Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Should the judge ruling on Jose Padillla's case have to undergo the same treatment to determine if torture?
Answer:
Sorry, deux, you're getting to be too much of a liberal. If the judge released Padilla by reason of "outrageous government conduct", he'd be giving hundreds of "terrorists" the keys to their jail cells.
Seriously, as a human being, this judge could have figured that Padilla was tortured. The old obscenity standard gives a good enough definition.
The judge in the Padilla case only ruled that claims of torture were not enough to force a dismissal of the case. The torture claims can be raised at trial. Her ruling is not nearly as significant as the media would have us believe.
The judge is merely using the letter of the law. The media exploits the rest.
Should the internet be used only for pro-government opinions?
There should be a law that using the internet to inform others about government sins and agendas is a felony.
We need authority to be respected and obeyed, even if it will lead us to genocide and civil war.
Shouldn't there be a law banning anti-government sentiments?
.
Answer:
There probably already is such a law.... in CHINA.
If you want to live in a country where using the internet to point out your own government's "sins and agendas" is a felony, then move to China.
(I think I detect that your question really is just to get people to appreciate the importance of free speech. Nobody in America (not even Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly) could be so pro-government to suggest criminalizing dissent. Besides-- what's good for the goose is good for the gander....)
only when a liberal Dim is in power. it's the only way they can hold on to power
People have fought and died for the very right to criticize the government, taking away that very right empowers the government in ways we do not even want to imagine.
Sure if you are pro-fascism fight for such a law, however I for one will be one of the most outspoken critics of it.
Of course not, because it will give the poor unemployed Bush bashers nothing to do. Then everyone would lose the sacred secret of hiding behind their keyboard. There would be no anonymity. People would die or boredom or there would be mass suicides in all the "Red" states.
Besides, once a Democrat gets elected President I want to be able to complain about every fault of theirs. However, a Democrat won't be President until 2012 at the earliest. I mean when you have Mrs Clinton and Obama as your primary front runner??? Come on, you are going to have to do better than that.
Have you heard of your first amendment right to Free Speech? While we are at it maybe you would suggest we burn books too.
This country was built on the rights of people to say what they want to. In addition, the government is elected, made up of human beings , just like you and me and if they are committing crimes we the people who elected them have a right to know.
We need authority to be respected and obeyed, even if it will lead us to genocide and civil war.
Shouldn't there be a law banning anti-government sentiments?
.
Answer:
There probably already is such a law.... in CHINA.
If you want to live in a country where using the internet to point out your own government's "sins and agendas" is a felony, then move to China.
(I think I detect that your question really is just to get people to appreciate the importance of free speech. Nobody in America (not even Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly) could be so pro-government to suggest criminalizing dissent. Besides-- what's good for the goose is good for the gander....)
only when a liberal Dim is in power. it's the only way they can hold on to power
People have fought and died for the very right to criticize the government, taking away that very right empowers the government in ways we do not even want to imagine.
Sure if you are pro-fascism fight for such a law, however I for one will be one of the most outspoken critics of it.
Of course not, because it will give the poor unemployed Bush bashers nothing to do. Then everyone would lose the sacred secret of hiding behind their keyboard. There would be no anonymity. People would die or boredom or there would be mass suicides in all the "Red" states.
Besides, once a Democrat gets elected President I want to be able to complain about every fault of theirs. However, a Democrat won't be President until 2012 at the earliest. I mean when you have Mrs Clinton and Obama as your primary front runner??? Come on, you are going to have to do better than that.
Have you heard of your first amendment right to Free Speech? While we are at it maybe you would suggest we burn books too.
This country was built on the rights of people to say what they want to. In addition, the government is elected, made up of human beings , just like you and me and if they are committing crimes we the people who elected them have a right to know.
Should the Indian Court oversteps the limits of its authority ?
1)The courts are authorised to 'interpret the law'?(Not authorised for making any new legislation?
2)The court is authorised to see whether the new law (passed by the legslature)is within the costitutional limits.
Answer:
no court should overstep its authority
but, i don't understand what you are asking about
Yes
2)The court is authorised to see whether the new law (passed by the legslature)is within the costitutional limits.
Answer:
no court should overstep its authority
but, i don't understand what you are asking about
Yes
Should the government take our DNA and place it on file?
I wanted to see other peoples opinions on the subject.
Answer:
No, because it alters the relationship between the people and the state. If the state demands your DNA, it is saying that you're not a citizen, but rather a criminal or potential criminal who must be monitored and tagged.
Only vicious, out-of-control dictatorial regimes would believe in monitoring and controlling all citizens all of the time just 鈥榠n case鈥?a tiny minority of individuals get up to no good.
Those who say "if you've nothing to hide etc" then presumably you wouldn't object to the Government putting spy cameras in every room in the house (incl. bedroom and bathroom) "just in case" you were a terrorist/ child molester/ burglar/ wofe beater etc.
That's a big no.
Absolutely not - unless you are a convicted criminal.
Yes, most definitely.
Everychild born in America and every person entering America should provide DNA proof of identity and fingerprints.
Then, when little Johnny grows up to be a serial rapist we will know right where to look.
No way. Do you trust your government to do anything right? With all the foreign owned businesses and medical corporations, how can you possibly believe that they won't illegally use your DNA or even begin to harvest your organs for their lawbreakers? Almost every database in the USA has been hacked. Medical identity theft is growing almost as fast as identity theft.
I do, however, favor keeping criminal DNA and DNA from illegal immigrants in a database.
Abso-freaking-lutely NOT! They have no business having my DNA on file, I have committed no crime (that they know about) and I still have a right to some sort of privacy, especially the privacy of my DNA code. Thanks and have a nice day.
Wow, in looking at some of the other responses, it is nice to see that fascism is still alive and kicking.
why not? if you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
and I wouldn't mind if the govt. put cameras in my house. Ive got nothing to hide. is your privacy supposed to be more important than national security?
Absolutely not! That is invading my privacy!
If they have ever been arrested I think they should do it this way if they want to do it but only if they take you in for any crime they should be able to and need to.
