Oh but it does...research the laws regarding...
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-07
In Reply to: It doesn't matter WHERE he was born. He was born to an American citizen so he is sm - lies and conspiracies
citizenship.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
nm
Tax laws are always about
Secondary effects such as the impact on jobs, if any, are much more debatable, are often very difficult to prove and take much longer to materialize.
As I posted on the Company Board in a similar thread, these issues are very complex and this administration has made them even more difficult to determine by cleverly lumping "jobs saved" (which can never be proven because you have to prove a negative hypothesis - i.e., that a job was not lost that would have been lost if not for their programs) with "jobs created", and "jobs created" was already hard enough to prove anyway.
As I also said, the "other side of the coin" is that there was obviously some reason that the tax breaks were created in the first place. In this case, the main reason was that it would allow US companies to compete globally with foreign companies that enjoy low labor costs.
There will obviously be ways for companies to counter these proposed tax changes (which face stiff opposition in Congress) - including, if necessary, simply moving their entire operations to another country as some are already thinking of doing.
Every law that Congress passes has unintended consequences. These usually show up to bite us in the assets.
This is not about any laws! This is sm
about Christians trying to have bible study in their own homes which folks have been doing for centuries. If this were any other group, nothing would be said. It is about taking away freedom for Christiasn! I don't care what you say or what your opinion is as to why, Im telling you why, it is Christian persecution! Not religious but Christian.
If Wiccans or Muslims or anybody else did this it would be fine. I live in a city where there are at least 500 different religions practicing here and the only one that EVER gets picked on are the Christians.
As far as the Wiccans.......if they aer over there at their own house doing whatever they do, no I am not going to say a word nor am I going to watch and participate. as far as in the nude, if there is a law that says they can be nude in their backyard, there is nothing I can do about that.
My goodness I know people who have 15-20 people over every week for BRUNCH (why, I don't know) and no one would ever think of saying a word. Bible study where people are sitting in their living rooms discussing God's Holy Word, my goodness what a crime! I just know it is going to cause everyone so much harm!
What about the families who have teenagers that every single weekend there are more than the magic number of 15 gathered, partying in the front yard? Nobody says anything about that? I wouldn't either unless it got too loud. Its their house they can do what they want.
People wake up, this has nothing to do with licenses, laws, law breakers, religious persecution or anything else. It is nothing more than CHRISTIAN persecution. Anyone who is a Christian already knows this.
I assume you are wiccan because you say sometimes "we". That is your business. I am not bothering you, why do you insist on sticking your nose in my business.
If this were a bunch of Wiccans gathering each week and somebody raised an objection, there would be such an outcry of discrimination it would be unbelievable. Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I have seen it where I live.
Hmmmmmm guess they could keep the bible study to 14 people each week or 14 people each night or whatever. I guarantee you there would still be the same objections raised by folks who want to stamp God out of this country.
I refuse to get into an argument with a bunch of people on here about this subject though. It is my right to have a Bible study or whatever I want in my own home.
Sad thing about it is that as Christians, part of this is the Christians (me included) fault for sitting back for so long and allowing our freedoms to be slowly taken away. NO MORE!!!!!
Give it a few more years and it will be just like a communist country and the Christians will have to put black curtains up over their windows to be safe when having prayer and Bible study!
I don't believe he broke any laws
You believe that he did. We're at an impasse. I don't hate America I put America first before the rest of the world, but I guess I'm just selfish enough to take care of my home first. I'm a baaaad person I guess.
The tougher laws I see...
refer to dealers. So far as I can see, she wasn't dealing. She was a user. McCain, so far as I can see, has not wanted harsher penalties against users. He wanted tighter laws so not so much flows over the borders, he supported the death penalty for drug kingpins (like heads of cartels, etc). Again...John McCain, by himself, cannot make law. He can support it and vote for it, but if all the others in the legislature don't vote for it, it doesn't become law.
