Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 265
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlismPage 6 of 44    (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)

I'll retact my belief if SB1070 requires the police to ask for papers from EVERYONE they stop. Fair?


Most of us know the police already do that. And the "papers" they ask for (to use your overworked melodramatic reference to Nazis in Hollywood movies) are called a "valid driver's license." I've never been stopped once where they didn't ask for it.

You'd have no way of knowing it, but SB 1070 restricts the police more than the federal statute one section of it requires them to enforce. That statute requires aliens 18 or older to carry their registration cards "on their person at all times." What's more, the Supreme Court has held that federal officers don't need any reason to enforce it--not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion--nothing. They can ask for any reason, and the person asked has no legal right to refuse.

SB 1070, on the other hand, lists a number of acceptable documents, starting with any valid state driver's license, which if shown to the officer create a "reasonable presumption" the person is in the U.S. legally. That means the officer then has no valid reason for going any further, by getting on the computer or phone and checking with the feds.

I'm not going to get into a long explanation of reasonable suspicion, Terry stops, what can be searched in a vehicle, or all sorts of other 4th Amendment search and seizure issues. But I will note that the cops can stop anyone on the street, any time, and talk to them. And if they have any reasonable suspicion you might be planning to break the law, they can ask for your ID, ask what you're doing, and quickly search your outer clothing. If this goes on for more than a few minutes, they either have to arrest you or let you go. But for those few minutes, you're not free to walk away. And that's exactly the same for U.S. citizens as for anyone else.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 266
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/8/2010 9:59:45 PM
^^^^^I notice that the same people who carry on about slavery in U.S. history, using it like Soviet propagandists to slander the U.S., seem to think the present-day slave trade is just fine. Or don't they know what much of that "human trafficking" across the Arizona border involves? Do they really imagine it's just about bringing in more nice people like the ones who care for their yards and watch their kids? Is all the kidnapping that's become rampant in Phoenix so harmless, too? And how about all those hopeless, hapless young girls being smuggled into Arizona to be sold someplace or other in the U.S. as prostitutes?

I guess those things don't count much with people of such refined sensibilities as theirs. They'd rather feed their sense of self-righteous superiority by running down America. They're more concerned with controlling guns, or "environmental justice," or the comfort of captured Islamist savages we less morally advanced plebeians think should long since have had their greasy necks stretched.

They don't want the U.S. to enforce its laws because they're counting on all those aliens who disrespect them. How else is the current leadership supposed to ram its statist utopia down the throats of the majority that doesn't want it, unless they can somehow tip the balance? And twelve million illegal aliens, given amnesty and then newly minted as Democrats, would be just the ticket.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 267
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/9/2010 12:39:57 AM

No one said any form of slavery was acceptable, and I believe I said otherwise.


Yes, that's what you said here. And I believe you were already discussing slavery. But what you've said elsewhere makes clear you're willing to let something not far from it--a human traffic in captive laborers--go right on.

Trafficking in child prostitutes and other captives is an important part of this alien violation of our sovereignty and our laws, just like kidnapping, murders of civilians and police, narcotics smuggling, and grisly highway accidents. But when the people of Arizona dared to try to protect themselves by fighting against this flood of crime, you could hardly wait to tar them as racists.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 268
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/10/2010 10:09:06 AM

Just so you know, several of the border cities have shown decline in crime rate, El Paso having been rated the safest city in the country and Phoenix not too far behind.


I hope I didn't misread your earlier posts. They seemed to be talking all about slavery--how whites today should feel guilty about it, etc. I'm not particularly interested in discussing that here, but you brought it up. I don't claim to know, as you have (apparently by some magic) that total strangers are secretly motivated by race bias.

You say I'm jumping to conclusions just by pointing out the obvious consequences of what you said yourself. And just so I know, Phoenix doesn't have any crime problem! Next, you'll be trying to tell us that Arizona's faked its crime statistics--that it's not true, for example, that Phoenix has quickly become the kidnapping capital of the U.S. Or that even though illegal aliens make up about one-tenth of Arizona's population, they account for about 40% of the people arrested for felony crimes in Phoenix's Maricopa County.

You made very clear that you oppose Arizona's efforts to enforce the federal laws your president has chosen to disregard. You called Arizonans racists for trying. And one of the many nice things that preventing it from enforcing those laws allows to go right on is a thriving human traffic in child prostitutes and other captives.