Gestapo.
why would they want to do that any time they want it they could get it even if you're dead stupid question
Hell No! This would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment; The right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures and arguable in the 5th Amendment; no one must witness against his or herself, no loss of life, liberty or private property without due process. Taking someone's DNA without having been convicted of a crime wreaks of a totalitarian police state.
There is also a clear violation to the 9th %26 10th Amendments respectively. The 9th Amendment states; The rights beyond the Bill of Rights belong to the people, any right not stated is enumerated as belonging to the people. The 10th Amendment states; Undelegated powers belong to the people unless given by the people to their respective state. This is not nor should it ever be a "Federal" issue. This would be unconstitutional to say the least. I have heard the argument that it would help stop terrorism and catalogue every person that should not be in this country. So, you give your DNA over and the crimminals and terrorists don't. The government argues that this would help make us safer, however they can't guarantee you will be safe. Okay, if you can't guarantee my safety, then I'll just say NO to your scams and keep my Bill of Rights! Think about it? There are no guarantees to safety anyhow. Yet, we hand our constitutional rights over to a bunch of morons who'll probably get us killed one way or another! Benjamen Franklin said it best; "Those that are willing to give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
I like my relationship with the government to be on a need to know basis.
I think we as citizens need to resist invasion of our privacy. Do you really want the government know everything about you ?
I dont like crime either. So lets work on getting people out of desperate situations that lead them to turn to crime. Educated people who are not stressed about finding money will make for a much less violent society. Not give them all our information so that they can find out everythign about us.
Sometimes governments try to control their people, you dont want to give them ways to do so. Cause you never know when the wrong people will be in office.
Answer:
No, because it alters the relationship between the people and the state. If the state demands your DNA, it is saying that you're not a citizen, but rather a criminal or potential criminal who must be monitored and tagged.
Only vicious, out-of-control dictatorial regimes would believe in monitoring and controlling all citizens all of the time just 鈥榠n case鈥?a tiny minority of individuals get up to no good.
Those who say "if you've nothing to hide etc" then presumably you wouldn't object to the Government putting spy cameras in every room in the house (incl. bedroom and bathroom) "just in case" you were a terrorist/ child molester/ burglar/ wofe beater etc.
That's a big no.
Absolutely not - unless you are a convicted criminal.
Yes, most definitely.
Everychild born in America and every person entering America should provide DNA proof of identity and fingerprints.
Then, when little Johnny grows up to be a serial rapist we will know right where to look.
No way. Do you trust your government to do anything right? With all the foreign owned businesses and medical corporations, how can you possibly believe that they won't illegally use your DNA or even begin to harvest your organs for their lawbreakers? Almost every database in the USA has been hacked. Medical identity theft is growing almost as fast as identity theft.
I do, however, favor keeping criminal DNA and DNA from illegal immigrants in a database.
Abso-freaking-lutely NOT! They have no business having my DNA on file, I have committed no crime (that they know about) and I still have a right to some sort of privacy, especially the privacy of my DNA code. Thanks and have a nice day.
Wow, in looking at some of the other responses, it is nice to see that fascism is still alive and kicking.
why not? if you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
and I wouldn't mind if the govt. put cameras in my house. Ive got nothing to hide. is your privacy supposed to be more important than national security?
Absolutely not! That is invading my privacy!
If they have ever been arrested I think they should do it this way if they want to do it but only if they take you in for any crime they should be able to and need to.
Gestapo.
why would they want to do that any time they want it they could get it even if you're dead stupid question
Hell No! This would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment; The right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures and arguable in the 5th Amendment; no one must witness against his or herself, no loss of life, liberty or private property without due process. Taking someone's DNA without having been convicted of a crime wreaks of a totalitarian police state.
There is also a clear violation to the 9th %26 10th Amendments respectively. The 9th Amendment states; The rights beyond the Bill of Rights belong to the people, any right not stated is enumerated as belonging to the people. The 10th Amendment states; Undelegated powers belong to the people unless given by the people to their respective state. This is not nor should it ever be a "Federal" issue. This would be unconstitutional to say the least. I have heard the argument that it would help stop terrorism and catalogue every person that should not be in this country. So, you give your DNA over and the crimminals and terrorists don't. The government argues that this would help make us safer, however they can't guarantee you will be safe. Okay, if you can't guarantee my safety, then I'll just say NO to your scams and keep my Bill of Rights! Think about it? There are no guarantees to safety anyhow. Yet, we hand our constitutional rights over to a bunch of morons who'll probably get us killed one way or another! Benjamen Franklin said it best; "Those that are willing to give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
I like my relationship with the government to be on a need to know basis.
I think we as citizens need to resist invasion of our privacy. Do you really want the government know everything about you ?
I dont like crime either. So lets work on getting people out of desperate situations that lead them to turn to crime. Educated people who are not stressed about finding money will make for a much less violent society. Not give them all our information so that they can find out everythign about us.
Sometimes governments try to control their people, you dont want to give them ways to do so. Cause you never know when the wrong people will be in office.
Should the government crack down on smoking laws?
Just answer yes or no. It's for an opinion poll in my government class. Thanks all!
Answer:
your question cannot be answered correctly.
you need to re word it. it is confusing
should the government enforce anti smoking laws,
and create new ones?
No
if these answers your counting are going to be used as a result for your poll in class. understand that your data is incorrect. you might as well just make up the numbers
I suggest scratching this question (pick a best answer though) and try reposting your question correctly
I'll keep an eye out for your new one and answer it.
No
yes
no
Crack down on smoking laws? Yes.
Crack down on smoking? No.
Eh. Nah.
yes
yup!
No.
no
yes
smoking should be banned from the world!!!!!!!!!!!
no if that happens we well all go crazy
You really need to re-word this question.
Are you asking if the government should abandon anti-smoking laws or are you asking if government laws should be enforced against smokers?
I don't understand what you are asking.
No answer, you didn't state what cracking down means.
I agree w/ Anthony Spears.
I can't tell from your question if that means yes or no.
no
The government should crack down on lying politicians!
And then go find the safety belts that are missing from the transit buses!
