Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on May 23, 2004, 10:21:07 am
-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/
everyone write emails to all your House Reps for your state condemning this attack on the constitution.
If one of those sponsors (They're all Republicans) is your rep - DO NOT RELEECT THE BASTARD
-
I think you meant Don't re-elect the bastard...
-
yes i do
-
There are three branches of government for a reason people! It is meant to be a system of checks and balances, but that doesn't work if one branch can override the decisions of the other.
well, at least they didn't go all out and give this power to the Prez.
-
OMFG....**** needs to go.
-
The NEOCONSERVATIVES need to go
now days thats most of the republican party
-
why oh why are they screwin with something thats worked for so many years....
Edit: they are being stupid really stupid!
-
because it keeps them from imposing their unilateralist hyperconservative theocracy-wanting views on the country
-
because the way it has worked is not the way they want it to work. Same thing with not declaring war, which takes Congress out of the loop. Or really any of Ashcroft's little escapades to give supreme authority to himself and Dubya.
there has been a huge push in the past year or two, to give dictatorial-like powers to the President and a small group of loyal followers within the government. The fact that **** can, at will, declare someone an "enemy combatant" and thereby strip them of any legal rights is just one of the million little factors that go into ensuring that power is hoarded by a select few.
Originally posted by neo_hermes
Edit: they are being stupid really stupid!
no, they are being very, very smart. This isn't stupidity, it is malicousness.
-
My God, they REALLY are terrified of Gay Marraiges aren't they?
If that got through, then you are no longer a Democracy, it's as simple as that, you are an Authoritarion state, your laws and your rights will both be defined by the same group, with no-one to represent the public interest :(
-
Well, how odd.
The country that constantly claims it is a "free" nation now tries to eleminate the trias politica. (Seperation of Lawmaking, Judging and Enforcing.) And this is the country our own PM would be so happy to follow. How odd indeed.
Anyhow, does anybody know if this has any more support then just one idiot Senator and his clique?
-
Thchnically, this itself is unconstitutional...
How to contact your Representatives: (From Stupid White Men, by Michael Moore)
- Call 1-202-224-3121 --- The US capitol switchboard, just tell them your zip code and they'll transfer you to your representative.
- Write to:
Office of Senator [Name], United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; or to:
Office of Representative [Name], United States House of Representatives, Washington DC, 20510
- Email: For senators, go to www.senate.gov/contacting/index_by_state.cfm ; for Representatives, go to www.house.gov/writerep/
- Send a tellegram: Call Western Usion--- 1-800-325-6000 --- or visit their website www.westernunion.com
Come on people... I've already called the one from my state, you do the same...
-
Well, if I lived in the States I sure would.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
Well, if I lived in the States I sure would.
seconded.
this is what a referendum is for, and let the people vote on the changes to the funamental workings of a country.
-
After further consideration, it might be a good idea to remember that lawmaking by pure jurisprudention puts the power in the hands of the judges, and not only the judging power, but also the lawmaking power. The judges are nominated by the president, right? Now what tells you about the power of the president, if he controlls the judging, and the lawmaking power, while being the executing power himself?
-
It's actually a very good idea. They're trying to make sure they can fu[color=12312][/color]ck with Ashcroft before he and Bu[color=12312][/color]sh decide to make them obsolete and 'dispose' of them.
If they push it through, they'll have the power to over-rule the Supreme Court when it says "Sure, killing suspected terrorists is constitutional".
But like everything, the devil's in the details. The door swings both ways, but then so does everything in American constitutional law.
And at a cursory glance, the peeps who submitted it seem on the more sane end of Baptist former oil-barons.
-
Well, as far as I know, Ashcroft!=Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is right-ward leaning (Scalia etc), but they are the pinnacle of dissent compared to Johnny boy's Ministry of Truth.
-
Yeah, I'm lumping the entire Judicial system into one corrupt lump.
-
So any news on when this is going to get voted on?
-
Couldn't the Supreme Court rule this law unconstitutional?
-
It'd be incredibly ironic if they did.
-
I don't support this, but I understand that this is a result of rulings of certain members of the Court that less and less are being based on law and more and more based on Ideology and an Agenda to advance that Ideology through the court system because they can't get it through Congress, though they've tried for 35+ years.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't support this, but I understand that this is a result of rulings of certain members of the Court that less and less are being based on law and more and more based on Ideology and an Agenda to advance that Ideology through the court system because they can't get it through Congress, though they've tried for 35+ years.
Oh right, EVAL LIBERAL SCOTUS!!!111oneoneone
By the way, great job turning the civil rights movement into a secret conspiracy. You've earned a tin foil hat for that one.
It is a result of congress trying to expand its own power, just as the executive branch has been since practically the beginning.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
So any news on when this is going to get voted on?
Well chances are, its already been pased, sinc eit was brought up on march 9th...
-
Probably was ignored by the vast majority of Congress, and died in commitee.
-
Congress is asked to vote on a law that would take power ouit of the hands of the Supreme Court, and give it to them? And this is not a conflict of interest....why?
-
nothing to be worried about yet, this bill is just bull, it would need a constitutional ammendment for this sort of thing to go into effect (unless that's what there proposeing)
and quit useing that stupid "nEo-c0nzz!!" buzz word, it isn't neo-cons doing this it's the 'con's, period, it pisses me off when someone calls an 80 year old republican a neo-con when they are quite clearly a paleo-con.
-
well, actually the current administration and its supporters are not conservatives in the traditional sense. Small government, fiscal responsibility, a restrained foreign policy etc. And yeah, the stupid buzzword "neocons" is getting on my nerves too. Its a convenient way for people to think "its those bad, bad neocons that have perverted our otherwise glorious nation, if we get rid of Wolfowitz and Perle, everything will be OK again"
-
Kinda stupid why they would try to make this sort of bill pass. They might as well just made the bill say "disband the Supreme Court" and pay less people. Regardless, it's a stupid bill, made by stupid people, for stupid reasons
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Couldn't the Supreme Court rule this law unconstitutional?