Only someone willing to ignore established facts--or misstate them for their own purposes--would deny that illegal immigration across Arizona's southern border is ruining the state. It creates an enormous amount of crime (apart from just the federal crimes involving re-entry) and imposes a heavy burden on the economy. I'm not going to take the time to document all that here, and this isn't the place for that--but I could.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 269
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/10/2010 1:41:51 PM

we know that BS about Phoenix being the kidnapping capital is bogus.


Oh, do we?


Apparently you don't have a leg to stand on there either as Obama has INCREASED the amounts spent to fortify the borders.


Yes, I'm sure everyone here knows how firmly committed your president is to securing this country's borders. After watching him try to stop a state from enforcing the very federal immigration laws it's his own duty to enforce, who could ever doubt that?


it's been that way for a while and I didn't hear you guys getting all worked up until you needed an issue. Picking on brown people seems to be a sport to some people.


I don't know who "you guys" is, and I don't know how you're so sure of what any other poster here thought about that issue long before you started showing gracing us all with your knowledge and analytical skill. Maybe you're clairvoyant. I don't know how else anyone could divine the *real* reason for a state law without even knowing what it said.

When someone makes a sport of arbitrarily attributing racial bias to everyone who doesn't agree with them, it's a good sign they're a dimwit who can't make their case on facts and logic. It also suggests that they themselves are racially biased. Most of the people I've seen screaming loudest about racism don't hesitate to make disgusting racial slurs against whites.



people make up stories about illegal immigrants and how they're ruining the country....it's been that way for a while


Illegal immigrants have been ruining the country for quite a while, but that's just a story people make up to "demonize" them? That may make sense to you, but I doubt if it does to anyone else.

You're defending the right of any alien to challenge the sovereignty of the U.S. by entering it in violation of federal laws. You also claimed resident aliens have a right to ignore the federal law which requires them to carry their registration card on their person at all times. How dare Arizona try to enforce *that,* even after diluting it by making officers have reasonable suspicion before asking for I.D., and by allowing a driver's license to substitute for that card?

Your slurs against this country and its people, and your excusing or even cheerleading for foreigners who are obviously harming it--even the ones who are doing that intentionally--speak volumes. I think most people on here have a pretty good idea by now what you think of America.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 270
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/10/2010 8:32:47 PM
I asked for a source


Here's what you said: "We know that BS about Phoenix being the kidnapping capital is bogus." Aside from being redundant--if it's "BS," presumably it's also "bogus"--that's certainly not a request for a source. I didn't ask you to document your assertion that Phoenix is *not* experiencing an epidemic of kidnappings, either--I just questioned that "we know" that's "bogus" and "BS." I'm happy to let anyone here decide for themselves which is the fact.


So lock up the employers while you're at it. Because if you don't do both, it's clear that law are not enforced equally.


What nonsense. That same ridiculous objection came up before, and I explained--in detail-- how not just one, but three sections of SB 1070 are specifically aimed at the employers of illegal aliens. I clearly identified these sections and provided links to the text. I even reproduced parts of it. And yet, despite all that, you now pretend you're opposed to SB 1070 because it unfairly gives employers a free pass.


You're just relentless with your nastiness, aren't you? What slurs are you talking about? Please be specific. I believe they point only to a minority of Americans, and thank god for that!!!! Not that I divested myself of free speech when I decided to come here, but what do you care? You're such a busybody.


First, you're fully entitled to say whatever you want, and I certainly have never even implied anything else. So talking about divesting yourself of free speech is laughable. And that's a two-way street--I hope you're not trying to imply that no one should object when you run this country and its people down, as you continually do.

You're hardly the one to preach to anyone about nastiness. You've personally insulted both me and several other people here, quite a few times. I've gone out of my way not to return the favor, but if I've ever directly called you any name, I sincerely apologize for it right here. I've concentrated on your statements, and I've said what I think they reveal about your attitudes.

Now, apparently having run out of arguments, you try to play the aggrieved victim. You seem to imagine you can run down my country and my race any way you like, but then act put upon when someone objects to what you said, and make them out as the bad guy. Not a tactic that's likely to win much respect, although most people who use it probably don't care.

And now, you pretend you didn't say this or that, even though we all read it. Maybe you've been studying your president's tactics. You weren't just referring to a "minority of Americans" when you said most people in this country aren't worthy of the military that's defending them. And you weren't just referring to a minority when you called the people of Arizona "racists" and "a-holes."

