By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The sad state of the US people.

akuma587 on 17 October 2008
bardicverse said:

I definitely need the right to bare arms... i wear a lot of t-shirts! Ohhh you mean BEAR arms. ;) hehe just messin on your spelling. But seriously, I can agree with your point there, though I think when you take something AWAY from the constitution, you're undermining the founders of this country. Additions of rights for blacks and women amongst other people only further promote the ideals that the constitution was founded on - equality. Taking arms away from citizens is a negative, as if one were to say that there was an error in the constitutional rights.

 

We have freedom of speech but we aren't allowed to yell fire in a public theater.  How is that any different?  That is a right of mine being taken away.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
akuma587 said:
bardicverse said:

I definitely need the right to bare arms... i wear a lot of t-shirts! Ohhh you mean BEAR arms. ;) hehe just messin on your spelling. But seriously, I can agree with your point there, though I think when you take something AWAY from the constitution, you're undermining the founders of this country. Additions of rights for blacks and women amongst other people only further promote the ideals that the constitution was founded on - equality. Taking arms away from citizens is a negative, as if one were to say that there was an error in the constitutional rights.

 

We have freedom of speech but we aren't allowed to yell fire in a public theater.  How is that any different?  That is a right of mine being taken away.

 

Yelling fire in a theatre infringes on the rights of other people.  By risking their life.

Simply owning weapons does not infringe on anyone elses rights.

 



akuma587 on 17 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
bardicverse said:

I definitely need the right to bare arms... i wear a lot of t-shirts! Ohhh you mean BEAR arms. ;) hehe just messin on your spelling. But seriously, I can agree with your point there, though I think when you take something AWAY from the constitution, you're undermining the founders of this country. Additions of rights for blacks and women amongst other people only further promote the ideals that the constitution was founded on - equality. Taking arms away from citizens is a negative, as if one were to say that there was an error in the constitutional rights.

 

We have freedom of speech but we aren't allowed to yell fire in a public theater.  How is that any different?  That is a right of mine being taken away.

 

Yelling fire in a theatre infringes on the rights of other people.  By risking their life.

Simply owning weapons does not infringe on anyone elses rights.

 

Its illegal in many places to use profanity.  That's a restriction on my freedom of speech.  That barely infringes on other people's rights and goes against the free speech principle.

What if someone stole your gun and used it to kill my family?  That infringes upon their rights.

Are explosives arms?  What if you kept explosives in your house and they actually blew up and destroyed the house next door.  That infringes upon their rights.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
bardicverse said:

I definitely need the right to bare arms... i wear a lot of t-shirts! Ohhh you mean BEAR arms. ;) hehe just messin on your spelling. But seriously, I can agree with your point there, though I think when you take something AWAY from the constitution, you're undermining the founders of this country. Additions of rights for blacks and women amongst other people only further promote the ideals that the constitution was founded on - equality. Taking arms away from citizens is a negative, as if one were to say that there was an error in the constitutional rights.

 

We have freedom of speech but we aren't allowed to yell fire in a public theater.  How is that any different?  That is a right of mine being taken away.

 

Yelling fire in a theatre infringes on the rights of other people.  By risking their life.

Simply owning weapons does not infringe on anyone elses rights.

 

Its illegal in many places to use profanity.  That's a restriction on my freedom of speech.  That barely infringes on other people's rights and goes against the free speech principle.

What if someone stole your gun and used it to kill my family?  That infringes upon their rights.

Are explosives arms?  What if you kept explosives in your house and they actually blew up and destroyed the house next door.  That infringes upon their rights.

 

Where is it illegal to use profanity?

Yes the person who stole the gun and used it to kill your family infringed on their rights.  So would someone who stole a butter knife and stabbed your family to death.  Or stole some sausage and choked someone with it.

Yes the mishandling of said arms would be the infringement... if you mishandled explosives and it blew up the house next to you, you would be held responsible for the explosion.  Not because you owned the explosives, but because they were mishandled.