Yes they can.
-
I emailed my congressman. Good lord, what's America coming to?
-
Originally posted by Corsair
I emailed my congressman. Good lord, what's America coming to?
That makes 2 of us!
[q]Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Couldn't the Supreme Court rule this law unconstitutional? [/q]
Yes, but if it did pass, and then the Supreme court tried to rescend it, they could veto the rescending... Its sortof one of those things, that if it happens, it CAN'T be undone...
-
People, the two party system is there for a reason, and so is the electoral college. Without it, the asses of politics (Democrats) would ALWAYS win.
If you guys really hate America's two party system, why not just move to Europe (or stay there if you're already there)? Exactly. Don't live here, then. I'm a strong nationalist and a staunch Christian profamily conservative who wants a small federal government.
If I display my true political colors, you bleeding hearts would call me a neo-Nazi. But I'm not racist, so - there.
Hey, that gives me an idea...
-
thats what I always hear, "if you don't like it, move"
but if you actually love America, you want to stay there. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve your country, becuase it belongs to you as much as it does to anyone else. Now, I don't fall in to that category, because I don't live in America, but I'm talking in general/..
and if you favour small government, I can't see how you could possibly support the Dubya adminstration. He has presided over the biggest government in many, many years.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
and if you favour small government, I can't see how you could possibly support the Dubya adminstration. He has presided over the biggest government in many, many years.
I know. I don't like Dubya, as you so gently put it. He promised small government, like all Republicans do, but he made it even BIGGER! AHHHH!
-
To put this bluntly, stop those ****ers before they run your country any more.
-
It ironic, the Republicans are now supporting big government, and the Democrats are now supporting a hawkish foreign policy. Its like they're taking stuff from each other's playbook.
vyper: kind of hard to do that when its a two part system. This tradition is so entrenched in the psyche that its going to take a huge effort for any third party to even make a dent. Kerry doesn't hold much promise fro the future, especially when he's strongly considering having John McCain, a Republican as his running mate. I mean, that unheard of....its insane.
and he's calling it a, get this, a "unity government"....
-
Solution: Reform one of the existing two parties. e.g. the democrats. From what I read they're so screwed up and lacking in ideology that a completely new direction and leadership would be perfect to unite them under.
-
Grey Wolf: it hasn't died yet
Liberator: So supporting people's civil and human rights based upon Constitutional and International law is "ideology" now - Sorry, you're the ideologue, not them
Bobboau, Rictor: "NeoCon" = NeoConservative, it's a very specific political term from the study of Political Science, it's very far from a 'buzzword' - you will see professional academics using the term on a regular basis, the laymen picked it up from them.
Vyper: I would love a party that upholds the constitution, upholds human rights and civil rights - but doesn't want to go socialistic (and No, the Libertarians don't count because they're idea of upholding rights is beyond naive, it's destructive)
-
realy, I just heard everyone on the left useing it in the same fashion as rush uses the phrase 'bleeding hear liberals', perhaps there is a valid oragin to it, but that still doesn't mean everyone you don't like can be gushed into the new bad-person-word of the week.
and what's wrong with libertarians!?
other than there disagreement with you'r authoratarian no smoaking pollocies
-
Originally posted by Kazan
everyone write emails to all your House Reps for your state condemning this attack on the constitution.
Can’t, South Dakota’s house rep had to stand down after being convicted of Vehicular Manslaughter.
-
nice rep there johnny.
-
He was only elected so we could get him out of the state. That and he was Republican, which gets just about anyone elected around here.
-
People live in South Dakota? :eek2:
-
bobboau: there is a case in point - how is demanding other people respect my right not to be poisoned "authoritarian" - that's just one of many thing
-
I said other than that. specificly becae I knew I wasn't going to be able to move you on the issue. it has not been conclusively determined that second hand smoke provides a signifigant, let alone major health risk.
it's authoritarian becase it involves putting the government in the position of determineing the corect beleifes and behavior of it's people. you want to ban people from smokeing in there own houses, how is that not authoritarian?
-
"When you have a government big enough to give you everything you want, its big enough to take everything you have."
Davy Crockett. Not a great philosopher mind you, but he's got a cool hat and is considered one of the heros of American history.
-
Know what? Good.
It wouldn't be needed if judicial activism didn't run rampant (yes, like gay marriages). I don't care if your for or against it, the courts DO NOT have the right to make law.
-
none of the courts make law per say. they declare things unconstitutional and leave the write-ups to other people
-
actualy what there doing is exactly what there suposed to be doing, makeing sure congress doesn't screw up too baddly.
-
Umm. Yeah. NOWHERE is there law saying gays can marry. Courts have made law by saying that they can... the APPROPRIATE thing to do is to now AMEND the law to include gays.
-
does it actualy say they can't?
if someone's rights are violated by the law it's up to the courts to through out the law that is violateing them.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I said other than that. specificly becae I knew I wasn't going to be able to move you on the issue. it has not been conclusively determined that second hand smoke provides a signifigant, let alone major health risk.
way to ignore 20 years of studies
it's authoritarian becase it involves putting the government in the position of determineing the corect beleifes and behavior of it's people. you want to ban people from smokeing in there own houses, how is that not authoritarian?
because there is no such thing as "privacy of your own home" when it comes to atmospheric pollutants - their houses air exchanges with the air outside, your houses air exchanges witth the air outside
I have it happen to me all the time - asshole smokers outside or in another building smoke, their smoke drifts out their windows, and into mine and stinks up my appartment.