If they are really are that concerned about ones safety and welfare?
yes
Like others said, I'm not sure how to interpret your question.
I'm GLAD they just banned smoking inside public building in AZ.
Beyond that I don't really care what they do.
Not sure what you mean by crack down but here is a shot at it.
As far as smoking goes it is a personal choice- so no.
As far as smoking in public places you are not the only one there and you shouldn't be able to expose people to carcinogens against there will- so yes.
As far as cracking down on, oh say, people selling to underage and such, it depends on how they go about it- so with certain rules in place yes.
Sorry if this doesn't help out.
Answer:
your question cannot be answered correctly.
you need to re word it. it is confusing
should the government enforce anti smoking laws,
and create new ones?
No
if these answers your counting are going to be used as a result for your poll in class. understand that your data is incorrect. you might as well just make up the numbers
I suggest scratching this question (pick a best answer though) and try reposting your question correctly
I'll keep an eye out for your new one and answer it.
No
yes
no
Crack down on smoking laws? Yes.
Crack down on smoking? No.
Eh. Nah.
yes
yup!
No.
no
yes
smoking should be banned from the world!!!!!!!!!!!
no if that happens we well all go crazy
You really need to re-word this question.
Are you asking if the government should abandon anti-smoking laws or are you asking if government laws should be enforced against smokers?
I don't understand what you are asking.
No answer, you didn't state what cracking down means.
I agree w/ Anthony Spears.
I can't tell from your question if that means yes or no.
no
The government should crack down on lying politicians!
And then go find the safety belts that are missing from the transit buses!
If they are really are that concerned about ones safety and welfare?
yes
Like others said, I'm not sure how to interpret your question.
I'm GLAD they just banned smoking inside public building in AZ.
Beyond that I don't really care what they do.
Not sure what you mean by crack down but here is a shot at it.
As far as smoking goes it is a personal choice- so no.
As far as smoking in public places you are not the only one there and you shouldn't be able to expose people to carcinogens against there will- so yes.
As far as cracking down on, oh say, people selling to underage and such, it depends on how they go about it- so with certain rules in place yes.
Sorry if this doesn't help out.
Should the government burn down the pizza place where the Fort Dix attacker worked?
It was owned by his father,
"One of the suspects, Tatar, worked at his father's pizzeria 鈥?Super Mario's Restaurant 鈥?in Cookstown and made deliveries to the base, using the opportunity to scout out Fort Dix for an attack, authorities said."
His father must have known his son was a radical, yet he refused to inform the police. That makes him an accomplice to terrorism. Why is allowed to continue to be open?
Answer:
I just saw another question pertaining to this same topic, so I'm just going to give the same answer here. (Note: I don't think the government should burn anything down! Burning the place down is accomplishing nothing except wasting a perfectly good pizza restaurant. It's not the building's fault that these people did this!)
What I don't understand is how the security at that base allows the delivery drivers to just go straight through onto the base! I'm sure that there is some security checkpoint/guard shack at all the entrances to the base that are manned 24 hours a day. The pizza driver should be required to wait outside the base at the guard shack, and the person who placed the order can come out and get it. Have you have ever heard of Menards (Big home-improvement store similar to Home Depot or Lowes)? I delivered pizza for three years in the city that is home to the Menards distribution center, and even that place wouldn't let us past the guard shacks due to security threats! They have golf carts, etc to travel quickly between the guard shack and the buildings, so its not like the person ordering the food has to even walk far! Something is seriously wrong with the "system" if a home-improvement store has higher security measures in place than an air force base!!
i don't think they should burn down anything!
If you read the article, his father claims not to have known. And this is America, not Riyadh, we don't go around burning down stores on account of some man's son's behavior!
I think that the government should definately burn down the pizza place, but first they should take out all the pizzas.
I hate to see a tasty pizza go to waste just to punish terrorist scum!
no they were just stupid and thought they could kill the people but they were wrong so just leave it alone
"One of the suspects, Tatar, worked at his father's pizzeria 鈥?Super Mario's Restaurant 鈥?in Cookstown and made deliveries to the base, using the opportunity to scout out Fort Dix for an attack, authorities said."
His father must have known his son was a radical, yet he refused to inform the police. That makes him an accomplice to terrorism. Why is allowed to continue to be open?
Answer:
I just saw another question pertaining to this same topic, so I'm just going to give the same answer here. (Note: I don't think the government should burn anything down! Burning the place down is accomplishing nothing except wasting a perfectly good pizza restaurant. It's not the building's fault that these people did this!)
What I don't understand is how the security at that base allows the delivery drivers to just go straight through onto the base! I'm sure that there is some security checkpoint/guard shack at all the entrances to the base that are manned 24 hours a day. The pizza driver should be required to wait outside the base at the guard shack, and the person who placed the order can come out and get it. Have you have ever heard of Menards (Big home-improvement store similar to Home Depot or Lowes)? I delivered pizza for three years in the city that is home to the Menards distribution center, and even that place wouldn't let us past the guard shacks due to security threats! They have golf carts, etc to travel quickly between the guard shack and the buildings, so its not like the person ordering the food has to even walk far! Something is seriously wrong with the "system" if a home-improvement store has higher security measures in place than an air force base!!
i don't think they should burn down anything!
If you read the article, his father claims not to have known. And this is America, not Riyadh, we don't go around burning down stores on account of some man's son's behavior!
I think that the government should definately burn down the pizza place, but first they should take out all the pizzas.
I hate to see a tasty pizza go to waste just to punish terrorist scum!
no they were just stupid and thought they could kill the people but they were wrong so just leave it alone
Should the government be encouraged to humiliate criminals and bring back the stocks?
The idea of allowing the criminals victims and family, (who have been damaged and humilated), the chance to throw things at the criminal, who is housed in wooden stocks for a long time. The procedure can be requested at any time and as often as they want.
Answer:
I think when it comes to more serious crimes that affect survivors, survivor is the preferred term instead of victim, that we should re-evaluate our laws. For instance, if some sick freak rapes a 4 year old, should he just spend some time in jail? I say no! Lets crack down and make people do some serious time, make criminals suffer. God kows the survivors suffer plenty for the rest of the lifes!
