Why do you want more government in your life?

[drsmith1072]

That's why the fairies are lobbying for government to change the definition of marriage, the feminazis are lobbying for government to cover the cost of abortions, and liberals are trying to outlaw "hate speech"??
Please, all that is so lame.

Hmm? Please tell me that you are not this IGNORANT? They are fighting for their religious right to marry and have it be treated just like any other marriage. As far as I am concerened the federal government has no justification recognizing or defining any marriage because it is a religious institution. However, IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?

However, It was righties who went to the government to have them define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was righties who tried to pass a law to interfere in a family dispute where terry schiavo was concerned.

Furthermore your rant is nothing more that a dishonest attempt to spin and avoid admitting that righties use big government when it suits them but are now trying to pretend that they are against government involvement when the FACTS and the past show otherwise.

There is only a religious right to marry insomuch as the religion grants that right, which I think you'll agree with since one of your next statements is "IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?"

Uh yeah that's exactly what i said about marriage as a religious right. As far as the government is concerned i don't think that they should legally recognize any marriage. Trying to have the federal government define marriage to deny gays the same rights as straight couples is as big government as one can get.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hmm? Please tell me that you are not this IGNORANT? They are fighting for their religious right to marry and have it be treated just like any other marriage. As far as I am concerened the federal government has no justification recognizing or defining any marriage because it is a religious institution. However, IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?

However, It was righties who went to the government to have them define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was righties who tried to pass a law to interfere in a family dispute where terry schiavo was concerned.

Furthermore your rant is nothing more that a dishonest attempt to spin and avoid admitting that righties use big government when it suits them but are now trying to pretend that they are against government involvement when the FACTS and the past show otherwise.

There is only a religious right to marry insomuch as the religion grants that right, which I think you'll agree with since one of your next statements is "IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?"

Uh yeah that's exactly what i said about marriage as a religious right. As far as the government is concerned i don't think that they should legally recognize any marriage. Trying to have the federal government define marriage to deny gays the same rights as straight couples is as big government as one can get.

Very true, and I agree. But neither should we have a government forcing religions to marry gays.

 

[drsmith1072]

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. The government, not the constitution, gives us our freedoms?

IMO the constitution grants them however, the goverment protects them or takes them away when necessary.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you are a felon then that right that shall not be infringed shall be infringed.

We've already been through this, ya missed it. The rights are unalienable, i.e. already in existence. The Constitution limits the government.

Really?? it seemed to me that the debate was still going on. LOL Oh well at least I got to offer my two cents before you chimed in to tell me I can't offer an opinion.

 

[ihopehefails]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

In order to understand this you must understand Marx where he said that man in nature is uncivilized and unpure but what he was referring to was Locke's idea that man in nature was free and unhindered. Marx, along with many other Hegallians, believed the state was holy and by bring the state closer to the people then the people can be elevated to this holy state. Marx did not believe in the secular state because he believed that the state was holiness itself because he came right out of the divine right of kings. His belief that the state was secular was denying people 'holiness' of the state therefore not a true democratic government.

The founder did not have any silly notions and believed the state was a natural object like a building, car, or any other thing in this world. They did not see it as a holy object like Christ's divinity, the shrowd of tauren*, or the jedi temple from Star Wars and because of this they saw no special reason to have it touching all aspects of their lives.

 

[drsmith1072]

There is only a religious right to marry insomuch as the religion grants that right, which I think you'll agree with since one of your next statements is "IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?"

Uh yeah that's exactly what i said about marriage as a religious right. As far as the government is concerned i don't think that they should legally recognize any marriage. Trying to have the federal government define marriage to deny gays the same rights as straight couples is as big government as one can get.

Very true, and I agree. But neither should we have a government forcing religions to marry gays.

And at no point did I recommend that the government should do that. I have already stated that the government should not recognize or intervene in the religious insitution of marriage so I guess I was wrong to assume that covered forcing religions to marry gay couples.
Why the strawman??

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Uh yeah that's exactly what i said about marriage as a religious right. As far as the government is concerned i don't think that they should legally recognize any marriage. Trying to have the federal government define marriage to deny gays the same rights as straight couples is as big government as one can get.

Very true, and I agree. But neither should we have a government forcing religions to marry gays.

And at no point did I recommend that the government should do that. I have already stated that the government should not recognize or intervene in the religious insitution of marriage so I guess I was wrong to assume that covered forcing religions to marry gay couples.
Why the strawman??

I'm not creating a strawman, I'm merely expounding upon the point.

 

[Ringel05]

IMO the constitution grants them however, the goverment protects them or takes them away when necessary.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you are a felon then that right that shall not be infringed shall be infringed.

We've already been through this, ya missed it. The rights are unalienable, i.e. already in existence. The Constitution limits the government.