What he asked for tougher laws on I can't see that his wife did. I am sure Ted Kennedy would probably vote to keep the law that it is a felony to leave the scene of an injury accident too...but that didn't stop him from walking away from a bridge where a young woman was drowning in a submerged car. He managed to get himself out but could not be bothered to try to get her out. And he never did 1 second in jail for that. Which in my book is much worse than what Cindy McCain did.
That being said...The tougher laws McCain (and many others) supported was against dealers, not users. She didn't deal. She used and she stole from herself essentially (her foundation funded the charity) and yes, put pressure on the physicians associated with it to write her prescriptions. Because she was addicted and you know that someone who is addicted does not make good decisions.
The system is not perfect. No, she did not do any time for her crime. Many first-time user-offenders don't. On the other hand, they make deals with people a lot worse than Cindy McCain every day, turn them loose in order to get the bigger fish. That's not right either, but it happens every day. And contrary to what you might think, even people who forged prescriptions have gotten off, people a lot less affluent than Cindy McCain. For a whole lot of reasons.
And I say again...if you had all the means at your disposal the McCains have and it was your mother or sister who, while addicted, did things she would not normally do...if it was in your power to protect her from jail and get her the help she needed to get off the stuff, would you not do it?
Incidentally, McCain also, as part of his advocating harsher penalties for dealers, also advocated increase in federal spending for drug treatment programs: McCain indicates that federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs should be expanded. He says, “Work to expand public/private partnerships in support of such initiatives, and coordinate them with state and local efforts.”
Honestly, I can't find anything where he advocates harsher treatment of addicts and users. Only dealers.
in-laws are all dems - what to do? nm
x
Laws protect more than that...
You don't have to be a citizen in the United States to be protected from being murdered. You just have to be human and alive, both of which can also be said of UNBORN CHILDREN. Or are we to believe that a tourist, or a person who is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States, is NOT protected from being murdered? Can I just go out and kill anybody I want to just because they aren't citizens? Ahhh, no. I don't think so.
And the whole "mind your own business" argument doesn't hold water. A human life is taken during an abortion, the same as when it is taken during a murder. Are we all to just "mind our own business" and "just don't kill anybody?" No, it doesn't work that way. Just because you don't choose to kill someone, or have an abortion, doesn't mean we can just "live and let live" - particularly since people who commit abortions and murders DON'T let their victim live...at all.
These are exactly the types of arguments/mantra that have been spewed from the mouths of people who TRY to make us believe this is a women's issue to help us make a choice about "our bodies." If it was only my body, I would agree. But it is not my body that is being killed. It is my child. Men, women, children, citizen or not - no one has the right to take a human life.
you are right - but it is the privacy laws -
women's bodies are their own - if they are old enough to see a gynecologist they have their privacy. Now, they can go next door and get treated by the general physician and get the same thing done and mommy or daddy can be involved, just not in the gyno's office.
NY has had laws on the books for
over 5 years. No smoking just about anywhere except Indian-owned casinos and private clubs that do not have employees. No Smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.
I for one, love it!
Yeah......who needs laws?
bang, bang, shoot 'em up.
If there are laws against smoking
at parks, your son's baseball park, or anywhere, marijuana wouldn't be allowed either, because it's also smoking.
Marrying in laws
Was not required, but suggested. They were allowed to decline.
I said SOUND laws..
Giving women the right to vote WAS A SOUND LAW. I think someone has missed their naptime.
what? laws to taze your kid? sheez.
x
Laws protecting from murder
Yes, this country does have laws that protect citizens from being murdered.
A "citizen" is defined someone who "is born or naturalized in the United States."
Fetuses, embryos, etc. aren't born or naturalized. The issue of when life begins is akin to the "chicken/egg" question and will never be answered to the satisfaction of everyone. It relies mostly on religious views, and one's religious views shouldn't be forced on someone else who may not believe the same.
Again, I believe in minding my own business and NOT judging someone who may have or has had an abortion because it's none of my business.
If you don't believe in abortion, then I guess the simplest answer is: Don't have one.
We are governed by laws not the Bible!
In the United States of America, we are required to follow laws, not the Ten Commandments. The last time I checked, raping, killing, and stealing were against the law.