Yeh good thought we could always bring back the cat-o-nine tails as well and whip their hides in public displays !
No way, this is what we should have learned from the Mcarthy hearings.
One has to prove something and then he will have to pay his debt to society, but how will public humilation make him reform his ways?
Answer:
I think when it comes to more serious crimes that affect survivors, survivor is the preferred term instead of victim, that we should re-evaluate our laws. For instance, if some sick freak rapes a 4 year old, should he just spend some time in jail? I say no! Lets crack down and make people do some serious time, make criminals suffer. God kows the survivors suffer plenty for the rest of the lifes!
Yeh good thought we could always bring back the cat-o-nine tails as well and whip their hides in public displays !
No way, this is what we should have learned from the Mcarthy hearings.
One has to prove something and then he will have to pay his debt to society, but how will public humilation make him reform his ways?
Should the freedom of speech exclude the burning of the American Flag?
I personally believe that it should. I think that it should be a crime to burn the american flag. Its a crime to commit slander or to defame another's character but why is it ok to defame the country that we live in by burning the flag? If you don't like this country's govt., then move... that's what I say.
But before anyone who opposes me gets all fired up, this is just my personal belief. I'm always open to what other people have to say and I respect their views even if they are against my own. We don't have to be enemies because of what I choose to believe in.
So let me hear your opinion...
Answer:
No, it should not be excluded.
The freedom of expression in the First Amendment, ironically, protects those that would desecrate the very symbol of the country with the constitution that protects their right to desecrate that very symbol ad nauseum. And this is why democracy in general is messy.
It is full of seeming contradictions, oxymoronic legal, moral and ethical situations and it insists that we get each other angry and at the same time we all get along well enough to make things work.
I may or may not agree with you that people should NOT burn or desecrate the flag of any country. That is our right as citizens of the USA, to have and express those opinions. And in this country you have the right to be offended. We excercise this right regularly and often.
It is an easy and pat answer to tell people to leave the country they seem to hate enough to burn the flag of. In truth it isn't that easy. And it doesn't address the actual issue either. It is a tried and true way for centuries to burn things in effigy as a form of protest against what that thing symbolizes. Sometimes figures of people are burned in effigy. Sometimes it is flags.
Slander and defemation of character of an individual can not be succesfully compared to the burning of a flag. They aren't the same in any way. One is ruining a person's asset, their reputation. The other is saying your mad and want something changed.
People often do not take the time to understand the role of the govenment in their lives, especially in the USA. We fight paying more taxes and at the same time complain that the roads have potholes, the line in the DMV is too long, the mail service isn't fast enough, and the police are never around when you need them. All of which are paid for by your taxes that you don't want to pay so that you can have the problems fixed you are complaining about.
And so the protester often is mad about something the government is doing or not doing and wants it stopped or started all things depending. They really aren't saying the whole system, government and country sucks and should rot in hell, though that may be what they are verbally saying. The truth is often far less expansive than that. The issue is ussually finite if very important.
Should you move out of the house over one arguement with your spouse, roommate, cousin etc? Rarely. Should you burn them in effigy? Well, you're allowed to.
Whether or not you should is a choice only you can make but that everyone is allowed to comment on because of our first amendment rights. And so goes the discussion on flag burning as well.
It should be a crime. Liberals do not get to do whatever they want simply because they want to.
Are you burning the flag in your mouth ? I don't see the connection ... what's burning the flag got to do with the freedom of speech ?
I agree with you. In my opinion, if any American burns the flag in protest should be guilty of treason. Just my opinion too. It's not a matter of freedom of expression, but any American should have pride in their Nation, no matter what. The only demonstration they should have the right to do is leave the country if they don't like it.
I hate it too, and my knee-jerk reaction yes it should be. Then I remember that whenever I see this I have no trouble indentifying the idiots of the world. Good to know your enemy.
Old Glory can take it.
To hell with them. Being PRESENT when it happens of course is another matter entirely. Trouble will ensue.
Burning the American Flag is completely unethical. If you are from another country and burn the American Flag, move back. If you are from the U.S. then get the **** out of here, we don't want you.
i agree with you. but how is buring the American flag part of freedom of speech? don't get it. i don't mean this in a wrong way. i dont really undersatnd what it has to do with speech.
I agree! Enough is enough! I think it should be an act of terrorism because I view the act as threatening as many others do! What if i picked up a cross and burned it(i wouldn't do that though)? It would be a hate crime! Enough with the double standards! who cares about being politically correct? Why can't those haters just get out if they hate this ocuntry so much? Many people came here to have a chance at a better life! Can't they understand that? It makes me so angry when i hear or see things about people (especially immigrants, legal or illegal) burning the flag. It is a slap in the face for all the soldiers who fought for independence and to defend our country.
I think not only it should be, but the person that did it should be put in prison for not less than 20 yrs. With all the illegals here flying their Mexican flag, those should be put in prison for not less than 50 yrs, as this is America, if we fly the American flag in Mexico that 50 yrs would look good compared to be shot on the spot, which is what would probably happen.
a flag is a bit of coloured cloth so what if it gets burnt.
flag burning pah! millions are sold all over the place if yours get burnt go to wal-mart and get another.
For something to be slander or libel, very specific false and damaging allegations need to be made. Burning a flag is not specific enough and besides, "The Country" cannot be slandered. It's just some vague entity. Flag burning is protected speech, just like other speech.
If I burn a flag underneath a sign that says, "This is what George W. Bush is doing to my country." How have I slandered the country?
Defamation or slander or libel are crimes because they are lies. Not commentary or a true statements, those are opinions or facts. So, burning an American flag is more or less commentary, an opinion, and not defamation. Defamation would be lying about the nation with intent to do it harm.
The American flag is more than a national identifier, it's a symbol of freedom. But if freedom of political expression, even anti-government expression, is restricted by placing a protected status upon it, it would taint the flag and its meaning more than a thousand flag burnings would. That's the irony of it all, that certain representatives and senators are willing to erode the flag's meaning to protect its physical form.