Really?? it seemed to me that the debate was still going on. LOL Oh well at least I got to offer my two cents before you chimed in to tell me I can't offer an opinion.

I never said you can't offer an opinion I only said you're rehashing what's already been discussed and proven and dis proven.

 

[rightwinger]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

Because some things are best performed by the private sector and some things are best done by the government sector

In an impending Depression, the Government is the only entity with money to prop up collapsing financial industries
Healthcare provided by your employer and the insurance industry
Private industry is in it for the profit, some functions are better handled by the Government

 

[EriktheRed]

I want to know how the government will be more involved in my life?

Ask Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. They'll explain it to ya just like they have the OP.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is funny coming from the people who run to government for help whenever they want government to define marriage, tell people what they can an can't do with their bodies and basically try to force their moral values onto the rest of society through goverment.

That's why the fairies are lobbying for government to change the definition of marriage, the feminazis are lobbying for government to cover the cost of abortions, and liberals are trying to outlaw "hate speech"??
Please, all that is so lame.

Hmm? Please tell me that you are not this IGNORANT? They are fighting for their religious right to marry and have it be treated just like any other marriage. As far as I am concerened the federal government has no justification recognizing or defining any marriage because it is a religious institution. However, IF a religion chooses to marry two individuals then what right do YOU have to deny them their right to religious freedom?

However, It was righties who went to the government to have them define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was righties who tried to pass a law to interfere in a family dispute where terry schiavo was concerned.

Furthermore your rant is nothing more that a dishonest attempt to spin and avoid admitting that righties use big government when it suits them but are now trying to pretend that they are against government involvement when the FACTS and the past show otherwise.

Tell me you aren't this clueless. No one is denying anyone the right to marry. Show me two people who have declared they are married and the gov't is insisting they aren't and breaking up the marriage. No such thing.
What gov't is doing is not giving government sanction to these marriages. And if you think they shouldn't be in the marriage business do you think they should also not be in the divorce business or the inheritance business or the adoption business?
You are being dishonest (duh) insisting that anyone is being told they cannot marry. No one is being told they cannot marry by any clergyman they want or no clergyman at all.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because some things are best performed by the private sector and some things are best done by the government sector

Name one positive thing that's done well with more beauracracy.

In an impending Depression, the Government is the only entity with money to prop up collapsing financial industries

If financial industries are collapsing, they shouldnt be propped up because it was dishonest and poor business planning that caused the collapse and propping up bad systems is going to destroy us in the long run.

Prop them up so all the wealthy can loot. Brilliant plan. We still have economic devastation and we still have to deal with reality at some point.

Healthcare provided by your employer and the insurance industry
Private industry is in it for the profit, some functions are better handled by the Government

Name one.

Tell me, what is wrong with profit?

 

[Avatar4321]

I want to know how the government will be more involved in my life?

Ask Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. They'll explain it to ya just like they have the OP.

They just passed a 2000+ page bill regulation our ability to control how our we recieve our health care, the very process of us taking care of our lives. How on earth does that not involve government more in our life?

 

[QUENTIN]

Please show one single arrest of anything beyond terrorist assistance that has arrived from any 'wireatap' under the premise of the war on terror.... please show where in war (or approved military action) we are not allowed to target enemies, even if they have been US citizens who now have committed treasonous acts and are actively fighting against our country and assisting the enemy directly?? And please note that this country in times of war has never had to stop and get a warrant (or retroactively go back and obtain a US courts warrant) for the interception of enemy communications, even if a source or destination was a citizen or was a place in the US... whether those communications be physical (paper, etc) or electronic (radio, wired signal,. etc)

National defense is not just sitting back and 'protecting the border or homeland'... it does also involve offensive actions off of US soil

Illegal wiretaps and other forms of warrantless surveillance are obviously not used in court cases because they're illegal. It's well-known and well-documented, the government has been found out and admitted to have illegally surveilled American citizens without warrant (the Attorney General confirmed the program's existence and operation without warrants in its spying on American citizens' domestic communications) and then immunized the telecommunications companies that aided in these crimes in the FISA bill of 2007. Asking for court cases where the government has revealed it committed a crime in bringing the case to prosecution indicates you're either A.) Stupid or more likely B.) exploiting a dishonest debate tactic of, "If you can't show the government is publicly unveiling its use of illegal surveillance in cases that would then be thrown out for misconduct, it must not exist."

Warrants are easy to obtain if someone is suspected of terrorism, federal agencies have innumerable means to spy on people in the immediate for a short period of time legally while a request for warrant is being reviewed if a case is made that the information being obtained is of a dire and critical nature. The only reason to avoid warrants for domestic surveillance is to have zero judicial oversight. The massive scope of the program also affirms that it is not merely used to intercept communication between people reasonably believed to be terrorists, as there is no way over 100,000 American citizens are involved in or communicating with terrorists. It is an illegal domestic spying program, period.