So if demanding my right not to be poisoned is authoritarian then I guess i;m a ****ing dictator
attitudes like yours are exactly why people continue to be able to continue poisoning me a little every day
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Umm. Yeah. NOWHERE is there law saying gays can marry. Courts have made law by saying that they can... the APPROPRIATE thing to do is to now AMEND the law to include gays.
go take a constitutional law class dimwit
-
Kazan, are you flipping out? Your posts seem to get more and more angry byt the time. ;)
But yeah, this sucks. It does not touch me directly - yet - as I'm not an American, but the general way USA is heading is pretty goddamn ironic.
-
I don't like getting up at 6 am and getting called authoritarian for not wanting to be poisoned
-
Just try and calm it down a bit, if you start a thread and voice your views you have to accept that others may disagree. You also have to realise that you can walk away from this forum at any time for as long as you please and come back when you've cooled off. You don't have to go bull at a gate.
Just try and keep things civil... and that goes for everyone.
-
Actually, second hand smoke has been acknowledged by the British Government as a danger to public health for a while now, and is why there have been various proposals to legislate against smoking in public places like pubs, clubs and restaraunts. Naturally it's ran into opposition from civil rights groups and smokers groups, but on this occassion it's fair to say the right and responsibilities do not match fairly.
-
hmmm (http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;92/20/1666)
-
There is a difference between a right and an exercise of a right
Exercises of a right fall into two catageories: Protected and Non-protected
Protected: Any exercise of a right that is not in the Non-Protected group
Non-Protected: Any exercise of a right that causes infringment of other peoples rights.
This is the legal definition, though not in legalese. Smoking is a Non-Protected right technically, yet everyone forgets that fact and wants to lump it in with Protected rights. This is merely because anyone who could and would make the argument get's stonewalled by people with billiobs more dollars than them. People who make money of letting other people kill themselves and poison others.
You do not have a right to smoke --- Period
-----------------
Bobboau: That is why libertarians are naivfe, they do not differentiate between Protected and Non-protected rights, under their ideas you can abuse other peoples rights so long as you are exercising your own, so I guess I can beat people up randomly because I am exercising my right to happiness, even though I'm violating their right to happyness, and right to bodily integrity.
That's where the Libertarian view of what rights are leaves you. Libertarianism is one step from anarchism, and anyone who thinks anarchism can work and have everyone equal, unabused, etc is just downright foolish. Furthermore anarchism will never remain pure for more than 5 minutes, someone will start trying to carve out control and will form some other kind of control mechanism, probably authoritarian, even if they do not call it a government
-
Bobboau: "ETS and Breast Cancer" - if you don't see what's wrong with trying to use that as an example then your naive
ETS Causes cancers of the lungs, throat, and nosal passages primarily. Furthermore that is NOT up for debate amongst the professional communities, it's agreed upon medical fact
-
so in other words, "I'm right, your wrong, I'm not listening".
fine.
-
Are you guys done bickering now? Even if you reach some kind of conclusion it's not going to change anything in the world. This isn't the first time smoking has been debated either... now right now this all looks like an excuse for name calling and I don't see the need for that.
Give me a good reason to keep this thread open.
-
Bobboau: No in other words "Don't use irrevelant data"
Kalfireth: The threads ORIGIONAL intent
-
Well then stick to the original topic. I don't mind you talking stuff out but cut the heck down on insulting everyone around you (again, this goes for everyone).
With that in mind - continue - on the original topic.
-
Beowulf: you can't go changing 200+ years of law just because it happens to inconvenience you at the time. The Supreme Court in right-ward leaning, make no mistake about that. If you don't like it now, who knows what you'll think when, one day, some real judges get on the bench.
edit: gays have the right to marry, just like anyone else. Trying to claim that marriage is only between a man and a woman is absurd. Marriage is the union of two people. Just that, two people.
You realize that Dubya's anti-gay policies have made America the laughing stock of the entire world, with the possible exception of places like Saudi Arabia. Jeez guys, welcome to the 21st century. In case you didn't get the memo, coloured folk can sit and the front of the bus now.
-
I like rictor's last post
-
Ok, I'm going to try to sum up my thoughts from reading this post, so hear goes:
[list=1]
- I think we all need to take spelling lessons, most especially the native speakers. Got to a point there where I could hardly make heads or tails of things.
- My thoughts on gay marriage are not really relavent here, but the two recent cases are both not debatable; the California marriage license debacle was in clear, flagrant violation of state law and will be addressed as such; the correct avenue of change is through the legislature and the courts, not through some unilateral mayoral decision against a state reforendum. The Massechusetts "liberal activist judges" episode was also crap, as they were simply interpreting the law to not read one way or the other on the issue; i.e. there was no legal basis for denying a request by a gay couple to get married. I think the issue needs to be addressed, but through proper channels.
- The secondhand smoke argument is unnecessary, the level of pollutants outside of the immediate viscenity of a smoker is not statistically significant. But arguments on the subject, for future reference, are best confined to studies involving the resperatory system.
- This threads original topic. I'd be interested to know exactly how this thing would work before passing complete judgement on how it could be used. There is, however, absolutely no constitutional basis for it, so I strongly doubt it will get passed, signed, and not be fought by the supreme court (they would declare it unconstitutional, and make more than a couple of politicians look incredibly stupid when a president willing to respect the judicary is elected). It's not the first time the government has had an internal power shift; the Supreme court, it can be argued, never had the power it does by the constitution originally, and it was only through decisions made (and enforced by the executive) that it rose to the level of prominance it enjoys today. I could cite examples all afternoon, but I'm going to have to get back to work.
-
1) yes
2) BS
3) BS++
4) It violates the constitution plain and simple.
-
I'll have to back up Kazan on this one - it is a proven fact that ETS can even be worse than smoking yourself.