Just how only the misuse of words to cause harm is illegal.  Only the misuse of arms is illegal.

There is no double standard there.  The double standard is yours under current law.

 



akuma587 on 17 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
bardicverse said:

I definitely need the right to bare arms... i wear a lot of t-shirts! Ohhh you mean BEAR arms. ;) hehe just messin on your spelling. But seriously, I can agree with your point there, though I think when you take something AWAY from the constitution, you're undermining the founders of this country. Additions of rights for blacks and women amongst other people only further promote the ideals that the constitution was founded on - equality. Taking arms away from citizens is a negative, as if one were to say that there was an error in the constitutional rights.

 

We have freedom of speech but we aren't allowed to yell fire in a public theater.  How is that any different?  That is a right of mine being taken away.

 

Yelling fire in a theatre infringes on the rights of other people.  By risking their life.

Simply owning weapons does not infringe on anyone elses rights.

 

Its illegal in many places to use profanity.  That's a restriction on my freedom of speech.  That barely infringes on other people's rights and goes against the free speech principle.

What if someone stole your gun and used it to kill my family?  That infringes upon their rights.

Are explosives arms?  What if you kept explosives in your house and they actually blew up and destroyed the house next door.  That infringes upon their rights.

 

Where is it illegal to use profanity?

Yes the person who stole the gun and used it to kill your family infringed on their rights.  So would someone who stole a butter knife and stabbed your family to death.  Or stole some sausage and choked someone with it.

Yes the mishandling of said arms would be the infringement... if you mishandled explosives and it blew up the house next to you, you would be held responsible for the explosion.  Not because you owned the explosives, but because they were mishandled.

Just how only the misuse of words to cause harm is illegal.  Only the misuse of arms is illegal.

There is no double standard there.  The double standard is yours under current law.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jan/25/news/mn-1502

For the last 102 years, however, it has been illegal in Michigan to “use any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child.”

I agree with you about the stealing the gun thing, it isn't really much of an issue as long as the gun is in a secure place and is not in plain sight.

But it is illegal to have many types of explosives, and is illegal to make certain types of explosives on your own because of the harm it could potentially cause.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
bardicverse said:

I definitely need the right to bare arms... i wear a lot of t-shirts! Ohhh you mean BEAR arms. ;) hehe just messin on your spelling. But seriously, I can agree with your point there, though I think when you take something AWAY from the constitution, you're undermining the founders of this country. Additions of rights for blacks and women amongst other people only further promote the ideals that the constitution was founded on - equality. Taking arms away from citizens is a negative, as if one were to say that there was an error in the constitutional rights.

 

We have freedom of speech but we aren't allowed to yell fire in a public theater.  How is that any different?  That is a right of mine being taken away.

 

Yelling fire in a theatre infringes on the rights of other people.  By risking their life.

Simply owning weapons does not infringe on anyone elses rights.

 

Its illegal in many places to use profanity.  That's a restriction on my freedom of speech.  That barely infringes on other people's rights and goes against the free speech principle.

What if someone stole your gun and used it to kill my family?  That infringes upon their rights.

Are explosives arms?  What if you kept explosives in your house and they actually blew up and destroyed the house next door.  That infringes upon their rights.

 

Where is it illegal to use profanity?

Yes the person who stole the gun and used it to kill your family infringed on their rights.  So would someone who stole a butter knife and stabbed your family to death.  Or stole some sausage and choked someone with it.

Yes the mishandling of said arms would be the infringement... if you mishandled explosives and it blew up the house next to you, you would be held responsible for the explosion.  Not because you owned the explosives, but because they were mishandled.

Just how only the misuse of words to cause harm is illegal.  Only the misuse of arms is illegal.

There is no double standard there.  The double standard is yours under current law.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jan/25/news/mn-1502

For the last 102 years, however, it has been illegal in Michigan to “use any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child.”