By the way, a lot of good the Ten Commandments do keeping people from breaking laws. I would bet anything that the majority of prisoners in this country consider themselves to be Christian.
There are a lot of anti-smoking laws
I did not realize this was an old campaign. It seemed like a modern idea when the surgeon general came out in 1969 against smoking.
no laws don;t trample people
shoppers do. We need to think our way out of the greedy consumerism that has been force fed to us by the republicans. A democracy needs reasoning participants. In times of economic crisis, saving $49 on a big screen TV should be laughable.
If we claim to be a nation of laws, then
we need to BE a nation of laws. JTBB has said it all and said it well.
Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
Read up on the laws of this country
A president, vice president and most/all members of congress and the senate get to go to safe places in case of attack or threat of attack. It's the way the government can keep going in case of an emergency.
Don't post something you know nothing about. Come to this board with FACTS. That's what this board is supposed to be about.
links to the COPYRIGHT LAWS
xx
Trying to change sound laws
is just as objectionable as breaking them. ;-) I believe the topic was enforcing laws. Need to leave this one alone so it can be enforced.
Oprah on child molestation laws...sm
I found this article on Oprah's website and thought this excerpt was powerful on the anti-child abuse/molestation movement. The underlined areas are links, please help out with this as you can.
*This is a full circle moment for me. For me to have been raped at 9 years old … this is so big and so gratifying that I now get to put people behind bars who did to me what they've been doing to other children. This is it. And so I am going to spend my own resources, and I am going to work with law enforcement, and I'm going to change, with your help, the laws in this country state by state by state by state.
We are not going to be a country that talks the talk about how we care about children, and then we let these people back out on the street. It's Joseph Duncan all over again. We have got to let Shasta Groene and all the others be the last children. Let their lives not have been in vain. Let's stand up, and change the laws.
Take a look at these accused child molester profiles, and see if you can be the next person to put a fugitive behind bars.*
I am SO with you on the religion in your face thing. My in laws are so sm
judgmental of nonChristians that it literally would make you ill. I am a Christian and a strong one, but I wasn't a Christian I would probably divorce my husband and move 3,000 miles away from all of them.
Nice talking with you.
Copyright laws forbid it. Nothing to do with the length. nm
.
Not to mention, THE PEOPLE vote for these laws and
People vote to place ridiculous bans on things because they saw on the news that a so-called scientific study told them it's for the good of all. Don't bother to trace back to who paid for that study and who will reap the rewards of the ban. My oh my, they said it's for the good of the people, so therefore, I shall vote as they instruct. The latest? They've now banned fast food restaurants in California because they apparently feel that poor people can't make good health choices. What an insult! If people are that poor, they probably can't afford fast food anyway because fast food ain't all exactly cheap these days.
But you go right on blaming the Democrats or the Republicans or whichever group you see fit. The vote still lays in the hands of the people of this country. The more I see so many Democrats here acting like everyone is a complete moron for having any kind of opposing view and touting every single thing a Democrat does as the holy grail, the more I feel like moving to another country. Wake up! If you can't admit that even Democrats make mistakes and aren't saviors, then you are prejudiced.
By law he can detain illegals......unfoturtunately our laws
nm
"If the laws in this country are not going to be enforced, what's the point of having them?
Would that include Proposition 8 that was recently upheld as lawful? ;-)
Bush Ignores Laws He Signs, Vexing Congress
President Has Issued 750 Statements That He May Revise or Disregard Measures.
WASHINGTON (June 27) -- The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not, said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.
Snow spoke as Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings on Bush's use of bill signing statements saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard a measure on national security and consitutional grounds. Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress -- including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.
There is a sense that the president has taken signing statements far beyond the customary purview, Specter, R-Pa., said.
It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution, he added. I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.
A Justice Department lawyer defended Bush's statements.
Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events, said Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman. The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11..
Congress has been more active, the president has been more active, she added. The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute.
Specter's hearing is about more than the statements. He's been compiling a list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuse of executive power -- from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending officials to hearings who refuse to answer lawmakers' questions.
