looks like the Fench...
...of all people ran things for a bit in Syria.
Sure as hell can't equate French dominion with an anti US stance.
...of all people ran things for a bit in Syria.
Sure as hell can't equate French dominion with an anti US stance.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Looks like the Jordanians have reason...
...to be miffed with Great Britain but, once again, no US colonization here.
...to be miffed with Great Britain but, once again, no US colonization here.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Libya would be justified in having a tiff....
...with the Italians, but, nope, no US colonization here either.
...with the Italians, but, nope, no US colonization here either.
Spoiled
Active Member
Were under the rule of the ottomans, which were pro-west. Their lived were good, no dictators or anything then after WW1 we broke them up (well they lost, we still killed the empire)...Larry Gude said:
Mind you, I said anti-west, not just anti-US. The US is the symbol of the west, we give more influence than we take, we are the most powerful nation. We also have been allied with other western powers throughout every major conflict.
I have talked to muslims which are going to school here, some that were in the UK, some that lived in the US (including a cab driver in phoenix who said Khomeini was a holy man, but messed it up by trying to run the government so strictly). Im not arguing that hardcore religious governments arent good, our own history shows us this. In moderation they arent too bad though, I personaly like the non-religious governments myself though.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
Ah the happy future of Islam...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43245
That's a grim view of what will likely happen as the Iranians near completing their first nuclear bomb. Allah Akbar! There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is his Messenger. (that is what we will hear just after the boom).
How about this gem...
"Im not arguing that hardcore religious governments arent good, our own history shows us this."
Care to elaborate?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43245
That's a grim view of what will likely happen as the Iranians near completing their first nuclear bomb. Allah Akbar! There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is his Messenger. (that is what we will hear just after the boom).
How about this gem...
"Im not arguing that hardcore religious governments arent good, our own history shows us this."
Care to elaborate?