I agree with you about the stealing the gun thing, it isn't really much of an issue as long as the gun is in a secure place and is not in plain sight.

But it is illegal to have many types of explosives, and is illegal to make certain types of explosives on your own because of the harm it could potentially cause.

 

Yeah, the supreme court should overturn that law... and the explosives law too.

Not that i'm against people not being able to build bombs willy nilly all they want... but these things should be done the correct way.

One of the biggest problems we have in this country is that the government doesn't really follow the law because the Supreme Court doesn't do it's job... but instead interprets things the way the judges want to fit their ideologies... and not what it actually means.

The Supreme court... (both republican and democratic judges) are intellectually dishonest in a large number of their decisions.



theprof00 on 17 October 2008


theprof00 on 17 October 2008
Coca-Cola said:
theprof00 said:
this isn't for the economy coca cola, this is for the programs that we desperately need to go into the future. What do you think oil independance just happens?

I think it is about the economy.

socialist programs tried in Europe didn't work and it won't work here.

 

Cola it helps to listen and take a neutral standpoint when discussing issues otherwise you will never understand. It is proven that if something is said against what you believe, you have a much less time believing it, regardless of how truthful it is.

The tax is to pay for things that we need desperately:

Schooling: studies show that the more education a society has, the better that economy functions.

Infrastructure: studies show that bad roads not only impede transportation and lower gas mileage, but there are many cheap things that can prevent accidents which lowers insurance rates for everyone, and many other benefits.

Energy: Many programs have been developing new and better fuel sources with this being a prominent one. The hopefuls talk about clean coal and ethanol, but like i said advisors are going to be directing the majority of funding towards this

Algae. Cheaper, runs on sewage, and does not compete with food. Money is needed to fund the development though and actually right now an even better algae is being developed.

These things among others need to be paid for it is not as much going to be a redistribution of wealth, but paying for things that are going to help poorer individuals which will in turn help the state of the nation.

 

 



Jackson50 on 17 October 2008

I live in Michigan, and I remember when a local man was fined a few hundred dollars for swearing whilst falling out of a boat.

Anyways, I am not opposed to a progressive tax system, or a flat tax system which gives certain breaks to people who earn less. Even though most of my views can be described as libertarian, I am also a pragmatist. I think the government should provide health care, education and other such things. I do, however, disagree with how these problems should be solved. I rarely, if ever, advocate solving these problems through government programs. For example, I advocate a consumer-subsidized school system in lieu of the producer-subsidized system we currently have.



Coca-Cola on 18 October 2008
theprof00 said:
Coca-Cola said:
theprof00 said:
this isn't for the economy coca cola, this is for the programs that we desperately need to go into the future. What do you think oil independance just happens?

I think it is about the economy.

socialist programs tried in Europe didn't work and it won't work here.

 

Cola it helps to listen and take a neutral standpoint when discussing issues otherwise you will never understand. It is proven that if something is said against what you believe, you have a much less time believing it, regardless of how truthful it is.

The tax is to pay for things that we need desperately:

Schooling: studies show that the more education a society has, the better that economy functions.

Infrastructure: studies show that bad roads not only impede transportation and lower gas mileage, but there are many cheap things that can prevent accidents which lowers insurance rates for everyone, and many other benefits.

Energy: Many programs have been developing new and better fuel sources with this being a prominent one. The hopefuls talk about clean coal and ethanol, but like i said advisors are going to be directing the majority of funding towards this

Algae. Cheaper, runs on sewage, and does not compete with food. Money is needed to fund the development though and actually right now an even better algae is being developed.

These things among others need to be paid for it is not as much going to be a redistribution of wealth, but paying for things that are going to help poorer individuals which will in turn help the state of the nation.

 

 

You are the prof.

maybe you are right and i'm too blind to see.

I'm still too blind to see how higher taxes can help.  It hurts free market where more things can be produced.

but you are the prof.