-
if that doesn't make sense to you
the smoker is inhaling through the filter, and then breathing out remaining smoke - you are getting almost all of the smoth coming off the end, no filter
-
Yes, in theory, my rights end where your nose begins. In theory.
Now, if you were to put that in to practice, humanity could not exist as it does today. The right not to inhale second hand smoke is as valid any any other right, correct? If we were to accept that, people could argue for all sorts of absurdities. For example, I have a right not to be harmed physically. It could very easily be argued that any phsycial contant that is greater than 0 is harm. So, anyone who shakes hands with me, who bumps into me on the street, who places their hand on my shoulder, they are infringing upon my rights.
In order to accomodate this, each human would have to to sealed off, without any contact whatsoever with other people, so that they could in no way influence him. You would essentially need each human to live on a seperate planet, because even single breathe of air that I inhale or exhale on the same planet as you could be judged to be taking up your air.
Everything in moderation. Remember this, moderation.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, in theory, my rights end where your nose begins. In theory.
Now, if you were to put that in to practice, humanity could not exist as it does today. The right not to inhale second hand smoke is as valid any any other right, correct? If we were to accept that, people could argue for all sorts of absurdities. For example, I have a right not to be harmed physically. It could very easily be argued that any phsycial contant that is greater than 0 is harm. So, anyone who shakes hands with me, who bumps into me on the street, who places their hand on my shoulder, they are infringing upon my rights.
In order to accomodate this, each human would have to to sealed off, without any contact whatsoever with other people, so that they could in no way influence him. You would essentially need each human to live on a seperate planet, because even single breathe of air that I inhale or exhale on the same planet as you could be judged to be taking up your air.
I like this idea, it means there needs to be a strong space program. ;7
Hrmmm... the Isolationist Party!
-
Well, I suppose that at least banning smoking would have one other effect other than on peoples health, and that's to focus peoples attention on Factories and Powerstations that throw enough pollutants up into the air in one hour than the entire countries smokers do in a day :)
I agree it's not so 'in your face' as smoking, and, even though I am a smoker, I agree that non-smokers should not have to breath my smoke. However, I do think it is still a small problem up close that is obscuring a bigger problem that just happens to be further away :(
-
rictor: none of those clearly over-the-top expectations equate to someone demanding that they not be forced to breath in noxious fumes
none of those things you named actually cause harm, and NO it cannot be argued that they do so, however it is medical fact that ETS causes harm
flipside: yes, a great deal of those pollutants are merely greenhouse gases though, not carcinogens
-
Originally posted by Kazan
1) yes
2) BS
3) BS++
4) It violates the constitution plain and simple.
Umm, I never disagreed with you on any of that. I withheld my opinions, and quite frankly I agree with you to some extent on all of them. However, I think moderation is a good thing. As for ETS, well the argument about it killing you from a house away is, quite frankly, a bit outlandish. I've never heard of any proof that it remains in high enough concentrations to be harmful once you're outside of the area immediately around someone smoker or, if they are confined, the same room. It's not killing you unless someone in your home smokes, or if you sit next to someone smoking on a bench. In fact, once dispersed into the atmosphere, the few pollutants from tobacco smoke that remain airborne constitute a much lower concentration of the atmosphere than the heavy toxic chemicals from industry (and no, not just greenhouse gasses, think about what happens when you incinerate garbage indiscrimately. Rubber in an arisol form comes to mind, not exactly good for you) and most of the dangerous stuff from cigerette smoke precipitates out of the air pretty quickly. Banning it in public I would (almost) support, but completely is crossing the line. The other "BS" is fact, but I'll let you check that one for your self. What gets me is that so many people whine about Bush doing something unilaterally but illegally, and then go off and praise the SF mayor for doing, in essence, the exact same thing. Now I do understand that there is a differing moral ground involved, but the fact remains that it was not his right, or his place, to make the decision. Choose your battles Kazan, dissing me on this shouldn't be one of them.
And thanks to whoever uncensored the President's name. It was getting quite annoying.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
However, I think moderation is a good thing. As for ETS, well the argument about it killing you from a house away is, quite frankly, a bit outlandish.
How is it outlandish to say that ETS is poisoning me whenever I'm exposed - and even IF we restrict it to only counting when i can SMELL then I still get exposed to ETS from someone smoking in their own home, it drifting out their window, and into mine - on a REGULAR basis, and I'm talking further than just immediate neighbors.
Furthermore ETS is harmfull at ANY concentration, that means even below the sensory threshold of your nose.
I've never heard of any proof that it remains in high enough concentrations to be harmful once you're outside of the area immediately around someone smoker or, if they are confined, the same room.
Wrong - any exposure harms you - and the effects are the SUM of all your exposures
I'm not even going to acknowledge the rest of your post with a line by line - because you're entire post is BS, and it sounds like you're just another apologist for people who wish to poison themselvse and care not about the effects of it around you
FACTS
A) ETS is harmful at any concentration
B) ETS stays aerosol (ie in the atmosphere) for extremely long periods of time
Rules of Logic
1) "That's not worse than X! So why aren't you up in arms about it" is not a valid counter argument, for all you know your opponant can be up in arms about that too
2) "This is worse than X! So why don't you worry about it First" See 1
I Have logic and medical fact - you have your IGNORANCE - "I've never heard of any proof" Sorry that doesn't fly
-
Originally posted by StratComm
And thanks to whoever uncensored the President's name. It was getting quite annoying.
Awww.... re-censor it, please. :)
-
another thing that's harmful. being a tight ass. Face the facts, cancer from all the take-out food you eat is gonna kill you before all the molecules of cigarette ash that get into your system do.
And yes, any amount of it is harmful, but that's why your cells DIVIDE! So they can replace all the dead ones. Why do you think heavy smoker's seem alot healthier when they stop smoking after a couple months?