I think it should be allowed if the person wraps them self up in it and then sets it on fire.
this is a huge question and this debate has been going on for a long time. I will try to sum up my own personal beliefs although it could be long and drawn out. the first amendment to the constitution guarantees the right of every citizen of this country to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. not only it is our right, but i believe our responsibility to hold our government accountable for their actions. burning a flag in protest is the ultimate exercise of that right. normally you will not see this act in your average demonstration. only when the government has acted so horendously in the eyes of certain citizens does this usually take place. it is a symbol of our freedom and right to hold government accountable for their actions.
I personally feel the same. The American flag is more than a piece of cloth. It should be a crime to burn it. Not a pet-ti crime either, something with serious repercussions. You got some states with law fining people who have frayed flags flying. I come from a line of military service members. To burn our flag is beyond disrespect. To do so as a form of speech is like having someone disrespect the USA in the worst way.
Hell no!
I served this country honorably for over 21 years. The key component of the oath I took was "To protect and defend The Constitution of the United States of America."
The Constitution, and the freedoms that it gives us, is the MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT ever envisioned by human-kind. It guarantees Nazis the right to speak their mind and spread their hate. It guarantees YOU to speak your position on this issue. And it guarantees ME the right to publicly disagree with you. It guarantees you the right to worship as you please and me the right to not worship if I choose not to.
One does not have to agree with the position another takes on any issue, but we all have a DUTY to defend their right to their opinion and the manner that they express it as long as it does not directly harm another person -- the reason you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and claim Freedom of Speech as a defense. While you may not agree with the desecration of the flag, it does NOT do you any direct harm.
While I personally would never desecrate the flag or treat it with disrespect, I would defend TO THE DEATH the right of another to do so if he or she felt that that is how they had to express their opinion.
Keep in mind that the guy flying down the road with 2 tattered flags attached to his rear windows IS also mistreating the flag, yet few folks will call him on it. (BTW, I do!) It's improperly displayed (the Flag Code says it must be attached to the vehicle frame or fender) and it is worn beyond serviceability.
Now, were someone to desecrate The Constitution (the original, not a copy) I'd have to intervene.
I have never understood the idolatry on behalf of the American flag. The flag of a country is only a symbol, it is not the nation itself. When someone burns an American flag it demonstrates not that they necessarily hate the United States but only that they are angry with an action taken in the name of the United States.
I have never personally burned a US flag but I understand the urge to do so. I was born in this country as were 90% of my relatives. I am a member of the tiny number of people who actually vote in every national election, I pay taxes, I go to school to improve myself, and I work. It's my nation, my government, and my flag also. I have the Constitutionally protected right to express my grievances with the government I voted for and pay for through taxes , and if they don't listen, I should have the right to express my frustration with them through burning a symbol of that government.
And by-the-way, the US flag code states that a flag that is too soiled or torn to function as a flag should be burned in a special ceremony. I witnessed one of these ceremonies a long time ago as a Cub Scout. It was the weirdest thing I ever saw -- it was like a funeral for a fallen soldier but for a flag. Something very pagan and almost primal about a flag burning ceremony.
I can only echo what was said by Bostonian, the sergeant retired after 21 years of honorable service to his country in uniform. Burning the flag is a stupid act meant to engender hatred and controversy. But the flag itself--the 3 x 5 piece of cloth, most likely made in China--is a symbol, and how one handles it is a symbolic act that is appropriately covered by the First Amendment.
Moreover, our toleration of the handful of knuckleheads who burn the flag (at least within the US) should stand in proud contrast to, say, the Muslim over-reaction to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. We're a strong, mature society, and we can take the occasional indignity.
I disagree with you for the following reasons..
1)Burning the flag is a symbolic action, therefore it physically does not hurt anybody. Also since this flag represents or at least ought to represent the values of America, one of them being freedom of speech which the Founding Fathers found absolutely necessary for the society's and individuals' well being, it would be at best ironic to ban the action of burning it, i.e. expressing an opinion. Burning the flag might be an action which causes severely negative feelings to some, but that's why people do it, to demonstrate a dissapointment of what it now represents and by extrapolation their wish that it represented something better.
2) By banning this, you welcome more of it. If it becomes illegal, people will seek to be doing it more often, since it will then be causing even more controversy and will be getting even more attention from the media etc.. As said above, the main motive of a person burning the flag is the attention and the reactions.
Finally, not liking a country's government does not mean you don't like the country and vice versa. If say one U.S administration is catastrophic for the country, but the ones which gain from this disaster support the government, does it mean they like the country? Burning the flag, as strange as it may sound, might stem from bigger concerns and deeper involvement than waving the flag like a robot, just because you feel good doing it. Questioning things is good, especially in a country born by high ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy.
Your analogies for why it oughtn't be allowed are not very convincing. If you are just citing examples of speech that is restricted, that doesn't justify why this specifically should be restricted speech. If you are saying they are analogous situations, I don't see how. It isn't illegal to say bad things about other peoples' characters, it is illegal to say bad AND UNTRUE ('undeserved') things about other peoples' characters. So unless you can explain how someone burning the flag does 'undeserved' material damage to the image/reputation of the country, these analogies don't hold water.
I don't have a strong opinion on the issue myself. I default to saying it should be allowed just because I am a civil libertarian generally. I can't think of any other way to express the same sentiment anywhere near as rapidly as by burning a flag. And as long as we're analogizing to character defamation, isn't the characterization accurate many of the times people are burning the flag? When Democrats pass gun control laws and the Supreme Court upholds them, I think that is pretty clearly "burning" the 2nd amendment. When Republicans say that people captured in the United States but labeled enemy combatants aren't entitled to habeas corpus, I think that is "burning" the habeas clause of Art 1 Sec 8 and the 5th Amendment.
But before anyone who opposes me gets all fired up, this is just my personal belief. I'm always open to what other people have to say and I respect their views even if they are against my own. We don't have to be enemies because of what I choose to believe in.
So let me hear your opinion...
Answer:
No, it should not be excluded.
The freedom of expression in the First Amendment, ironically, protects those that would desecrate the very symbol of the country with the constitution that protects their right to desecrate that very symbol ad nauseum. And this is why democracy in general is messy.