When you told someone--JD, I think--that this country had never done much to atone for slavery, I could hardly believe what I was reading. As if there'd never been any Civil War at all. You were insulting the millions of white Americans who made terrible sacrifices to end slavery. About four hundred thousand of them--more than three million, in terms of today's population--were white men who died for the Union. I don't care a damn whether all of them thought they were fighting to end slavery, or only some of them--or even none of them. The end of legal slavery in America, for all time, is what they bought with all their suffering and all that sea of blood, and that's what counts in my book. But for you, all that's just one more thing to ignore or sneer at.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 271
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/10/2010 9:50:47 PM
^^^^^^Well, whatever its rank, I'm sure no one could think that a trifling little increase like going from 48 reported kidnappings in Maricopa County in 2004 to 359 three years later--an increase of a mere 647%--is any indication of a problem. Really, let's not let those Republican fearmongers make a big deal out of this undocumented workers business--we all know they're just racists.

I keep thinking of the scene in "Mars Attacks" where Pierce Brosnan's scientist character is assuring the high officials (after the Martians have already shown how treacherous they are by pretending to come in peace and then slaughtering dozens of people) that there's no reason to be concerned. The Martians, he explains, are obviously much too intelligent and advanced to be warlike or unfriendly. They probably reacted as they did because we alarmed them. Meanwhile, they're back on the ship, guffawing and mocking the Earthlings as fools and cowards, and figuring out how it would be most fun to conquer the earth.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 272
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/10/2010 10:15:29 PM
The notion that any state would permit a licensed business to sell firearms to known, active criminals is ludicrous. As is the notion that many of the owners of those businesses would be dumb enough to try it. Even under common law, knowingly aiding someone to commit a crime is a crime itself. And if it's narcotics trafficking, a *very* serious crime, which would lose any proprietor convicted of it his shop and his license, and probably land him in prison.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 273
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/10/2010 11:47:52 PM

we should do everything possible to go after them.


Except, of course, the most obvious thing, which is preventing the people responsible for the mayhem from crossing the border at will. God forbid Arizona should actually try to defend its people and its already-stressed economy against a flood of foreign narcotics traffickers, kidnappers, murderers, thieves, and slave traders by making even the most reasonable, modern, well-designed effort imaginable to enforce federal laws.


That's quite an imagination you have there.


Thanks, but that came from Tim Burton's imagination, not mine. Actually, the "Mars Attacks" theme fits Muslim jihadists better. Still, it's pretty much the clueless view today's dopes and drones, after thirty years of marinating in the toxic stew of political correctness and multiculturalism, take of any foreign threat to America. If Pearl Harbor had happened to today's Americans, I expect they'd be passing around boxes of tissues, tying yellow ribbons, counseling understanding of our attackers, saying how anger is a harmful emotion, and asking earnestly what we could have done to make those people want to hurt us. Then, they probably would have asked them to please be nice to us. And who can doubt how all that sappy passivity would have impressed Hitler? I'm sure he would have been nice and reasonable, if only we had been.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 274
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/11/2010 9:14:57 AM

Yeah, the taxes charged on your phone bill is definitely enslavement.


It's clear that calling any single tax like that slavery is over the top. But it's just as clear that someone whose *total* taxes--federal, state, and local--are more than half his income is working almost half the time for free. Productive people like that may recoup something, with the interest deduction on their mortgages usually being the largest benefit. And we all benefit from a national military, from dams, from bridges, from airports, and so on.

Still, the net result for a lot of Americans is a large tax payment that funds a countless array of public benefits for untold millions of strangers. How large a percentage of someone's time can his government force him to work for free, before it's reasonable to say that government has partly enslaved him? Having to work for someone else's benefit, for free, is the gist of slavery.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 276
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/15/2010 1:55:28 AM

and still want to make a buck off the same people that are supposedly shooting at your citizens. It's like everything in the conservative world....anything for a buck.


Rot. I don't want any alien, from any country, in the U.S. illegally, period. The notion that having them here saves Americans money is too absurd for any rational adult of normal intelligence to believe. Which is just why so many so-called "liberals" *do* believe it.


The whole "round 'em up" thing apparently has it's roots in the privatization of the prison services in Arizona...they just want more federal money to enforce a ridiculous situation without making honest attempts at curbing illegal immigration because some private group is going to make a bundle on the inprisonment scheme...just like they are everywhere else in the country.


"Apparently?" "Everywhere else in the country?" None of your fantasy is even credible to most people--let alone apparent. Is that the latest "big lie" some Stalinist website is pushing? Maybe its anti-American propagandists were inspired by the history of the private contractors in the South who profited from using convict labor in the years after the Civil War. It's only a hundred-odd years out of date. But the communist propagandists who ginned up this tripe just might think their audience of useful idiots won't let a detail like that get in the way. And they just might be right. Your "whole 'round 'em up' thing" is just a silly phrase that implies something, but establishes nothing.