-
I shouldn't even bother Kaz. You're not really doing anything to show you're more intelligent than your average brick by "Rules of Logic" - neither of which even reflect what I said - or by trying to demolish my post line-by-line. Telling people who stand the middle ground that they are ignorant pricks isn't just immature, it's counterproductive. But you've fired the opening volley, so here goes.
Never mind the fact that I've looked, and no, not at the tobacco company sites, and have found absolutely no indication that tobacco smoke effects you when you aren't in an environment directly contaminated with it - this means in a house, or a confined space of some kind, where air does not properly circulate- and I can find absolutely nothing that says it is a more widespread health risk. If you live in a place where it is not escapable, then I am truely sorry, but there is nothing I can do about it. I do understand your frustration, but not your zeal to demonize it. In a open space the pollutants in ETS dissapate to next to nothing, and, unlike what your supposed facts claim, there is a threshhold for all poisons below which they are absolutely not harmful. This is as true of carcinogens as anything else, if you get enough in you to mutate one cell then the body will fight it off. "Harmful at any concentration" means "harmful at any measureable concentration", and when smoke diffuses in air that's precicely what happens, concentrations fall to unmeasurable levels. It's negligable, and it will not effect your life, so long as you aren't inhaling it on a frequent basis. I unfortunately don't have a medical journal to cite in front of me, as my connection is too slow to properly find one, but I know for a fact that this is true. Is it a health risk? Probably. The evidence does support that it is harmful to people exposed to it frequently. Is it a major health risk? I can't find anything that indicates it effects more than confined speces. Medical studies are inconclusive for the most part, so saying we should make it illegal for someone to excercise free will in their own home to perhaps help the asthmatic child two houses down (yes, that's an exaggeration, but not as great of one as it may seem) is outrageous. Face it Kazan, unless you're working in a bar, you aren't going to die from second-hand smoke exposure. No more than you're going to die from being circumcised anyway.
-
Reez and StratComm - the classic examples of denialists
Hey Thunder - please split the tobacco debate and LOCK it - the idiots are coming out of the woodword and i'm not going to waste my breath correcting that massive of misinformation.
StratComm: You're ignoring reality of your own volition, how pathetic.
-
On the gay marriage issue, I thought they had the same right as heterosexuals? The right to marry, the union between a man and a woman, or something along those lines, right? So they've got their right to marry, but apparently not someone of the same sex, so they claim they want to exercise their right to pursue happiness as stated in the Constitution or DoP or something, I don't even remember now (I'm a horrible history student), "...and the pursuit of happiness..." for all men or something. Ok, that's cool.. but what if walking into a bank vault and walking out with all that money is my way of pursuing happiness? That argument doesn't seem to go with me.
DISCLAIMER: This is what I have come to understand, I'm probably the most politically inexperienced/challenged person you know, so correct me. Without all caps if possible. ;) I don't feel like being called IGNORANT today...
-
Oh yes... lock the thread cause obviously Kazan is right.
This whole thing is just backlash from Congress about some of the judiciary legislating from the bench.
Now I just have one question? How is it legal for a state to allow Gay marriage when the Federal government has specified that marriage is stricly between a man and a woman? (Defence of Marriage Act passed under Clinton too)
Now don't give me the whole 10th amendment argument cause if you go down that road say goodbye to about half the federal government.
-
No Kazan, you're ignoring evidence that disputes your claim. I'm not denying it, I don't like to have smoke breathed in my face any more than the next person. But I'm also not saying that every man, woman and child in the continental United States is being slowly killed by breathing in one part per trillion of a tobacco-caused carcinogen, and so apparently I'm arguing against everything you're saying. I'm not denying anything. But I am saying back down your intensity about 4 orders of magnitude, you're overzealous. The health risks that would be eliminated with smoking are nothing next to the infringment on personal choice that a universal ban would bring about. So back the **** down and save your argument for someone who is legitimately trying to argue against you.
EDIT: oh, yeah, just because someone interprets data just a tad bit differently than you, contrary to popular belief, does not make them an idiot. I don't ignore anything. But I also don't buy everything that's fed to me by someone with an agenda, especially when they present the "facts" in the form of stats and numbers without properly explaining them. I prefer to look at things and make my own analysis when I can, and I am quite capable of doing so when all the data is presented before me. I just don't see the significance of the evidence that has been presented thus far. There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. They can show anything you want them to show, so pay some attention to the motive behind a study and its credibility before you believe it.
-
Falcon X: In the constitution, it says that a marriage is the union between two persons. However, they have not defined by what they mean. What the conservatives (and many of the democrats too) argue is that it means man and woman. Bush is trying to amend it to actually say that in the constitution as we speak.
Now, the fact is that in the US, you have a lot more rights as a married couple than you do as two single people living together (hospital vist rights, family insurance, etc.). It's why when two people get engaged, they've usually already signed the marriage papers and just waiting for the ceremony stuff to get through.
So alot of gay people are not fighting the right to marry in church, per say. They're fighting for marriage licenses, so they can be granted the same rights and freedoms as married couples. Of course, they don't realize the whole fun of divorce (infidelity is so much better without paper work).
-
In the constitution, it says that a marriage is the union between two persons. However, they have not defined by what they mean. What the conservatives (and many of the democrats too) argue is that it means man and woman. Bush is trying to amend it to actually say that in the constitution as we speak.
True... but I was talking about a specific law passed in 1996. It is called the Defense of Marriage Act. It specifically defines what marriage is... between a man and a woman. It may not be in the constitution but is federal law and the states are not supposed to contradict federal law.
-
StratComm: I'm well aware of the "disputes" - arguing with me on tobacco is like arguing with me on religion - if you forward and origional argument It would be the end of the world.
