Why does the Government have to create Laws to make people Volunteer?...
Posted By: sm on 2009-03-17
In Reply to:
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.
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
is it our government's job to make the world's people happy?
nm
His plans are to create bigger government, which
nm
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.
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.
to clarify - NO to fed laws superseding laws of State of California against voters
nm
Government prying into people's bank accounts nothing new.
And they're not just snooping on terrorists, as they claim.
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RAISEALARM-02-28-06
Pay too much and you could raise the alarm
By BOB KERR
The Providence Journal
28-FEB-06
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who traveled north with his wife, Deana, saw summer change to fall in Rhode Island and decided this was a place to stay for a while.
So the Soehnges live in Scituate now and Walter sometimes has breakfast at the Gentleman Farmer in Scituate Village, where he has passed the test and become a regular despite an accent that is definitely not local.
And it was there, at his usual table last week, that he told me that he was madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail.
He says things like that. Texas does leave its mark on a man.
What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that everything changed after 9/11 thing.
But not Walter.
We're a product of the '60s, he said. We believe government should be way away from us in that regard.
He was referring to the recent decision by him and his wife to be responsible, to do the kind of thing that just about anyone would say makes good, solid financial sense.
They paid down some debt. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten to an unhealthy level. So they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.
And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.
And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.
They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.
After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.
So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.
When you mess with my money, I want to know why, he said.
They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.
They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.
Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.
The more I'm on, the scarier it gets, he said. It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy.
Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.
But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.
If it can happen to me, it can happen to others, he said.
(Bob Kerr is a columnist for The Providence Journal. E-mail bkerr@projo.com.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.shns.com.)
The American people should always question motives of the government...
Motives of politicians are typically to help themselves. Notice how Obama left Unions off of his special interest bring it on list? Could it be because they contributed huge amounts of money to his campaign? Just a thought.
I'm not cold. It's not the government's fault if people ignore warnings.
I have no idea what McCain is doing in the Gulf today. That shows he is well meaning but probably has not lived after a hurricane. Everything to be done is done by now for someone who will be there for the storm. The real work will really start in about 4 days. Unless he is just there to give moral support to the national guard and dmat teams.
I wish he had not changed the convention schedule.
But will it still be volunteer?
Or will it become mandatory?
It will be volunteer, of course.
If it is VOLUNTEER, then why even have it at all??
d
NOT volunteer - you did not read the article
MANDATORY - When something is mandatory you don't have a choice. You are do what you are told.
REQUIRED - Again this is not a choice. When something is required you must do it.
People who make more
pay more taxes to begin with. So why up it for them? I have no problem with people receiving money from the government if they paid too much from their earnings. However, when there are people out there who aren't working and so no money is going to the government....I don't think they should get a check back from the government. You should have to contribute before you get anything back. That is taking money from hard working individuals and giving it to people including the ones who don't work. That isn't fair and that is nothing but welfare.
I think what he really does is make people think.
What he says may sound outrageous, but once you think about what he's really saying, some of it makes sense.
There should have been an investigation about 9/11, yes, but did we need those families on the TV every single night repeating that? No. I can't say I hate them for doing it because it was really the fault of the journalists that kept shoving cameras in thier faces. That's not to say at all that they don't deserve compassion, but they also should have been left alone to grieve.
And yes, the Katrina victims certainly deserve compassion, but I know for a fact that if a hurricane was coming my way, I'd get as far away as I could by any means that I could find. I don't hate the people that stayed behind, but what about the people who did get out and still lost everything - do they deserve any less compassion? And you didn't hear thier stories every night.
Yes, Beck is a radical right-winger and that's why us right-wingers like him so much. I may not always agree with what he says (much like Rush), but what he says definitely makes you think.
If you want to think he's an idiot, that's fine, but him and a lot of other right-wingers on "Fixed Noise" have been and are still right about a lot of things going on in our country. The left doesn't have the market cornered on what's right just because thier man is in the White House - no one knows that better than those of us who voted for Bush and have been regretting it for several years.
All these people make up a minority
I never said that Jefferson was alone in his views just that he was in a minority. Again, from the evidence I've read on both sides liberal philosophers and professors have chosen to re-write history. I think the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights speak for themselves and literally scream about a country with it's foundations in God. You can choose to ignore the words Almighty God, Divine providence etc., but it does not make them any less there in A deist belives in a deity to answer the question posted above either by the writer of the post or the writer of the excerpted text (I could not figure out who was posing the question).