We have every right in war to execute people on battlefields engaged in warfare against us. That's not what al-Waliki has done or why he's being assassinated. There is zero evidence that the American citizen targeted for assassination has ever taken up any arms, been anywhere near any battlefield, or engaged in any hostilities that would make him a combatant. Rather, he's a radical cleric teaching an anti-American government ideology (protected under Free Speech laws in the U.S., just as the anti-American government ideology of armed militia groups and other militants is protected) to people. He is not a combatant being targeted on a battlefield, he is a disseminator of ideas we find dangerous who we'll now execute while he's in his home, traveling, or anywhere else we can find him. Without presenting evidence, charging him for any crime, or affording him the trial by jury guaranteed by the Constitution, the government has given him an extralegal death sentence. That's what so radical about this new claimed power, why its implications are so troublesome, doubly so since over 70% of the people the government has claimed are terrorists were found upon even the most meager of judicial review to be innocent of the charge and released. Now the government is asserting the right not just to imprison these people, but to assassinate them based solely on presidential decree of their guilt.

If he's guilty of treason, he can be tried before a court in absentia and if found guilty, the death penalty may apply. That's just one way such an action may be in accordance with the rule of law. Circumventing any court review, revoking the right to a trial, and declaring without any evidence but the word of the president that an American citizen who vigorously denies the charge that he's engaged in any hostilities is a "terrorist" and thus fit for assassination wherever in the world he is found is an egregious violation of many core principles of the Constitution and an extreme broadening of government and executive power and erosion of citizens' rights.

Defense and offense are not the same thing. Defense is just that: protecting our nation from harm. It is not "sitting back," as I suggested it involves a major reprioritization of border control, immigration reform, and domestic policing that would all be significantly ramped up, better funded, manned, and engaged, to be effective. But invading and occupying sovereign nations halfway around the world to install governments is not in any way national defense and does not in any way fall under the Constitutional charge of national defense.

You can say you like the war, support the war, think it's a good idea, whatever, but you can't pretend it's defending the homeland which is what the government was charged to do. Instead, it's the kind of foreign entanglement George Washington urged the country and government to avoid.

This is where you are wrong... because an interpretation of intent has already been made... judges, however, continually interpret and reinterpret constitutionality and make changes as a result without the amendment process

What you seem to fail to realize is that the constitution never gave the supreme court that power to interpret or reinterpret... the SC gave that power to itself without constitutional amendment, and as a result has unchecked and governed power in that matter... which is, in the spirit of our constitution, wrong

Then as asked.. please show where in the constitution that the specific power you speak of is granted to the judicial branch

Do you not agree that the constitution is indeed what gives the specific powers and limitations to the federal government?

Do you not agree that any and all changes, adds, or deletions to the constitution must be done thru the amendment process?

They're not reinterpreting a thing, they're interpreting the Constitution and its application, as the Constitution vested them the power to do.

Article III Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and to fact, over any case before the courts. That means they have the power and role to determine the legality of issues and interpret the Constitution accordingly. It's in Article III, you know, the one about the Judicial Branch.

Having been vested with the power to interpret the Constitution's application to legal questions before it, the second Supreme Court in 1803's landmark Marbury v. Madison, found that the question of judicial review fell under the purview of the Judicial Branch and the Court. It was established in the Constitution and verified by the legal body entitled and enumerated with the power to determine the application of the Constitution to laws.

They're not changing, adding, or deleting anything from the Constitution. They don't make laws, Congress does. They simply interpret existing law and the Constitution, as they were empowered and designed to do by the framers of the Constitution.

Seriously, this is basic Civics stuff. You don't get what the Supreme Court does.

 

[Munin]

I want to travel without being hassled for my ID and treated like a criminal

The funny thing is that the government solved that issue for you. You are able to travel between states because a BIG FEDERAL government was created. Yes I know the american example may not be so clear, that s why I have another one for you:

The BIG EUROPEAN government, the EU as we know it allows people "to travel without being hassled for my ID and treated like a criminal" between different EU nations. Where before every individual was stopped at the borders (and treated like a potential criminal), it must be funny for you how your problem (the government) can/has become your solution

Like I said: A government is a tool that can be used for good or/and for bad causes.

Maybe I should explain it like this: If you have a gun and someone shoots an innocent person with it, should we bann all guns? Or should we make it so that guns can only get in the hands of people that will less likely commit crimes with them (changing the way guns are used or banning the gun itself?)?

 

[The Rabbi]

I want to travel without being hassled for my ID and treated like a criminal

The funny thing is that the government solved that issue for you. You are able to travel between states because a BIG FEDERAL government was created. Yes I know the american example may not be so clear, that s why I have another one for you:

The BIG EUROPEAN government, the EU as we know it allows people "to travel without being hassled for my ID and treated like a criminal" between different EU nations. Where before every individual was stopped at the borders (and treated like a potential criminal), it must be funny for you how your problem (the government) can/has become your solution

Like I said: A government is a tool that can be used for good or/and for bad causes.

