|
Post by The Admin on Jan 2, 2005 21:00:39 GMT -6
They're trying to get the supreme court to finally rule that none of us have rights because it's more important to finally usher in the new communist state. State-sponsered medical care is only the beginning!
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 2, 2005 21:53:42 GMT -6
oh pish posh....liberals take away rights?
um, no...i don't even want to argue...but no, bush and his evil conservatives are slowly but surely tearing apart our country piece by piece and stripping us of our rights
The patriot act?? what a joke....feingold, the only one who opposed it, was the only one who read it!
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 3, 2005 21:19:49 GMT -6
Fingold voted it down because of Pork, not human rights. Being a liberal he is naturally favorably disposed towards taking away as many of our basic human freedoms as possible (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal opportunity before the law, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, right to life, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 3, 2005 22:03:52 GMT -6
wait....he is a liberal and wants to get rid of humanitarian rights! No, the patriot act got rid of humanitarian rights...he voted against it. Regaurdless of what his motives were, he voted against taking away rights. And freedom of religion? With conservatives intertwining church and state its hard to pick out what is religion and what isn't. Example: "My church says that abortion is wrong" Here in America, we have freedom of religion so anyone could make up some crazy religious law and if they were a politician, they could change it into a real law. Liberals are not against freedom of religion at all! If anyone is, conservatives are. Hmmm...equal opportunity before the law...the patriot act allows people of muslamic descent to be descriminated against and unreasonably searched. Last time I checked, that is racial profiling which is also promoted by the conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 4, 2005 21:32:56 GMT -6
Ignoring everything you just said because it's nonsense... The Patriot Act stops terrorists. (see recent news article about man arrested under the patriot act for trying to down airplanes with lasars www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/nyregion/05laser.html). Terrorists are definately not increasing rights. Therefore by voting against the patriot act, Feingold was voting against human rights.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 4, 2005 23:13:23 GMT -6
okay, so one success from the patriot act....whoop dee doo...12 THOUSAND people were discriminated against because of it! Plus, just the other day, worlin was telling me how the NY Times is not credible and the government uses it to make the citizens feel better about things. Plus, the patriot act was not necessary. We knew about 9/11. Bush was just too busy golfing and being an idiot to do anything about it. It was a flaw within our own system. We didn't need any new kind of act. Terrorists kill people, bomb buildings, hijack airplanes, etc. That's all terrible and everything, but it doesn't have anything to do with our civil rights. Our civil liberties are given and taken away from us through the government. In a futile attempt to protect us the government took away our rights through the patriot act. Feingold was intelligent enough to realize that the patriot act was not the way to go. It was unnecessary...we knew about nine eleven! We could have prevented it, but we chose not to. Actually, Bush chose not to. Feingold realized that it was unnecessary and chose to protect our rights.
oh my gosh logan! thank you sooo much! i think i just wrote some of my 3 page paper on civil liberties
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 6, 2005 21:16:24 GMT -6
Rights are innately part of being human and can neither be given nor taken away, therefore terrorism outweighs.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 9, 2005 15:24:20 GMT -6
you missed my point. I wasn't arguing that either outweighed each other. I was merely arguing that our government doesn't need to sacrifice human rights in order to stop terrorism. It has what it needs, it's the people that lack the proficiency to properly utilize the intelligence our government already has.
We can have both....civil liberties and good homeland security
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 10, 2005 21:36:39 GMT -6
Exactly, so long as we continue to elect Republicans instead of evil, extremist liberals who want to take all our rights and use them to take over the world.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 10, 2005 23:19:12 GMT -6
no, because republicans invent crap things like the Patriot Act to attempt to increase homeland security but they do in fact decrease civil liberties while not even boosting homeland security.
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 11, 2005 21:20:00 GMT -6
We already went over this, The Patriot Act has stopped lots of terrorists. The only people who lose rights under it are people who want to kill people using airplanes etc.