We could throw quotes back and forth all day and never see eye to eye about it, but I choose to err on the side of God and Jesus Christ. I choose to live by faith that Jesus Christ is the only way, but let's look at it in a common sense way. Say I am wrong, and there are many *paths* to God then I'm still eternally okay, because I have embraced this path of which there are many, but say there are not many paths to God and Jesus Christ is truly the only way....then that's going to leave the people on the *other paths* in sad condition when they leave this world.
How about we tax the PRODUCTS that make people fat, sm
rather than "fatness"? Modified food starch, high fructose corn syrup, soy oils hidden in products? Imagine how much $$ we could make for so-called children's health programs if we actually taxed the items (like SODA POP and crappy snacks) that are MAKING THEM FAT in the first place!
With the flat tax, people who make under 40,000 per year will not have to
pay taxes the way it reads now. They estimate that people making over 40,000 will be able to produce more tax income than the current income tax w/o including people who make under 40,000.
Q and A about the Flat Tax.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7146/flattax.html
People like you make me ashamed to call myself
su
your mixing people up to try and make a point but not doing it well
First you compare Obama to her, but then on an issue you compare Obama to McCain because you know you don't have anything bad to compare to Gov Palin with. Then when you talk about Obama you praise him and when you talk above Gov Palin you demean her. Where is the fairness in that?
First, nobody is taking anything away from Obama. He is intelligent, articulated, has a beautiful family, has done quite well for himself both career and family wise.
Nobody is saying he is exotic and comparing it to her saying she is a quantessential American Story. People are very impressed with Obama's life history. Hawaii is a very exotic sounding state (I've never heard him described as exotic). Ahh Hawaii, beautiful oceans, white sandy beaches - everyone's dream vacation. You make it sound like people are tearing him down because he was born in Hawaii. Alaska is quite different. You have to admit that hunting moose is not your everyday experience but nowhere in any news source or anywhere have I heard people compare where they grew up in to put one down and bring the other up.
Nobody has said that because his name is Barack he's a radical unpatriotic Muslim. He's a Muslim turned Christian period, but not because of his name, and nobody has said she's a Maverick because of what she named her kids.
Nobody has said he is unstable because he graduated Harvard. On the contrary. People have said he is one of the most intelligent persons to have graduated and become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. That's not an accomplishment many people can say they have and that is what I am hearing everywhere. And who cares how many colleges she went to (this is your first demeaning statement of her by saying they were "small" colleges instead of just saying "5 colleges"). My DH has attended about 7 colleges all because of where he was living at the time and he is far from "well grounded" and I have never heard people say that about her.
Second part of belittling her and raising him up is by saying he is a "brilliant" community organizer. Brilliant may be your view of him, but I would just say he was a community organizer. No need to say he is brilliant and all other words of praise while belittling her. Yes, she was on TV but she was not a "local weather girl" (another cheap shot at trying to put her down). She was a TV News anchor and covered sports. And your description of her time served as councilwoman, mayor, and governor is a little more than insulting. It goes to verify that you just hate her and what she has accomplished. You need to research all the good things she has done and whether you like it or not, she has done a lot of good things for the people and made their lives better. And to try attack the population of Alaska as though it's some kind of negative for her, and make her sound any less by saying they were small towns and state. Governer is governer. Responsibilites are the same wether your a governor of Alaska, Hawaii, California or any other state (give or take a few of the state programs). BTW Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas. And funny how Dean was the frontrunner for the dems when the population of Vermont is smaller than Alaska (yes, I'm sure you all don't want to remember that little tid bit).
Gov. Sarah Palin was on the city council for 2 years, Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee for 1 year, was mayor of Wasilla for 6 years. She defeated a 3-term mayor. She created positions and even reduced her salary. She cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes. She made improvements to the roads and sewers and increased funding to the police department. She also procured funding for storm-water treatment to protect freshwater resources. She ran a second term and won by 74%. She's promoted oil and natural gas resource development. She sold a jet, got rid of a personal chef and drives herself to work from her home (50 miles) even though she is allowed a per diem and hotel. She got rid of the bridge to nowhere and she signed into law the AGIA. So your portrayal of what Gov. Palin has done is quite inaccurate while boosting up Obama. Gov. Palin's past qualifications will most definitely contribute and help her to be a good VP.
Obama was a state legislature from 1997-2004, in the US Senate in 2004, and became a junior senator in 2005. You can't even seriously compare the two.