They're topics I've dabated so many people right into the ground that it has become old debating the same old misconceptions
having people forward the same old "evidences" which are anything but evidence.
-
who's misconceptions? yours or theirs?
-
considering i have medical fact on my side, figure it out yourself
-
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2
the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
This seems to be Constitutionally sound.
Keep in mind the doctrine of judicial review is not actually in the Constitution. It was invented out of whole cloth (by the Supreme Court itself) in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
-
goober5000: it [HR 3920] isn't constitutionally sound however
-
present data/evedence that a lit cigarett in concentrations consistant with it being an average of 25 feet away causes any signifigant health threat. you are the one trying to take rights away from people, therefore the burden of proof is upon you to convince us that this activeity represents a signifigant, consistant, and unavoidable health threat to the population at large.
also if you'd like to speed things up why not show all the evedence people normaly show to refute you'r claims and explain why it's bull.
-
Smoking is extremely harmful to one's health at worst, and annoying to others at best. There are many behaviors that can be filled in place of "smoking" in the previous sentence.
-
Like supporting B ush :p
-
bobboau: cite your source, considering i can smell it from well over 300 feet easily i'm going to call BS because enough to smell is enough to be harmful.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Now I just have one question? How is it legal for a state to allow Gay marriage when the Federal government has specified that marriage is stricly between a man and a woman? (Defence of Marriage Act passed under Clinton too)
I've been wondering that myself. As I understood it (probably wrong), only Congress can make the determination for what defines "marriage", the principle being that a marriage legal in one state would be legal in all states.
Which brings up the other side. If a state, say, Massachussetts (sp?) makes same-sex marriages legal, the couple could get a state tax credit assuming such a thing exists. But what about at the federal level?
-
Ok, I want to get this really really straight in my head, if you'll pardon the pun....
What is the problem with allowing Gay Marraige over there? If it is a travesty in the 'eyes of God' then, that shouldn't be a problem, they've been that (according to Christians) long before they got married.
Who said Marriage was a purely Christian tradition anyway? As the US found out to it's detriment, Moslims have them too :(
So, we are talking about people who obviously don't believe in God (if only for the fact that 'God' doesn't believe in them) or have chosen their own personal path. Since, like all marriages, it most certainly doesn't matter what religion the people in the street outside believe in.
And in fact, in that respect Gay's have got it right, look at the Lord's Prayer in the Bible, when his disciples ask Jesus how to pray, he replies...
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
knoweth Matt 6:32, Luke 12:30, Phil 4:19
In other words, sitting in Church and droning out the 'Lords Prayer' like the Borg is the incorrect way to worship the Christian God :) Your prayers should be your own, and no Priest should be leading people in prayer.
Anyway, if religion is not an obstacle, which it isn't, what scares people so much about it? It's not as if they are going to start shagging in your front garden once they are married, believe me, marraige, if anything, reduces the nookie count ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, I want to get this really really straight in my head, if you'll pardon the pun....
What is the problem with allowing Gay Marraige over there? If it is a travesty in the 'eyes of God' then, that shouldn't be a problem, they've been that (according to Christians) long before they got married.
Who said Marriage was a purely Christian tradition anyway? As the US found out to it's detriment, Moslims have them too :(
So, we are talking about people who obviously don't believe in God (if only for the fact that 'God' doesn't believe in them) or have chosen their own personal path. Since, like all marriages, it most certainly doesn't matter what religion the people in the street outside believe in.
And in fact, in that respect Gay's have got it right, look at the Lord's Prayer in the Bible, when his disciples ask Jesus how to pray, he replies...
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
knoweth Matt 6:32, Luke 12:30, Phil 4:19
In other words, sitting in Church and droning out the 'Lords Prayer' like the Borg is the incorrect way to worship the Christian God :) Your prayers should be your own, and no Priest should be leading people in prayer.
Anyway, if religion is not an obstacle, which it isn't, what scares people so much about it? It's not as if they are going to start shagging in your front garden once they are married, believe me, marraige, if anything, reduces the nookie count ;)
The last line in your post was brilliant :yes:
The problem is simple: A great many of the laws we live under today were written by old people with old ideals. It's the 'imposition of will'.
You'll find plenty of people who have no issue with gay marriage. You'll find plenty of supporters. You'll also find a whole bunch of people who are convinced this is The Devil At Work.
We just haven't worked it out yet, but we're starting to.
-
Well, I've just read this thread and have to say this:
On the original subject, the Congress may overrule a decision of the Supreme Court,
I've to say that it is an inherent strike against democracy and the division of powers. I cannot even begin to guess the impact that would have (even in the next elections or even in the days after that's approved) on a country that has forgotten how and why a democracy works like it works.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't the two-thirds of the congress of the Bush's side? (Sorry, forgot the difference of democratic and republican. Both are the same to me)
Do the people of the USA really leave all decisions be made by a real autocratic state?
Go back to the kingdom you came from, I would say. But now the UK is a constitutional monarchy. So, why bother, right? I'll make one here, one will say. And so it seems to be happening.
And about the ETS, I have no background to talk about that. I would recommend that if you don't know something, ask someone who knows.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
The problem is simple: A great many of the laws we live under today were written by old people with old ideals. It's the 'imposition of will'.
Add religion beside law and you've covered the causes of most of the worlds problems.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Add religion beside law and you've covered the causes of most of the worlds problems.
There's this nifty little show on PBS right now that's a semi-reality show where people have to live in a village under colonial law, 1700's. One part of the story arc deals with a 'law' stating that attending Sunday church service is mandatory.
As I've said in other threads, I have no issue with any religion that says you have to take the sacraments, pray in a certain direction or a certain number of times per day, wear your hair or beard a certain length, cover your head, or burn sage in your house to scare away spirits. That's fine.