Maybe I should explain it like this: If you have a gun and someone shoots an innocent person with it, should we bann all guns? Or should we make it so that guns can only get in the hands of people that will less likely commit crimes with them (changing the way guns are used or banning the gun itself?)?

Wrong.
Last time anyone got on an airplane, even to go from one state to another, they were probably hassled and treated like a criminal. I assume Europe is no better.
As for guns, gov't needs to stay the hell out of the issue.

 

[editec]

That did not in any way come within a mile of answering my question.

If you take the power of determining constitutionality away from the Supreme Court, who do you give it to,

specifically, and by what process do they determine constitutionality?

Again.... that power is not to be held by the SC now, via the exact powers granted within the constitution... there is no power to reinterpret what is specifically written within the constitution... any reinterpretation is by nature a change to the constitution, and that change MUST go thru the amendment process.... the SC is basically an appeals court, except in cases of treason, etc... it is to determine the legality or the strength/correctness on the appealed case in it's docket....the constitution should not be continually reinterpreted at the whim of justices or by any government official...

So a basic answer to your question is all 3 branches of the federal government, as it must go thru the amendment process

Say a state passes a law that bans private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons, han dguns shotguns rifles, the lot.

Who has the authority to declare that law unconstitutional?

So I SHOULD have the right to create atomic weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons or bombs in my basement, then?

After all, aren't they arms, too?

 

[skookerasbil]

All the k00ks ever talk about is regulations. Every regulator and his brother was watching Lehman Bros. Had 'em under a microscope. But guess who blew the lid off the fuzzy accounting? The shareholders...........the market.

The k00ks dont get it...........bureaucrats get these lifetime appointments and their cushy government jobs and sit there and drink coffee all day on the taxpayer dime.

 

[G.T.]

All the k00ks ever talk about is regulations. Every regulator and his brother was watching Lehman Bros. Had 'em under a microscope. But guess who blew the lid off the fuzzy accounting? The shareholders...........the market.

The k00ks dont get it...........bureaucrats get these lifetime appointments and their cushy government jobs and sit there and drink coffee all day on the taxpayer dime.

Verbal abuse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Verbal abuse (disambiguation).


Verbal abuse is best described as an ongoing emotional environment organized by the abuser for the purposes of control. The underlying factor in the dynamic of verbal abuse is the abuser’s low regard for him or herself. As the abuser fears not being "good enough" and/ or meeting public expectations, the abuser attempts to place their victim in a position to believe similar things about him or herself - a type of warped projection.
Reports of verbal and emotional abuse indicate that it frequently occurs in romantic relationships between men and women, where women are generally reported as the victims.[1][2] However, verbal abuse may occur to any person of any gender, race, culture, sexual orientation, or age.

Verbal abuse starting from a young age contributes to inferiority complex, machismo attitudes, and many other negative behaviors that plague many people into adulthood.

 

[Munin]

I want to travel without being hassled for my ID and treated like a criminal

The funny thing is that the government solved that issue for you. You are able to travel between states because a BIG FEDERAL government was created. Yes I know the american example may not be so clear, that s why I have another one for you:

The BIG EUROPEAN government, the EU as we know it allows people "to travel without being hassled for my ID and treated like a criminal" between different EU nations. Where before every individual was stopped at the borders (and treated like a potential criminal), it must be funny for you how your problem (the government) can/has become your solution

Like I said: A government is a tool that can be used for good or/and for bad causes.

Maybe I should explain it like this: If you have a gun and someone shoots an innocent person with it, should we bann all guns? Or should we make it so that guns can only get in the hands of people that will less likely commit crimes with them (changing the way guns are used or banning the gun itself?)?

Wrong.
Last time anyone got on an airplane, even to go from one state to another, they were probably hassled and treated like a criminal. I assume Europe is no better.
As for guns, gov't needs to stay the hell out of the issue.

No, clearly your reading skills are not so good so let me explain: You clearly wrote travel in general, not "only travel by aircraft". What you say is true for traveling with an aircraft but it s not true for traveling with your car between two different states, without your big federal government each state border would be guarded as each state would be responsible for its own territory (drugs, ...).

In the US this is so long ago that many can't even imagine a border between US states like the US as a country has one now with Canada or Mexico. But this was the case not so long ago for nations in Europe were BIG GOVERNMENT (EU government implimented a no-borders policy within the EU) solved this issue for them. This is a clear example were government will enable you to not be "hassled and treated like a criminal" when you cross a country/state border while traveling.

 

[Vanquish]

Next Rabbi will claim there's no Right to Travel in the united states since technically some of the constitutional language is shaky.


oohh wait, some people only question the constitutionality of the stuff that DOESNT work for them.