Furthermore, if the Patriot Act really did take away rights, then I would just say it was a giant liberal conspiracy because all the democrats voted for it, and also they control the media therefore they invented 9/11 which led to the Patriot Act.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 12, 2005 18:26:27 GMT -6
we never went over the misconception that the patriot act stopped lots of terrorist attacks.....i wonder why we didn't...hmmmmm.....maybe because it DIDN'T stop lots of terrorist attacks. 12,000 people had their rights infringed upon for no reason at all...you haven't even bothered responding to my point that the patriot act was unnecessary and we already had the intelligence that was necessary to prevent september 11th, the people handling that intelligence lacked the intelligence to act.
|
|
|
Post by The Admin on Jan 12, 2005 22:14:08 GMT -6
In the off chance that you're right [actually it's a 0% chance but nonetheless] I shall have to go to my option B. 9/11 was actually a hoak forced on us by the liberal media so that Bush would have to pass the Patriot Act thus allowed the evil liberals who really control the government to spy on our library records.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Jan 12, 2005 22:56:54 GMT -6
no....actually i am right....our nation had the intelligence to deterr 9/11. It was a written report that bush didn't put forth the time to read.
since when are liberals so in favor of the patriot act...if i recall correctly..(and i do) feingold was the only one not to sign. Feingold is a liberal democrat. EVERYONE else signed. That includes conservatives and liberals...so don't blame it on the democrats
|
|
|
Post by UNKNOWN on Feb 5, 2005 11:42:48 GMT -6
They're all stupid. In the end if I had to vote, I would've voted for Bush simply because he wants to put a ban on homosexual marriages and civil unions and he wants to ban abortion. Kerry opposes both Bush's plan and he agrees with Bush. There was one dude that was on the ballot (at least in WI) that wanted to legalize assisted suicides; that makes him a very stupid president, and I don't know what Nader wanted so I wouldn't have voted for him.
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 8, 2005 16:49:50 GMT -6
Liberals are also stupid based on the fact that they subscribe to Humanistic Relativism, which is a silly and inherently contridictory concept. And Maymer, I remember the in-class debates with Patriot Act plans. THEY HAD NO HARMS. AT ALL.
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 9, 2005 10:25:43 GMT -6
Why can't we all stick to what God says and not man. I mean this: Homosexual marriage is wrong and the government that permits it will go to hell.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 10, 2005 16:04:21 GMT -6
OH EAT SHIT AND DIE YOU CLOSED MINDED CONSERVATIVE JERK
....we cannot legislate religion.....what about other crazy religious laws. What if we had a Jewish government and all pork was outlawed and it became a felony to eat dairy and meat together.
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 11, 2005 7:26:36 GMT -6
One, Jews don't convert other people, so by defintion if they took their viewpoint to the logical conclusion wouldn't neccecitate that at all. Second, even if they did, if they want to take their religion to its logical conclusion, under that logic they should. But they're wrong and I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 11, 2005 10:25:21 GMT -6
What happened to my last post?
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 11, 2005 18:33:36 GMT -6
that's not the point, i was pointing out the sheer idiocy of trying to legislate religion....you completely went off in the WRONG direction.
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 11, 2005 18:56:49 GMT -6
And you apparently don't listen. As I said, if you didn't catch the fact of the nessecity of taking a viewpoint to its logical conclusion at the risk of totally forfiting it, I repeat it. Do you at all get the fact that, of all the views out there, that one specific one might be right? Apparently not, because if you did, you would realize that your own limited mindset of how the world works would be completly inadaquete for the implications of such a scenario.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 11, 2005 22:49:49 GMT -6
It is not our government's decision to pick which religion "might be right." ...and that they should legislate that imparticular one. You're complaining about my "limited mindset?" If you claim that there is one right way, and it is your way, with your religion, and your religious laws that you wish to infringe upon everyone else, then you truly have the most limited mindset I have ever heard of. Just because I don't agree with you, I have a limited mindset. That is pathetic. Trying to argue politics is like trying to teach an A.D.D. child to win a staring contest. Not going to happen because the other party involved doesn't have the capacity to do so.