Since these people are deported and can attemp to come back across the border again, seems that we are just playing a very expensive game of whack-a-mole.


If so, it's because of people like you, who don't want our federal immigration laws enforced. Re-entering the U.S. after being deported is a serious felony. If the law against it were enforced as it should be, and that meant a stretch in federal prison for any deportee convicted, far fewer of them would be willing to play that "game."
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 281
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/23/2010 11:06:07 AM
^^^^^fz, I think you're being pretty hard on Mr. Obama. How is he supposed to line up ten million new voters for his party, if you extremists keep raising all these questions about the border with Mexico? Maybe Ms. Pelosi should investigate you border agitators, too, when she investigates the 70% of Americans (those right-wing nuts!) who are opposing the constitutional right of those poor Islamists to build their mosque.

We Americans are lucky to have brilliant citizens of the world like Mr. Obama to show us how to live--after all, he and the congressmen who serve him know far better about that than we do. They're busy changing this country into something amazing--something no one will even recognize as America. We can do our part for this change by getting out of their way, and letting them get on with the job.

To be serious for a minute--Obama can probably negotiate that treaty. No one knows if it would violate the Second Am. to require a federal license for reloading ammunition, but I wouldn't want to count on the Supreme Court to say so. I don't know that it's ever held a treaty unconstitutional. If the Senate ratifies this one, it's not likely Congress could pass a law to override it as long as this president's in power. He'd just veto it, and there wouldn't be the 2/3 majority of both Houses needed to override that veto.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 282
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/23/2010 1:41:37 PM
^^^^^I haven't read about this treaty, but requiring people to have a federal license to reload ammunition? I'm sure there's some room for the U.S. to regulate guns, and regulating the supply of ammunition is an indirect way to do that. The question is whether this would infringe the right to "keep and bear" arms.

Seems to me it's just a way to make sure there's no ammunition the federal government can't track. After all, you never know when some of these crazed right-wing extremists (especially those returning veterans!) might use their homemade ammo to shoot up Times Square, or murder a bunch of people on an Army base, or destroy an airliner on Christmas Day. Yes, I know the redneck bigots blamed those things on poor Muslims, but that's one of their favorite tricks.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 285
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/24/2010 8:36:50 AM
^^^^^I don't know about the psychological stuff, but I agree with most of the rest. Too many people think the Constitution or the Supreme Court will protect us--they won't. If enough Americans want some kind of totalitarian government, that's what we'll have. If they don't, the remedy is to vote the people whose policies you don't like out of office and put in others who respect the Constitution. And eliminate those "czar" jobs by law.

It's not too late yet. But it could be, if this president can make ten or fifteen million illegal aliens U.S. citizens--and lock 90% of them in as permanent supporters of the sort of national government he's creating. The final remedy is impeachment, which only takes a simple majority vote in the House. Republicans will probably control the House after November.

The sorriest part of all this is that the American people should have declined so far as to elect a president who doesn't respect America's great achievements, or even wish it well. Somehow, it's become fashionable to run down this country, as if to show what a citizen of the world you are. All it shows me is how little the people who do that must know about our history.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 286
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/24/2010 12:58:57 PM
The statists like to say they're protecting the poor and downtrodden, while those mean, selfish right-wingers only care about money and want to exploit their advantage over these people. They get self-righteous about this, seeing themselves as crusaders for the oppressed against their (white, male, Christian, American) oppressors.

Everyone who's not in that privileged group is a victim of it, and it's up to the U.S. government to set things right. We always need another agency, regulation, court decision, executive order, act of Congress, etc.--and forget whether the Constitution authorizes it. As self-appointed judges of what's good and virtuous for all of us, these more evolved and enlightened beings can't let some old piece of paper stand in their way.

But they have it backwards. These so-called "liberals" are the *real* bullies and tyrants. They have a brownshirt, fascist bent. Being convinced as they are of their moral superiority, this ruling class won't tolerate disagreement from the rabble. Freedom of speech applies only to them, because their opponents must have bad motives. And they say so. Anyone who opposes the New York mosque is a "bigot" or an "Islamophobe." Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a "hater" and a "homophobe." Anyone who supports Arizona's attempt to secure the international border is a "racist" and a "xenophobe."