Yes Obama has been married to Michelle for 19 years and their two daughters are beautiful. Sarah has been married to Todd for 20 years and they have five beautiful children. (your comparing Barack to Sarah in all your answers - so why did you jump to John McCain on this one?)
Whatever kind of safe sex education you want to give pre-schoolers (who should be
more concerned with learning how to read and write is just wrong). Gov. Palin did not advocate teaching only abstinence. And she had nothing to do with her daughter getting pregnant. The best of children come up pregnant both in democratic and republican party.
Funny how you were all for Bill Clinton getting ready to be called "First Dude", but now you have a problem with Todd Palin being called "First Dude", and don't even try to justify that one with Bill Clintons background. Are you saying the the VP's spouse is suppose to have a college education? How egotistical of you. Especially since he is a commercial fisherman, for 18 years worked in the oil fields, member of the United Steelworkers, among other things. That's a pretty stable background.
Kudo's to Michelle for graduating from Harvard, but not everyone wants to go to college to be a lawyer (and in my opinion we need less lawyers in DC, not more), but to take away from Todd Palin because he doesn't have a college degree????
And to mention such an insignificant note that he didn't vote until 25? Who cares? And I'm not sure that is even true, but just plain trivial.
This post is just another liberal post trying to trash and demean decent people, not giving credit where credit due, while propping up your candidate, with inflated statements.
Ok, much clearer now to you?
I just knew some people would make this into an argument
I just thought it was pretty cool and on the lighter side. But...as usual, some people just want to argue.
To make it easier for some people, I tallied the votes (sm)
O did not vote on the issues 289 times. He voted yea 220 times and voted nay 128 times.
I haven't had the time to really check out the yea's or nay's but I will in the next couple of days.
Perhaps if you would try to make sense people could answer your questions. nm
x
why do we vote for people to make things complicated?
People who make their bills 900 pages should be rejected on the spot. There should be a page max to make sure that the people representing us fully understands what they are getting US into. JERKS!!!! thanks for showing me that!
Here's a real nice conservative statement. How to make friends and influence people.
"Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air Monday, Aug. 22, 2005, that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
create another board
You know, what this bulletin *system* needs is a bashing board. I used to post at a relatively calm board and some wanted to pick fights no matter what..The owner in her wisdom created a bashing board where those who have anger, upset, whatever and wanted to bash could and could also leave those other boards alone which did not want turmoil. Maybe the owners here could do that. I dont know who owns this board. I have been told it no longer is owned by the owner of MTstars..Maybe if the owner reads this, he or she will create another board for **Political wars**..
Please tell me, what did the "libs" create. sm
We have had a republican president for 8 years and a republican congress for 6 of those years, and 2 just barely on the dem side. When Bill Clinton's presidency was over, we had a multimillion dollar surplus and low unemployment; however, the republicans thought it was more important to impeach him for "sex crimes". Just think of all the good he could have done if time was not wasted in defending himself, not to mention all our tax dollars that were spent. Hello? Their marriage has obviously survived and it is no ones business but theirs.
You are trying to create something that did not happen
His picture is colored in on the coins. You sure did misinterpret what she said and you turned it into a racial thing. This is not racial. These coins are colored/painted in and they are CHEAP!!!! Maybe you should take a look at them and you will see what she means. Your trying to make it a racial thing where there is no racial tendencies in her message.
I think you're the one who is bigoted, prejudice, etc. Give the race relations a break. There is no room for your kind of behavior on this board. Period!
You know if they want to create jobs
why aren't we drilling for oil? Why aren't we getting wind farms going? If our government would take more money to look into alternative fuels, not only would that stop our dependency on foreign oil but we will need workers to maintain those things, etc. Those will be jobs that will last. It won't be like construction work like Obama wants. Once the roads are repaired and bridges fixed, etc....then what? I just think we are going in the wrong direction and I just don't understand why. We need to tap our resources with offshore drilling. We need to drill Alaska. While we are doing that, we need to look for alternatives to oil. The sooner they do that, the sooner car companies can make environmentally safer cars and vehicles. I mean....come on.
The money is certainly not going to create jobs
This will not create jobs for anyone.
Obama didn't create this mess
I am amazed at the criticism directed at Obama regarding the current economic crisis.
1. Did he run up our huge debt with China?
2. Who blew billions on Wall Street without any oversight - Bush/Paulson - ring a bell?
3. Who gave us the stimulus checks last year that the government couldn't really afford to give?
4. Who got us into a $10 billion a month Iraq war when our allies and the UN Security Council could see that the "evidence" was total b.s.? Wasn't it McCain who said we would keep at it 100 years? How much has that and would that fiasco cost us?