The only group that should ever have an issue with it is the church you align yourself with. That's fine as well.
When it becomes a crime against the state when you don't, you have an issue.
Given, I can't be sent to prison in America for not going to church (which I don't. My relationship with God is MINE.) But a great deal of morals held up as irrefutable are the backbone for decisionmakers, policymakers, lawmen, councilmen, whatever in this country. This easily allows them to use the influence of the Church over the State without necessarily violating the separation of the two. It's sneaky and it's underhanded. If you're going to run a country with freedom of worship, freedom to NOT worship must be considered as well.
People seem to confuse the separation of church and state with the utter denial of religion. It's not. If you want to wear a crucifix around your neck at the office, I see no reason why this should be any more of a problem that someone wearing a headdress. However, you (the subjective 'you', not 'you' personally, Gank) keep that damned preaching to yourself. Always.
We don't agree on anything, but we do agree on preventing religion from becoming national policy in our own homes.
-
I'll go along with that. Cetainly, France is taking the issue in ENTIRELY the wrong direction, but the ill effects of having fundamentalists in charge of the country is readily apparent. When the President and a large section of his cabinet believes that Rapture is coming any day now, and that they will best serve the Lord by wiping out the opponents of Israel, well then you've got a problem.
I remember a survey from a few years ago that showed that Americans could accept a woman as the President, a black as the President, even a homosexual as the President, but not an aethiest.
-
If theres any kind of Doomsday coming, it's being created by those who will be Judged. I wonder what kind of judgement will be passed?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I remember a survey from a few years ago that showed that Americans could accept a woman as the President, a black as the President, even a homosexual as the President, but not an aethiest.
That doesn't entirely suprise me, hence my earlier post. Think back to Colonial times here, the 1700's when the practice of religion was not only permitted, but mandated. A lot of those principles are still ingrained in society, and might very well always be.
It's like trying to convince the National Rifle Association here that banning assault-type weapons from commercial sale does NOT mean that they can no longer bear arms. They just won't see it that way. Or perhaps convincing the Christian Coalition that men are just as capable of loving other men, or women capable of loving other women, in the same context as a mixed-gender relationship. They won't buy it. Or like trying to convince the National Organization for Women that banning 3rd trimester abortions for reasons other than rape, severe deformity, or to save the life of the mother is not necessarily a bad thing. You won't do it. Any tiny little chip at a 'right' (heh heh, 'priviledge') is a threat to the whole.
The question the survey should have asked is, would you accept a Muslim or Pagan President? I'd love to see that
-
Yes, but then, the funny thing is that all Presidents ARE atheists, you don't get to the top without realising that religion is a tool to control people just as much as prejudice, fear, ignorance, money and whole host of other things.
Even Sgt Shrubbery would get that one, though possibly, you might need pictures. And short words.
-
I think that one of the problems with gay marriage that is often overlooked is that if the US government starts to allow it, eventually laws get passed, "civil rights" movements (even though they already have the same right as everyone else), then what happens when the Mormons want to marry more than one person (polygamy)? Or when the crazy lady down the street wants to marry all 58 of her cats? Or when some rich guy feels like marrying his possessions just because he should have the "right" to? I think the gay marriage issue needs to be handled very carefully, otherwise floodgates could open and people will want the right to marry anyone and anything any amount of times. Could get messy. :shaking:
-
Well, I suppose it depends on whether you compare a Gay human being to a Cat? I personally feel there is some difference.
I agree that it needs to be handled carefully, partly because there will always be those who are resentful of the fact that Gay couples will have the same rights and entitlements as straight couples. This annoys people, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why, and partly because there will always be those who abuse the system, just like there are in heterosexual marraiges :(
The Mormons are another matter in a lot of ways, since the number of people involved in the matrimony changes, which is a much larger difference, at least to me, than the gender of the people getting married.
But I don't see this as an invitation to a flood of the type you described, I must admit.
-
I did a writeup on this same subject awhile back, defining 'marriage'.
Okay, so privacy states that conjugal relations cannot be used in the marriage definition because:
1. In marriages where the was no 'pokey' going on, they could be annulled immediately (and I think there are some states where this CAN happen). I'm talking about an annulment at the Federal level. More to the point, how could one prove that there is or is not sexual relations going on between the partners?
2. That being said, sexual activity is off the table. What do you have left? Cohabitation? Fine. I live in a house with another guy. Whether or not I'm 'waxing his dolphin', as it were, cannot be included in the argument. Privacy.
(and I'm not, by the by).
3. Maybe it's a procreation thing? Okay, so a man can still not get another man pregnant, same for women and women (lets keep the cloning issue out for now). But there are plenty of infertile mixed-gender couples that adopt. Soooo...
4. 'The Bible Says...'. We can kill that argument immediately. Church and State Separation. Period.
What really defines a 'marriage'?
-
According to most dictionaries it is a 'close or compatible union'. Strangely, that definition often appears after the 'wedding' type definition and yet is actually the broadest definition, so should be first :/ When you plug your IDE cable into your Hard drive, bells should start ringing to be honest, cos they are married.
I'll admit, I've seen things go silly, like wanting to ban 'Male and Female' plugs on computers because they suggested gender stereotyping, which just shows the pendulum can swing both ways (you can't help but make puns in this topic)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
According to most dictionaries it is a 'close or compatible union'. Strangely, that definition often appears after the 'wedding' type definition and yet is actually the broadest definition, so should be first :/ When you plug your IDE cable into your Hard drive, bells should start ringing to be honest, cos they are married.