It is full of seeming contradictions, oxymoronic legal, moral and ethical situations and it insists that we get each other angry and at the same time we all get along well enough to make things work.
I may or may not agree with you that people should NOT burn or desecrate the flag of any country. That is our right as citizens of the USA, to have and express those opinions. And in this country you have the right to be offended. We excercise this right regularly and often.
It is an easy and pat answer to tell people to leave the country they seem to hate enough to burn the flag of. In truth it isn't that easy. And it doesn't address the actual issue either. It is a tried and true way for centuries to burn things in effigy as a form of protest against what that thing symbolizes. Sometimes figures of people are burned in effigy. Sometimes it is flags.
Slander and defemation of character of an individual can not be succesfully compared to the burning of a flag. They aren't the same in any way. One is ruining a person's asset, their reputation. The other is saying your mad and want something changed.
People often do not take the time to understand the role of the govenment in their lives, especially in the USA. We fight paying more taxes and at the same time complain that the roads have potholes, the line in the DMV is too long, the mail service isn't fast enough, and the police are never around when you need them. All of which are paid for by your taxes that you don't want to pay so that you can have the problems fixed you are complaining about.
And so the protester often is mad about something the government is doing or not doing and wants it stopped or started all things depending. They really aren't saying the whole system, government and country sucks and should rot in hell, though that may be what they are verbally saying. The truth is often far less expansive than that. The issue is ussually finite if very important.
Should you move out of the house over one arguement with your spouse, roommate, cousin etc? Rarely. Should you burn them in effigy? Well, you're allowed to.
Whether or not you should is a choice only you can make but that everyone is allowed to comment on because of our first amendment rights. And so goes the discussion on flag burning as well.
It should be a crime. Liberals do not get to do whatever they want simply because they want to.
Are you burning the flag in your mouth ? I don't see the connection ... what's burning the flag got to do with the freedom of speech ?
I agree with you. In my opinion, if any American burns the flag in protest should be guilty of treason. Just my opinion too. It's not a matter of freedom of expression, but any American should have pride in their Nation, no matter what. The only demonstration they should have the right to do is leave the country if they don't like it.
I hate it too, and my knee-jerk reaction yes it should be. Then I remember that whenever I see this I have no trouble indentifying the idiots of the world. Good to know your enemy.
Old Glory can take it.
To hell with them. Being PRESENT when it happens of course is another matter entirely. Trouble will ensue.
Burning the American Flag is completely unethical. If you are from another country and burn the American Flag, move back. If you are from the U.S. then get the **** out of here, we don't want you.
i agree with you. but how is buring the American flag part of freedom of speech? don't get it. i don't mean this in a wrong way. i dont really undersatnd what it has to do with speech.
I agree! Enough is enough! I think it should be an act of terrorism because I view the act as threatening as many others do! What if i picked up a cross and burned it(i wouldn't do that though)? It would be a hate crime! Enough with the double standards! who cares about being politically correct? Why can't those haters just get out if they hate this ocuntry so much? Many people came here to have a chance at a better life! Can't they understand that? It makes me so angry when i hear or see things about people (especially immigrants, legal or illegal) burning the flag. It is a slap in the face for all the soldiers who fought for independence and to defend our country.
I think not only it should be, but the person that did it should be put in prison for not less than 20 yrs. With all the illegals here flying their Mexican flag, those should be put in prison for not less than 50 yrs, as this is America, if we fly the American flag in Mexico that 50 yrs would look good compared to be shot on the spot, which is what would probably happen.
a flag is a bit of coloured cloth so what if it gets burnt.
flag burning pah! millions are sold all over the place if yours get burnt go to wal-mart and get another.
For something to be slander or libel, very specific false and damaging allegations need to be made. Burning a flag is not specific enough and besides, "The Country" cannot be slandered. It's just some vague entity. Flag burning is protected speech, just like other speech.
If I burn a flag underneath a sign that says, "This is what George W. Bush is doing to my country." How have I slandered the country?
Defamation or slander or libel are crimes because they are lies. Not commentary or a true statements, those are opinions or facts. So, burning an American flag is more or less commentary, an opinion, and not defamation. Defamation would be lying about the nation with intent to do it harm.
The American flag is more than a national identifier, it's a symbol of freedom. But if freedom of political expression, even anti-government expression, is restricted by placing a protected status upon it, it would taint the flag and its meaning more than a thousand flag burnings would. That's the irony of it all, that certain representatives and senators are willing to erode the flag's meaning to protect its physical form.
I think it should be allowed if the person wraps them self up in it and then sets it on fire.
this is a huge question and this debate has been going on for a long time. I will try to sum up my own personal beliefs although it could be long and drawn out. the first amendment to the constitution guarantees the right of every citizen of this country to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. not only it is our right, but i believe our responsibility to hold our government accountable for their actions. burning a flag in protest is the ultimate exercise of that right. normally you will not see this act in your average demonstration. only when the government has acted so horendously in the eyes of certain citizens does this usually take place. it is a symbol of our freedom and right to hold government accountable for their actions.
I personally feel the same. The American flag is more than a piece of cloth. It should be a crime to burn it. Not a pet-ti crime either, something with serious repercussions. You got some states with law fining people who have frayed flags flying. I come from a line of military service members. To burn our flag is beyond disrespect. To do so as a form of speech is like having someone disrespect the USA in the worst way.
Hell no!
I served this country honorably for over 21 years. The key component of the oath I took was "To protect and defend The Constitution of the United States of America."
The Constitution, and the freedoms that it gives us, is the MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT ever envisioned by human-kind. It guarantees Nazis the right to speak their mind and spread their hate. It guarantees YOU to speak your position on this issue. And it guarantees ME the right to publicly disagree with you. It guarantees you the right to worship as you please and me the right to not worship if I choose not to.
One does not have to agree with the position another takes on any issue, but we all have a DUTY to defend their right to their opinion and the manner that they express it as long as it does not directly harm another person -- the reason you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and claim Freedom of Speech as a defense. While you may not agree with the desecration of the flag, it does NOT do you any direct harm.