But the session also concerns countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., a former state judge.
There's less here than meets the eye, Cornyn said. The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is.
But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush is doing an end-run around the veto process. In his presidency's sixth year, Bush has yet to issue a single veto that could be overridden with a two-thirds majority in each house.
The president is not required to (veto), Boardman said.
Of course he's not if he signs the bill, Specter snapped back.
Instead, Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.
It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed, said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?
Why does the Government have to create Laws to make people Volunteer?...
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/meet-the-compulsive-service-orwellian-give-act-to-be-voted-on-this-week/
Next up on the agenda this week is the GIVE Act, short for the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act”.
The ABC News headline ‘GIVE’ Act Would Give Back. Volunteer Programs Would Provide Jobs to Unemployed, Assist Those in Need says it all.
In his address to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called on lawmakers to expand federally funded national service opportunities.
“To encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Sen. Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country — Sen. Edward Kennedy,” the president said.
Democrats say they may be able to respond to that call by the end of this month.
The Senate is working on the Kennedy/Hatch Serve America Act of 2008, and the House is working on a similar bill, called the Generations Invigorating Volunteering and Education (GIVE) Act.
McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
nm
You had better do some better research. sm
Hillary, at the cost of millions of dollars from her special forces team (none of whom knew a thing about writing a health care bill, including herself) put together an over 1300 page "booklet" which was such a dismal failure, not even the democrats would get behind it. Ted Kennedy wants socialized medicine. Ask Canada and England what they think of socialized medicine. You really can't go around blaming republicans for everything without at least doing some research.
did my research
Oh, I did my research and I lived through the times when President Clinton and the First Lady tried to get a universal health plan. The republicans wanted nothing to do with it. Socialized health care? Better than no health care for millions of americans. At least President Clinton got the country talking about universal health care, more than Bush has done. All Bush has done is push his programs that benefit the rich. Example, his tax cuts. The rich got over 91,000 dollars in tax cuts each, the working class got 200 to 300 dollars, I didnt get anything. Bush is a disaster and I think you need to do a bit of research. Conservative equals not wanting change. Liberal means wanting to change and progress and move forward with new ideas, plans, bettering the country. You conservatives are stuck in the 1940s and 1950s mentality. Gotta tell ya, time moves on and if you dont move and grow with it, you will be left behind. It is obvious conservatism is a dying ideology, liberalism and sharing among the people of the world is the ideology of the future.
Do a little research on...
the bombings in Yugoslavia and the targeted bombings of civilians. Secondly, one coulud make an argument (you certainly would have if GWB had been president from 1992 until 2000) that Al-Qaeda ratched up it's attacks and most certainly planned the entire 9/11 attack during Clintons administration. From the 1993 failed WTC attack right on through all the rest, until the end of term, one cannot even argue that Bin Laden was left unchecked and unhindered.
Do some research
If you really care about why Jews believe life begins with the first breath, do some research, starting in the Old Testament. There is a lot of information available on the internet. I don't care to explain it all, when I really don't think you give a hoot about what I believe.
Basically, it is a matter of soul. We don't believe one has a soul until we are born and take our first breath.
Please...do the research....
even those scientists in search of grants who agree with him for that express purpose, conclude that he "might be a little off" on some things...saying that the catastrophic things he implies are imminent are MILLENIA away...that means thousands of years. Fossil fuels will be long gone by then and so will we. So...has NOTHING to do with peace.
It's you who needs to research/think
but I won't take any bets on either!
Are you really unable to follow what is meant by "MCcain voted 'with Bush'...? here's a clue: its not meant to be taken literally. MCCAIN VOTED FOR BUSH POLICIES 90% of the time. Do you still not get it?
And, my post wasn't about the DEMOCRATS - it was about McCain's voting record! But change the subject if you want...
anything but respond to the factual point(s)I made.
After you go do your research, come back and report WHETHER OR NOT McCain supported Bush's policies (voted for) anything near the 90% range...