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 12, 2005 16:06:55 GMT -6
You have a limited mindset in that you fail to grasp logic. You fail to understand that (gasp) someone can actually be right in this world and others can be wrong. The only reason you would not allow people to legislate morality (and that's legislating morality in your own right) is because it might hurt people's feelings. So. What? You are narrowminded in that you fail to grasp the fact that other people can be wrong so they have no real reason to continue being stupid, so we can legislate morality because what are we then violating, their stupidity? You fail to grasp that merely having a different opinion is simply not a good enough excuse in any world.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 14, 2005 21:04:19 GMT -6
there is a difference between legislating religion and legislating morality that you don't seem to recognize. Everyone who disagrees with you is narrowminded. All your arguements are based on the fact that you consider your religion infallible and worthy of being legislated. I never said that it was wrong, but I never said it was right either. It's not up to me to decide what is right and wrong religiously. My point is that our government would be overstepping boundaries to legislate religion. You refuse to grasp that. It doesn't matter what is right and what is wrong. that is an entirely different discussion.
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 15, 2005 7:52:38 GMT -6
Why don't wJe propose a constitutional amendment of the combining of church and state, but still have the freedom of religion. We could proclaim the Word of God and spread it through the public schools. That way more people can hear the message of salvation. Then more people will believe and go to heaven. This would include banning homosexual marriages/civil unions and abortion and everything else that is immoral or that shouldn't be done.
If you look at other religions, you will find that they are flawed. Judaism says that a savior will come to save us from our sins; that has already happened. Islam has no message of salvation and says you have to do this and that every day to get to heaven; nobody is perfect so they won't be able to go to their version of "heaven." Hinduism says you must be reincarnated into a cow to reach eternal happiness or whatever; reincarnation is false; humans are the only creatures with souls. Buddism says that you must reach nirvana or the state of non existence; that doesn't make any sense. Why exist to have the goal of not existing. If you ask God for the forgiveness of sins, he will give it. If you ask for the forgiveness of one sin, you will get it but still have the rest of the sins upon you with no forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 15, 2005 14:52:01 GMT -6
JERROD, GO EAT YOUR OWN SHIT, SCREW YOUR COUSIN, F*CK YOUR DAD, AND DROWN IN YOUR OWN PISS. STOP POSTING HERE AND LEAVE ME THE F*CK ALONE. I SHOULD NOT AND WILL NOT PUT UP WITH YOUR CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN ILLOGICAL BULLSHIT. YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE MODERN WORLD AS WE KNOW IT.
"Imagine" - John Lennon
Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people living for today...
Imagine there's no countries, It isnt hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, No religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace...
Imagine no possesions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man, Imagine all the people Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us, And the world will live as one.
THE WORLD WILL LIVE AS ONE WHEN IDIOTS LIKE JERROD, SHOVE THEIR REPUBLICAN SHIT DOWN THEIR OWN THROATS. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS SOMETHING WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON, WITHOUT IT WE WOULD BE A THEOCRACY OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU.
|
|
|
Post by JerOD on Feb 16, 2005 6:56:03 GMT -6
You need help, Sarah. Pick up a Bible, maybe you'll start to think.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkpattie on Feb 16, 2005 14:49:00 GMT -6
you need help. open up the pathetic nutshell you call a brain. I never said I wasn't Christian, you don't even know anything about my beliefs. You can be a Christian without legislating your religion and mixing church and state.
|
|
|
Post by HCMBrainCandy on Feb 16, 2005 19:06:24 GMT -6
First of all, seperation of Chuch and state is complete bogus concocted by a few idiots on the bench who decided they would change definitions on a whim to suit their agendas. Second, you are changing the subject in that we are arguing about legislating morality in the first place, that includes morality determined by religion. Your point is a side point, and I don't believe you can really back up your argument. It basically comes down to your side proclaiming morals where there is nothing.
|
|