While I personally would never desecrate the flag or treat it with disrespect, I would defend TO THE DEATH the right of another to do so if he or she felt that that is how they had to express their opinion.
Keep in mind that the guy flying down the road with 2 tattered flags attached to his rear windows IS also mistreating the flag, yet few folks will call him on it. (BTW, I do!) It's improperly displayed (the Flag Code says it must be attached to the vehicle frame or fender) and it is worn beyond serviceability.
Now, were someone to desecrate The Constitution (the original, not a copy) I'd have to intervene.
I have never understood the idolatry on behalf of the American flag. The flag of a country is only a symbol, it is not the nation itself. When someone burns an American flag it demonstrates not that they necessarily hate the United States but only that they are angry with an action taken in the name of the United States.
I have never personally burned a US flag but I understand the urge to do so. I was born in this country as were 90% of my relatives. I am a member of the tiny number of people who actually vote in every national election, I pay taxes, I go to school to improve myself, and I work. It's my nation, my government, and my flag also. I have the Constitutionally protected right to express my grievances with the government I voted for and pay for through taxes , and if they don't listen, I should have the right to express my frustration with them through burning a symbol of that government.
And by-the-way, the US flag code states that a flag that is too soiled or torn to function as a flag should be burned in a special ceremony. I witnessed one of these ceremonies a long time ago as a Cub Scout. It was the weirdest thing I ever saw -- it was like a funeral for a fallen soldier but for a flag. Something very pagan and almost primal about a flag burning ceremony.
I can only echo what was said by Bostonian, the sergeant retired after 21 years of honorable service to his country in uniform. Burning the flag is a stupid act meant to engender hatred and controversy. But the flag itself--the 3 x 5 piece of cloth, most likely made in China--is a symbol, and how one handles it is a symbolic act that is appropriately covered by the First Amendment.
Moreover, our toleration of the handful of knuckleheads who burn the flag (at least within the US) should stand in proud contrast to, say, the Muslim over-reaction to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. We're a strong, mature society, and we can take the occasional indignity.
I disagree with you for the following reasons..
1)Burning the flag is a symbolic action, therefore it physically does not hurt anybody. Also since this flag represents or at least ought to represent the values of America, one of them being freedom of speech which the Founding Fathers found absolutely necessary for the society's and individuals' well being, it would be at best ironic to ban the action of burning it, i.e. expressing an opinion. Burning the flag might be an action which causes severely negative feelings to some, but that's why people do it, to demonstrate a dissapointment of what it now represents and by extrapolation their wish that it represented something better.
2) By banning this, you welcome more of it. If it becomes illegal, people will seek to be doing it more often, since it will then be causing even more controversy and will be getting even more attention from the media etc.. As said above, the main motive of a person burning the flag is the attention and the reactions.
Finally, not liking a country's government does not mean you don't like the country and vice versa. If say one U.S administration is catastrophic for the country, but the ones which gain from this disaster support the government, does it mean they like the country? Burning the flag, as strange as it may sound, might stem from bigger concerns and deeper involvement than waving the flag like a robot, just because you feel good doing it. Questioning things is good, especially in a country born by high ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy.
Your analogies for why it oughtn't be allowed are not very convincing. If you are just citing examples of speech that is restricted, that doesn't justify why this specifically should be restricted speech. If you are saying they are analogous situations, I don't see how. It isn't illegal to say bad things about other peoples' characters, it is illegal to say bad AND UNTRUE ('undeserved') things about other peoples' characters. So unless you can explain how someone burning the flag does 'undeserved' material damage to the image/reputation of the country, these analogies don't hold water.
I don't have a strong opinion on the issue myself. I default to saying it should be allowed just because I am a civil libertarian generally. I can't think of any other way to express the same sentiment anywhere near as rapidly as by burning a flag. And as long as we're analogizing to character defamation, isn't the characterization accurate many of the times people are burning the flag? When Democrats pass gun control laws and the Supreme Court upholds them, I think that is pretty clearly "burning" the 2nd amendment. When Republicans say that people captured in the United States but labeled enemy combatants aren't entitled to habeas corpus, I think that is "burning" the habeas clause of Art 1 Sec 8 and the 5th Amendment.
Should the Florida Clemency board make it ok for Convicts to vote at all?
Florida Governor Crist sits on the Clemency board and is trying to make it eligible for ex-convicts that served their time to vote in elections. Should they have any rights after breaking laws made by the people they are voting for?
Answer:
That is why they went to jail and served their time. This is a no brainer in other states, just not in FL, where they would have to apply for reinstatement of rights which takes up taxpayers money
yes, they have paid their debt to society by suffering through years in prison and upon doing so should be restored to their full rights
If they have paid there debts (served their time, passed parole if needed, and repaid all restitution and legal fees) ABSOLUTELY
Did the crime, served their time, how else can they be contributing members of society without voting. Heck, they won't even vote like the other 65% that don't. what is the concern?
Answer:
That is why they went to jail and served their time. This is a no brainer in other states, just not in FL, where they would have to apply for reinstatement of rights which takes up taxpayers money
yes, they have paid their debt to society by suffering through years in prison and upon doing so should be restored to their full rights
If they have paid there debts (served their time, passed parole if needed, and repaid all restitution and legal fees) ABSOLUTELY
Did the crime, served their time, how else can they be contributing members of society without voting. Heck, they won't even vote like the other 65% that don't. what is the concern?
Should the firm use this information in the hiring process?be thorough and convincing!?
you are a human resources analyst for a firm with a large workforce.you look at the database that shows the relationship between insurance benefits used,gender,age and type of job held.you find that higher level executives that do not use much insurance are likely to have significant health problems over time-perhaps due to lack of routine exams and care that the low levels of insurance reimbursement indicate.you suggest to your boss that during the hiring process for upper level executives,the firm should routinely gather information on the amount of insurance benefits used by the executives in previous jobs.Your analysis shows that since individuals using low levels of insurance benefits are more likely to experience significant health problems than other executives,your firm would save money on insurance by using this information to eliminate prospective employees from hiring consideration
Answer:
There is no hard and fast rule which can be applied here, the idea you are proposing can be a good factor but should not be the Only factor. Because this may not reflect the true picture. Health is such an issue which differ from person to person and cannot be universally applied.