For the record, I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT, nor do I defend them.
All you have to do is the research...
Democrats were at the top of this, Democrats passed the "reform" that was the straw that broke the camel's pack. Smoke and mirrors, deny, deny. It's all out there for anyone to see...Raines and Gorelick. Cleaned up at the American peoples' expense.
This one isn't. Research it. nm
nm
research it.....sm
I don't have time to do it for you, but all these CEOs of all these big corps that have gone under? Liberal democrats, probably all of them. Just look around for the info. It's there.
Makes me sick the way they blame George Bush and the Republicans, when it was the liberal congress getting their pockets lined to keep legislation from passing that would have kept fannie and freddie from happening, and whole boatload of other crap from happening.
Blame game...blame the republicans, when it's really yourself that caused the problem.
At least I just heard McCain finally get some kahunas and called Obama on his ties to all this.
You are SO right! I did some research on
this myself in the Journal of Socialist Affairs in America, and this was undeniably what was happening. A similar view is put forth on the unifyingamerica.org website. George Soros, Bill Rudgear, and Jonah Winston have just GOT to go!
He are a few. Do a little more research yourself instead...sm
of putting your faith in what a right-wing rag has to say. If your read all those requisitions for grants they were all for worthy causes in a poor Chicago neighborhood, children/youth/elderly programs. Because there was no oversight on how the money was spent it appears that some of the grant money that went to 1 of the organizations may have been misspent and is under investigation. This happened way back in 2000. In 2006 when Obama was no longer in the Illinois legislature, this same organization was given an additional $20,000. Do you want to blame Obama for that too? I venture to say I have done more research on the subject than you have.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/1184049,CST-NWS-watchdog25.article
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/DCEO_1.pdf
http://www.illinois.gov/pressreleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=1378
Research is everything.......it keeps getting
Don't forget that factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation that employed Obama in Chicago.
do some research
For starters, they have the highest tax in the nation (10.25, as I recall my sister telling me, who lives there). Major militants. Their idea of replacing a retired politician is neoptism. I don't recall the name, but my sister was telling me about it. They also pay big-time for car emission tests, stuff like that. Do some research and see what you think. After all, it's the home of Rev. Wright & Father Phleger.
Research this.....
Perhaps there are SOME out there who are beginning to get 'the picture'.
The following is a narrative taken from Sunday Morning's televised "Meet The
Press'. and the author is employed by none other than the Washington Post!!
Yeah......the Washington Post of New York and Los Angeles Times fame!! Must
say that I'm dually impressed..................
From Sunday's Televised "Meet the Press" Senator Obama was asked about his
stance on the American Flag. Obama Explains National Anthem Stance
Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked
Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is
played. The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United
States Code,
Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem
when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected
to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. At
the very least, "Stand and Face It"
Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, "As I've said about the flag pin, I
don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of
people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And
the anthem itself conveysa war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in
air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less
bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that
were our anthem, then I might salute it."We should consider to reinvent our
National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies
hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the
level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of
warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas
peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our
governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end
hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and
a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed
upon the nations of Islam anunfair injustice. My wife disre spects the Flag
for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag
burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has herviews and I have
mine". Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of
the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to
bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of hope. My
wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed,
CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.
WHAAAAAAAT the HEL**!!!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly be our
next President.I, for one, am speechless.
Dale Lindsborg, Washington Post
Maybe YOU should research it
http://www.startribune.com/local/31213379.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUMEaPc:E7_ec7PaP3iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU
Do a little research
for yourself. I'm sure you can find a snippet on the internet somewhere. Find it and hear whatever you want to hear or hear what was said, no concern of mine what you want to think.
Do you ever do your own research?
//
Do your research if you want
The information came from the Teamster's newsletter. The issues and voting dates are there in the previous post. Shouldn't be hard to verify the Wasilla Police Dept, also.
Okay, my research says -
publicly funded hospitals cannot refuse abortions, privately owned hospitals can.
Doctors and support staff can refuse to perform abortions or to assist physicians in abortions.
|