These statist "liberals" know their personal attacks can only do so much, so they want a bullying U.S. government to take it from there. Correct thinking allows only so many gallons per flush, only so much phosphate in your garden fertilizer, only cars that burn less than so much fuel, only the correct medical insurance (whether you want any or not) only so much salt or fat in your food, only so much carbon dioxide from the nation's industries--yes, it's in your Diet Pepsi, but it's still a "pollutant."

These members of the ruling class are quick to sing the praises of an unwritten constitutional right to privacy, when they're clamoring for abortion on demand, or gay marriage, or inveighing against a law that lets police ask people to show they're in the U.S. legally. Yet at the same time, they want a U.S. government which ignores the Constitution and meddles in everyone's private affairs in all sorts of other ways. A lot of us don't remember ever asking these control freaks--or their accomplices, elected and unelected--to tell us how to live. Didn't people used to say this was a free country?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 287
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/25/2010 12:16:14 PM
It's so funny reading about how this group tries to lord it over that group and that group tries lording it over this, while neither one admits that the other is absolutely right.

Don't tread on me, either of you! Don't defraud me of my right to enjoy clean air by polluting it and taking unearned profit from the mess you leave. Don't restrict my right to defend myself against a corrupt government. Don't tell me who you think it's OK for me to marry.

Got it! Back the hell off all of you.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 288
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/25/2010 1:17:43 PM
Skoochie, I don't know exactly what you mean by the "Christian Right," but I guess you mean Christians who want to see a certain standard of public morality maintained. Don't they have the same right to promote their views as anyone else? If the majority in some Nevada counties think prostitution's immoral, should they have less right to make it a crime than other Nevada counties have to make it legal?

If my neighbor wanted to pay to waste thousands of gallons of water a week in his yard, I might not like it, but unless it somehow damaged my property I wouldn't presume it was my business. The state legislature might decide that wasting water was a public concern because it increased the need for aqueducts, pumping stations, storm drains, etc., which the public pays to build. And if the majority wants, the state can pass laws limiting water use.

I think you're missing the difference between what states, on the one hand, and the U.S., on the other, have authority to control. And the Constitution makes it a very big difference. The fact you, or I, or anyone else may think something's undesirable doesn't make it the business of the U.S. government. The three branches of that government have the specific powers the states gave them in the Constitution, and no more.

The U.S. doesn't have--and never has had--any general power to regulate things that affect public health, safety, welfare, or morals. Only the states have that power. And as long as they don't violate the U.S. Constitution, or some valid federal law or treaty, the states can regulate those things as little, or as much, as the majority in each state sees fit. However dumb I may think a state's laws are, I support its right to make and enforce them.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 289
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/25/2010 1:28:33 PM

Don't tread on me, either of you!


Maybe you can get Mr. Obama to issue a special edict exempting you from all laws you don't agree with. If the EPA can bring the entire industry of the U.S. under central government control by publishing a single regulation that says CO2 is an air "pollutant," I don't see why a little private edict from Dear Leader should be a problem.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 290
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/25/2010 1:40:18 PM

This is why you might find the Ten Commandments in a Court Room


Not just *any* courtroom, but right there in the Supreme Court's own. Maybe, as part of its crusade against Christianity and Judaism, the ACLU can sue to have the Court chisel all those subversive messages off the walls, columns, etc. I mean, you never know when a thief or an adulterer might happen to see the applicable commandment, and have their feelings hurt. But something tells me the Court would never hear that case.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 291
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/25/2010 2:47:28 PM

But Ace, the only way everyone can do what they want is Anarchy, and even than, there is no guarantee.


Nah. We just have to understand the difference between our rights and our privileges, and remember that rights trump privileges. If I have a right to associate with whomever I want, and I have a right to equal protection under the law, then you have no right to tell me what sexual characeristics my spouse must have. You simply don't.

If you have a right to bear arms as an individual, then my only interest in what you have stockpiled has to do with public safety. If you can contain the explosion to your property, and as long as you aren't coming after me, it's none of my business what you have.

Of course there can be rules. But what there can't be are rules that favor people like me over people like you with no good reason behind them. Child labor laws are fine!

So the next time someone tells me what I'm doing is offensive or Cmakes it harder to their freedom or equality being recognized, I'm going to pay rapt attention.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 292
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/25/2010 2:47:32 PM

Interestingly enough the misnamed healthcare reform bill exempted Amish and some Muslims


Some people are exempt on religious grounds, but others are not? What about the rights of Wiccans and Jain and Bahai and Rastas? I thought the First Amendment still had an Establishment Clause. Wasn't this law the brainstorm of the same Mr. Obama who was just lecturing us about how the laws treat everyone equally, regardless of religion?