I speak as a former Republican/turned independent. Both parties have sold us down the river to appeal to the interests of big multinationals interested in "free trade". How could we possibly hope to keep our economy healthy by allowing trade with people making pennies an hour? Our own profession is a microcosm of the maladies caused by the "global economy". We make far less and work much harder - finding it difficult to pay bills. It had to crash sometime.
I agree with you that this stimulus package will probably not do the trick, but to blame Obama for it is ridiculous. It would be the equivalent of having been sent in a barrel over the side of Niagara Falls, and halfway down Obama tries to figure out a way to soften the landing. He didn't put us in the situation - and maybe he can't get us out.
One thing is certain - McCain could not have done better. He would have kept us bleeding billions in Iraq that we simply do not have.
We are likely going to see runaway inflation. The government is committing itself to compounding the effects of the disaster - starting with Bush allowing Paulson to throw billions to his Wall Street buddies and the continuing effort to stave off the inevitable crash of our economy. The only way they can afford these megabillion plans is to print more money - and the money will become worth a lot less. Get ready for a $100 loaf of bread.
It would just create a huge black market, and
Bush didn't create the federal reserve......
xx
Obama to create Iran outreach post...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/19/obama-will-create-iran-outreach-position/
Yup, they actually admitted that if the "outrage and publicity" they create gets their message
I agree with their founding sentiments, but sickening sensationalism is a turn-off to me, it seems like fanaticism, and I have a beautiful daughter, I find it all so offensive. Also, I do not want my two sons ever to objectify women like that in their minds, sooooo sick! PETA cares for physical health with vegetarianism, but what about mental health with healthy body image, healthy relationships, and healthy respect in life, not important?
It took only 2 years to create this mess? You missed your meds.
x
Kissinger: Obama's 'task' is to help create a 'new world order'
"New World Order," the phrase previously attributed to "whacky conspiracy theorists," is now being PUBLICLY advocated by this senile old man. I hope Obama is too smart and too reasonable for this "NWO" stuff because this is one of the reasons I voted for him.
Kissinger: Obama's 'task' is to help create a 'new world order'
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday January 6, 2009
|
President Nixon's Secretary of State, the aging Henry Kissinger, recently told CNBC that he believes the current world economic crisis is a "great opportunity" for President-elect Obama to help create a "new world order."
"What do you think the most important thing is for Barack Obama?" Kissinger was asked. "... If you had to say, this is going to be the country, or the conflict, or the place that will define the Obama administration, what would it be?"
Kissinger replied: "The President-elect is coming into office at a moment when there are upheavals in many part of the world simultaneously. You have India-Pakistan. You have, ah, a jihadist movement."
"But," continued Kissinger, "he can give new imputus to American foreign policy, partly because the ascension of him is so extraordinary and admirable.
"I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a "New World Order" can be created. It's a great opportunity. It isn't such a crisis."
In response to a parting question, Kissinger added that Obama's cabinet is an "extraordinarily able group of people."
"The phrase 'new world order' traces back at least as far as 1940, when author H.G. Wells used it as the title of a book about a socialist, unified, one-world government," writes Drew Zahn. "The phrase has also been linked to American presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, whose work on establishing the League of Nations pioneered the concept of international government bodies, and to the first President Bush, who used the phrase in a 1989 speech."
In that 1989 speech, the elder Bush told Congress, "A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective –– a new world order –– can emerge: A new era …… in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony."
It is a quote echoed across the Internet by those who believe a non-elected governing body is forming at the very top of the world's elite, and spreading.
Kissinger previously spoke at some length about this "new world order" during an interview with Charlie Rose.
"I think that when the new administration assess the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of it," Kissinger told Rose in a Dec. 2008 conversation.
"The jihadist crisis is bringing it home to everybody, that international affairs cannot be conducted entirely by drawing borders and defining international politics by who crosses what borders with organized military force," he said. "This has now been reinforced by the financial crisis, which totally unexpectedly has spread around the world. It limits the resources that each country has for a foreign policy geared to an assertion of its own pure interests."
Kissinger publicly supported McCain for President in 2008.
The following video was aired on CNBC on Jan. 5, 2009.
Find story and video at:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Henry_Kissinger_Obama_should_act_to_0106.html
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.
Oh but it does...research the laws regarding...
citizenship.
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.
|