I'll admit, I've seen things go silly, like wanting to ban 'Male and Female' plugs on computers because they suggested gender stereotyping, which just shows the pendulum can swing both ways (you can't help but make puns in this topic)
or that stupid argument over "master" and "slave" for hardware designations....sometimes we're too PC for our own good.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
-
Yes, but you can marry Art with Literature, you can Marry Verbs with Nouns, the Wikipedia is sort of right, possibly the word came from the name of the union, possibly the name of the union came from the word, theres no really reliable way of telling, so we tend to believe what is most convenient at the time :)
Edit : Oh and...
http://www.iht.com/articles/520661.html
-
If all the fuss is merely over the word, just call gay marriage something else. Call is Jsifsodfisd, and give them the same benefits. Problem solved.
But somehow I don't think thats the real problem certain people have with it. Its just another diversion and stall tactic.
-
Rictor: "Seperate but Equal" is anything but, and therefore the courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional
Ulala: slippery slope arguments are invalid
Flipside (pointing out for other people)
I agree that it needs to be handled carefully, partly because there will always be those who are resentful of the fact that mixed race couples will have the same rights and entitlements as same race couples. This annoys people, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why, and partly because there will always be those who abuse the system, just like there are in same race marraiges
Same old argument, different subject
-
I'm just saying that people that aren't even against the issue are gonna piss and moan like crazy because they'll want their "rights" too. But I guess lots of people are pissing and moaning already...
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I've been wondering that myself. As I understood it (probably wrong), only Congress can make the determination for what defines "marriage", the principle being that a marriage legal in one state would be legal in all states.
Which brings up the other side. If a state, say, Massachussetts (sp?) makes same-sex marriages legal, the couple could get a state tax credit assuming such a thing exists. But what about at the federal level?
You missed my point entirely. If the Federal Government says something is something... the state government cannot not say differently it would be going against the laws of the land. A state government MUST abide by the federal government.
So the point is... the federal government has said marriage is between a man and a woman. What MA is doing is ILLEGAL. They cannot legally make a law that is in total disagreement with the federal law.
-
well... eh... they just did...
unless you are sudgesting sending in the troops to enforce federal 'law' I don't see how theres a damned thing thats going to be done about it.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well... eh... they just did...
unless you are sudgesting sending in the troops to enforce federal 'law' I don't see how theres a damned thing thats going to be done about it.
It should be overturned by a court. Unless of course states are allowed to violate federal law...
-
disobeying laws which you (and a significant portion of the nation) feel are unjust is just civil disobedience. thats like if I chose to disregard segregation laws back in the day. I'de like to see them start arresting gays and the priests who wed them.
-
Just like when National troups enforce antisegregation laws in Little Rock, Arkansas
however - that was in enforcement of supreme court decision - the supreme court would probably side with the mayor who is being civil disobediant
-
I actualy would like to see some sort of crack down on this sort of thing, we need to show that were serious about this. back in the civil rights day people got arrested all the time, that didn't stop them, we should have the same thing, get some people arrested and when they go to court fight it all the way to the supreem court.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I actualy would like to see some sort of crack down on this sort of thing, we need to show that were serious about this. back in the civil rights day people got arrested all the time, that didn't stop them, we should have the same thing, get some people arrested and when they go to court fight it all the way to the supreem court.
I can easily see someone misreading this completely, but I hear exactly what you're saying. It would certainly get people motivated.
it's not enough for the States themselves to go off on their own thing one at a time, this is a change that will have to come about at the Federal level or it won't amount to much.
-
yeah, I thought I was clearer than it came out,
:D
I could be pinned as a zelot for ethier side realy
(based on what I posted)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, I thought I was clearer than it came out,
:D
I could be pinned as a zelot for ethier side realy
(based on what I posted)
heh, it's happened to me enough times...
Naw, I get your point totally. Imagine people being arrested in Mass for getting married. That'd get some people motivated very quickly.
not that I want that to happen, but I do think Congress needs to address this issue. It isn't going to go away, and I can easily see the President choosing it as a new war front (one he could possibly win)
-
see, this is where I can agree. when I said "I'de like to see gays getting arrested for getting married", I meant that literally. do that, any you're going to see a repeat of the Rodney King riots in '92, only with thousands of gays..
..oh wait, we've already got that once a year :D:D
-
But this time they'll prolly have sex on the lawn of the Parliament and Legislature buildings just to piss off the conservatives.
-
Meh.. that'd piss me off no matter what political orientation I am.
-
What, even a couple of 20 year old Lesbians???
Sorry, not trying to be crude, just trying to point out that 'Gay' doesn't always mean 'male' and most men have no problem watching a pron with 2 women getting down to it. But then, that's just the wonderful hypocrisy of it all.. 'You can't be gay unless you are female, good looking and we can watch'.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
'You can't be gay unless you are female, good looking and we can watch'.
I agree.
:)
-
LOL I wasn't going to point out that it actually was quite a good motto from a certain point of view ;)
-
I honestly cannot understand the mentality of people that make someone elses sexuality their problem. I mean, for ****s sake I'm sure these people have enough in their own lives to keep them occupied.
Personally I don't like seeing ANY couples making out in public (barring the lesbians obviously) but that's just me and I keep it to myself because it's none of my business really.
-
BTW, I was wondering. Which is higher: A state constitution, or a federal law? This is what the debate over whether what Massachusetts is legal or not should be focused on.
-
it's most likely federal law, but there's all sorts of loopholes around that just in case the feds turn nazi
-
In light of the Enterprise finale, that's actually quite funny.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
BTW, I was wondering. Which is higher: A state constitution, or a federal law? This is what the debate over whether what Massachusetts is legal or not should be focused on.
Depends. The fed laws are supposed to keep some semblence of "unity", the state laws allow them to address needs or issues that may be specific to their region.
or so the dogma goes.
Example: Medicinal marijuana. Passed twice out here in Arizona. Unfortunately, it's still illegal at the federal level. Prescribe it and you lose your medical license. Nice, huh?