And considering the fact Islam has no official doctrine on issues like abortion, just who are these wizards in Congress who decided that some Muslims should be exempt? They must be not just theologians, but clairvoyants to boot. If some Muslims are exempt from funding abortions, shouldn't Islamists be allowed to have free clitorectomies for their female children? And, by the way, it strikes me as outright bigotry to make it illegal for Islamists to stone gays and adulterous women to death, as shariah calls for. We have got to STOP this hating and intolerance of Muslims!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 293
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/25/2010 3:29:48 PM

If I have a right to associate with whomever I want, and I have a right to equal protection under the law, then you have no right to tell me what sexual characeristics my spouse must have. You simply don't.


I don't buy it. There's just no basis for using the Fourteenth Amendment to force states to recognize same-sex marriages. States have had all sorts of morals laws since long before this country was created.

To say now that those laws are all arbitrary, and therefore violate the 14th Am.--as five Justices said, in effect, in Lawrence v. Texas--is *itself* arbitrary. They didn't try to determine the intent of the people who ratified that amendment in 1868, but instead ignored it and imposed their personal views in its place. Rule by judicial fiat.

There's no limit to that game. If judges can do that, why couldn't they claim, say, that the Framers meant the 8th Am.'s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment to include incarceration? And that, because the Court's already held that the 14th Am. applied that part of the 8th Am. to the states, all fifty of them now have to release all the criminals in their jails and prisons?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 294
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/25/2010 6:56:28 PM
^^^^There weren't only courts of law in England. There were also "chancellor's courts," or courts of equity, that were associated with the Church. The judges in these courts were usually concerned more with fairness to individuals in cases where the law didn't seem to provide it.

And all that came here. The Constitution notes that cases arise in both law and equity. We still have legal remedies for injuries--e.g. money damages--and equitable ones--e.g. injunctions to prevent someone from being injured. And the 7th Am. requires the right to a jury trial in civil suits to be "preserved."

That means you get a jury for claims that would have given you the right to one in 1791, when the 7th Am. was ratified. And where you would only have had a right then to a trial by a judge--as in most equitable claims--that's all you get now. (Amazing, isn't it, that the Framers, with their powdered wigs and snuff--who, as we all know, weren't nearly as brilliant or wise as, say, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sonia Sotomayor--could actually use words so precisely!)

There are several Justices on the Court who seem to imagine they're acting like judges in equity. It's as if they thought they couldn't be limited by something as unimaginative as the plain words of the Constitution. No, when their heart tells them a thing is just wrong, it's up to them to consult their great wisdom, make a grand gesture, and set things right. How very noble. The only problem is that doing this is a recipe for destroying the Constitution, bit by bit.

Since that Constitution is the foundation for this whole building we live in, some of us aren't too thrilled to see the people in charge of maintaining the building take hammers and chip away at that foundation. Each decision becomes the authority for the next one, until eventually, these Justices are so far away from the Constitution that they're just making it up as they go, based on what feels right to them, or what some other country's doing, and only on the most bizarre reading of the Constitution itself. And that is completely beyond their authority.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 297
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/26/2010 4:05:41 PM
^^^^If the Founders were "tall trees," what are Obama, Biden, Shumer, Frank, Pelosi, Boxer, Dodd, et al? "Shrubs" seems much too kind. Weeds, maybe? Nettles? Algae? Pond scum? Unidentified vegetable residue?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 298
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with JournOlism
Posted: 8/26/2010 4:22:42 PM

By wanting to prosecute them?


The last I heard, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed hadn't been prosecuted. And I guess you know our Justice Department hired a number of lawyers who violated all sorts of federal laws by misusing their visits to prisoners at Gitmo to help them against the U.S. in every way they could. And what about this president releasing Iranian agents he knew had arranged the murders of U.S. soldiers in Iraq?

It fits right in with refusing to wear a flag pin, slouching around during the Anthem, refusing to attend the Military Ball, saying he doesn't believe America's an exceptional country, jiving around with Chavez and sitting by as he denounced the U.S. for almost an hour, turning his back on Netanyahu, saying nothing as the Islamist murderers in Tehran crushed brave protesters there, going to Cairo to mouth flattering lies about Islam while apologizing for the United States, etc.

I wouldn't expect anything less from someone who hung around so long with so many people who hate America and hate Jews. Obama doesn't mind Islamists because he doesn't like this country any more than they do. He wants to preside over its destruction, but he has a rude awakening coming.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >