We need to kill Radical Islam totally, completely and without compassion.

[Paulie]

Nice straw man attack of my argument. However I specifically addressed the issue of adoption by masochists. Adoption agencies and government authorities not only have a right, but a duty to review the lifestyle habits of would-be parents. Wouldn't you agree?

Where does the government get constitutional authority to regulate adoption?

A private adoption agency, yes. They can pick and choose their clients, and they should be free to do so. I don't see where it's any of the government's business, though.

Everytime you give the government authority to regulate something like that, it sets precedent for regulating more and more aspects of people's personal lives.

Let the adoption agencies police themselves.

 

[glockmail]

Where does the government get constitutional authority to regulate adoption?

A private adoption agency, yes. They can pick and choose their clients, and they should be free to do so. I don't see where it's any of the government's business, though.

Everytime you give the government authority to regulate something like that, it sets precedent for regulating more and more aspects of people's personal lives.

Let the adoption agencies police themselves.

Wow you've got the straw man tactic down pat, along with deflection.

 

[Paulie]

Wow you've got the straw man tactic down pat, along with deflection.

I'm not following. You asked if I agreed that govt. has the right to regulate adoption. I answered with my reasons why I don't. I actually agreed with you about the adoption agencies being selective about their clients.

I simply don't see where the government even has the authority. How is that strawman? I directly answered your question.

Adoption agencies and government authorities not only have a right, but a duty to review the lifestyle habits of would-be parents. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[glockmail]

I'm not following. You asked if I agreed that govt. has the right to regulate adoption. I answered with my reasons why I don't. I actually agreed with you about the adoption agencies being selective about their clients.

I simply don't see where the government even has the authority. How is that strawman? I directly answered your question.

Actually, my question was comprised of three sentences:

However I specifically addressed the issue of adoption by masochists. Adoption agencies and government authorities not only have a right, but a duty to review the lifestyle habits of would-be parents. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Paulie]

Actually, my question was comprised of three sentences:

And I answered it completely. Here, I'll do it again one more time in laymen's terms:

Yes, I agree that adoption agencies have the right. No, I don't agree that the government has the right.

But you already knew that, didn't you..

 

[glockmail]

And I answered it completely. Here, I'll do it again one more time in laymen's terms:

Yes, I agree that adoption agencies have the right. No, I don't agree that the government has the right.

But you already knew that, didn't you..

So should they allow masochists to adopt?

 

[Paulie]

So should they allow masochists to adopt?

If an adoption agency becomes aware of masochistic practices of a specific client, and they feel as though they aren't fit to take responsibility of a child, then that is their decision.

I don't necessarily see how masochism is AUTOMATICALLY and UNIVERSALLY considered to be a disqualifying factor, though.

Maybe the prospective parents only practice it amongst themselves in private. It doesn't have to mean they would automatically be subjecting the children to it as well. To some, it's merely a means of private sexual gratification. So is sodomy, but that's not necessarily the business of anyone else. I think it's disgusting, personally, but it shouldn't automatically disqualify someone from becoming a parent.

 

[glockmail]

....

I don't necessarily see how masochism is AUTOMATICALLY and UNIVERSALLY considered to be a disqualifying factor, though.

.....

There's the difference between you and I then. I think it is an automatic disqualification, right along with homosexuality. Until I'm convinced that there are no normal parents willing to adopt then I'm going to give the kid the benefit of having normal parents.

 

[Paulie]

There's the difference between you and I then. I think it is an automatic disqualification, right along with homosexuality. Until I'm convinced that there are no normal parents willing to adopt then I'm going to give the kid the benefit of having normal parents.

And you should be free to do so. But it's none of the government's business, and I think THAT is where we REALLY seem to differ.

 

[glockmail]

And you should be free to do so. But it's none of the government's business, and I think THAT is where we REALLY seem to differ.

Somebody has to police adoption agencies. What's to prevent a group of child molesters from forming their own agency? The Constitution gives the guvmint the power to set and enforce standards.

 

[Paulie]

Somebody has to police adoption agencies. What's to prevent a group of child molesters from forming their own agency? The Constitution gives the guvmint the power to set and enforce standards.

You can't police an agency yourself? What is the government going to find out that you can't on your own?

And where does it specifically state in the constitution that the government has the authority to regulate adoption? What section or amendment are you referring to?

 

[glockmail]

You can't police an agency yourself? What is the government going to find out that you can't on your own?

And where does it specifically state in the constitution that the government has the authority to regulate adoption? What section or amendment are you referring to?

In NC it is: ARTICLE XI- PUNISHMENTS, CORRECTIONS, AND CHARITIES

Sec. 4. Welfare policy; board of public welfare.

Beneficent provision for the poor, the unfortunate, and the orphan is one of the first duties of a civilized and a Christian state. Therefore the General Assembly shall provide for and define the duties of a board of public welfare.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article11.html

 

[Paulie]

In NC it is: ARTICLE XI- PUNISHMENTS, CORRECTIONS, AND CHARITIES

Sec. 4. Welfare policy; board of public welfare.

Beneficent provision for the poor, the unfortunate, and the orphan is one of the first duties of a civilized and a Christian state. Therefore the General Assembly shall provide for and define the duties of a board of public welfare.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONSTITUTION

I'm talking about federal. I don't argue against states' rights. If your state chooses to operate that way, fine. As long as the federal government is not setting the standard.

 

[glockmail]

I'm talking about federal. I don't argue against states' rights. If your state chooses to operate that way, fine. As long as the federal government is not setting the standard.

Preachin' to the choir here bub.

 

[Neubarth]

"demoralizing"

We demoralized them?

Indeed, we did. Ever since Sherman in his "March to the Sea" demonstrated that Total War was the quickest way to win a war, the United States has used force aggressively against a whole populace rather than just the enemy military or industrial production. We bombed the Japanese and German cities to dust to demoralize the populace so that they would pressure their governments to agree to peace. When they feel the pain, they want to make love not war. Amen.

 

[Neubarth]

You can't police an agency yourself? What is the government going to find out that you can't on your own?

And where does it specifically state in the constitution that the government has the authority to regulate adoption? What section or amendment are you referring to?

Dude, Gov'mint can assume those responsibilities that it is not proscribed from havin'.

And that's the way it is.

 

[Modbert]

There is no such thing as Radical Christianity. Radical Islam has been murdering millions of people all over the globe for well over a thousand years.

They need to be killed anywhere they are found. The sooner the better.

Remember, if you remove the Radical Islamic element from Islam, you will have a true religion of peace. They will no longer have a need to blow up people and kill innocents all over the globe.

Right, there's just plain Christianity.

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[youtube]X5McSEU48Y8[/youtube]

 

[Neubarth]

Right, there's just plain Christianity.

Funny video. I loved it. Fact remains that there is no Radical Christianity in the world today. The Spanish inquisition was an evil foisted upon the people living in Spain who were not supportive of the Queen/KIng of Spain. It was more political than religious. The Spanish church insisted that the Moors and Jews convert to Catholicism. Either that or they could move out of the country. Sadly, a lot of the Jews moved to Germany, Poland and Islamic countries only to be killed centuries later.

So was it Radical Christianity if the real intent was to enforce acceptance of the Royal Family rule? My first fiancee' Maria Medina was of Moorish extraction. I don't think her family ever converted to Catholicism, but they did stay in Spain. As long as they faked it, they were cool.

Very few people were killed in the Inquisition. Those that were usually became the victims of political persecution. The rest were just plain stupid for not pretending to convert and swear allegiance to the Royal Family.

Now, the witch hunts in Germany and New Salem were the result of overly religious zeal and gross ignorance of the populace. It that regard they were much like the Radical Islamics of the present era. Germany did away with that nonsense after a few decades. The Islamic Countries have not after 15 centuries of murder and hatred.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Dude, Gov'mint can assume those responsibilities that it is not proscribed from havin'.

And that's the way it is.

You are dead wrong. The Constitution was meant to limit the powers of the federal government, not to allow it to do whatever it wants. The government only has the powers given to it by the Constitution, all other powers, duties, responsibilities, or whatever you want to call them are reserved to the states.

 

[B94]

Neubarth

Ever since Sherman in his "March to the Sea" demonstrated that Total War was the quickest way to win a war, the United States has used force aggressively against a whole populace rather than just the enemy military or industrial production. We bombed the Japanese and German cities to dust to demoralize the populace so that they would pressure their governments to agree to peace. When they feel the pain, they want to make love not war. Amen.

editec

You can't kill an idea with an army.

You kill ideas with superior ideas.

Judging from most of the kneejerking jingo crap I read on this board, radical Islamic though (AKA fascioIslam) is likely to be with us a great long time.

Looks like your both right.
I believe the way to win a war is to kill enough of the enemy to where the ones that are left will go with our program (our superior ideas). But we probably won't do what it takes to win so radical Islam (AKA fascioIslam) is likely to be with us a great long time.