That is ridiculous...and I think you know that. This is the type of crap we don't need
in America. You are trying to promote discrimination behind closed doors. Companies can/would get sued for the method you are presenting here. This is America, we have rights and we fight for them in courts as well. Take your screwed up proposal to another country so they too can laugh you out of there as well.
Answer:
There is no hard and fast rule which can be applied here, the idea you are proposing can be a good factor but should not be the Only factor. Because this may not reflect the true picture. Health is such an issue which differ from person to person and cannot be universally applied.
That is ridiculous...and I think you know that. This is the type of crap we don't need
in America. You are trying to promote discrimination behind closed doors. Companies can/would get sued for the method you are presenting here. This is America, we have rights and we fight for them in courts as well. Take your screwed up proposal to another country so they too can laugh you out of there as well.
Should the female that falsely accused the Lacrosse players of rape be criminally charged?
Answer:
I don't think so.....I believe that she doesn't even deserve any more attetion on this matter. Everyone knows she is a liar that was just looking for $$$$. It sucks though that she has made a bad name for women and people will question women more when they claim rape. I think we should all chip in on a one way ticket to Iran.........She puts those guy's through a living hell.
No she should make love to them all to make up for it.
Absolutely YES !
She should get, if convicted, just as much time in the slammer as her victims would had they been falsely convicted.
Yes. When girls do that, it makes other victims less believable and maybe not even come forward, for fear they just won't be believed. She needs to know it's not OK.
YES YES YES YES..look at what she did to those guys, all the time and money wasted in the courts for what? hell yeah she should be TARRED AND FEATHERED, then jailed
yes, she should
Yes. In fact they can sue her for false info
From what I understand she is mentally ill. She or her legal guardians should be held liable though to keep anything similar from happening in the future.
its defamation of character. but they'd have to prove that, in addition to not doing the crime, their reputation had been affected.
Yes i believe she should get charged. It's because of her and women like her that the women who truly gets violated have such a hard time getting the ones that actually did it charged and/or convicted.
Yeah. The fact is she false reported an incident and ruined the lives of these young men. Maybe that'll teach college boys to stay away from strippers.
Send her to jail for as long as the accused would have been in prison. Make the false witness server ALL their terms consecutively.
Lets wait and see what happens to the D.A. Not just now.
yes,there should be a criminal penalty for falsely accusing someone of such a serious crime.
yes..if they prove she falsely accused them...that has not been shown....less than 33% of rapists are convicted....just because charges were dropped does not mean they were innocent...it just means there was not enough evidence...do you know how many rapists use condoms now or days?
I believe Nifong knew this woman suffered from mental problems and used it to his advantage. Her mental state would need to be examined to determine if she knew this action she was doing was wrong, it appeared to me she did because of the civil lawyer that was waiting in the wings to pounce on the Duke guys, that ain't going to happen. This is an injustice to the accuser and the three men. Nifong should get the fullest weight of the law against him and it already started with the NC bar telling him that all charges are STILL pending against him, we will need to wait until June to see what happens to him as for her that will be looked at carefully as well. The AG stated that NO criminal charges against the accuser due to medical history, as for civil action the same history would be used and she most likely would not pay anything, but we will see.
From what I understand of what was said by the new prosecutor that dismissed the charges, he things that she actually believed her statements. If so, it would be difficult to justify a criminal prosecution against her and nearly impossible to convict.
The Lacrosse players might have a claim against her and the original prosecutor for malicious prosecution/abuse of process.
Should the FCC fine Imus for his insensitive remarks? How Much?
Singapore jails bloggers for racist remarks
A Singapore court has sentenced two ethnic Chinese to prison for posting racist remarks about ethnic Malays on the internet, in what is considered a landmark case underscoring the government's attempts to crack down on racial intolerance and regulate online expression.
Animal shelter worker Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27, was jailed for one month while Nicholas Lim Yew, an unemployed 25-year-old, was sentenced to a nominal prison term of one day and fined the maximum $5000 for racist comments against the minority Malay community.
"Racial and religious hostility feeds on itself," said Senior District Judge Richard Magnus in passing sentence on Friday.
"Young Singaporeans ... must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed," he said.
Lim and Koh stood in the docks with their heads bowed as they pleaded guilty to c
Answer:
...............Anyway, I don't agree with what he said, but even under FCC regulations Imus didn't break any rules. If you take this route, MTV, BET, VH1 would never be able to play any of the music videos they play and most of their shows as well. We are in the United States and enjoy the liberty and freedom of freedom of speech. That is why people from the above countries fight so hard to move to the US.
It is a freaking free country...If you don't like it don't freaking listen.
We are becoming a nation that is afraid to speak its mind. If you don't like someone why shouldn't I be able to say it.
Free speach...... I don't see you knocking down Bill O'Riley's door to get him fined..... there is something called turn off the tv or radio... that's how you stop hearing what you don't like.... but then again you're the only one not paying attention to what is going on in your country... if you want to stick your head in the sand do it alone.
A Singapore court has sentenced two ethnic Chinese to prison for posting racist remarks about ethnic Malays on the internet, in what is considered a landmark case underscoring the government's attempts to crack down on racial intolerance and regulate online expression.
Animal shelter worker Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27, was jailed for one month while Nicholas Lim Yew, an unemployed 25-year-old, was sentenced to a nominal prison term of one day and fined the maximum $5000 for racist comments against the minority Malay community.
"Racial and religious hostility feeds on itself," said Senior District Judge Richard Magnus in passing sentence on Friday.
"Young Singaporeans ... must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed," he said.
Lim and Koh stood in the docks with their heads bowed as they pleaded guilty to c
Answer:
...............Anyway, I don't agree with what he said, but even under FCC regulations Imus didn't break any rules. If you take this route, MTV, BET, VH1 would never be able to play any of the music videos they play and most of their shows as well. We are in the United States and enjoy the liberty and freedom of freedom of speech. That is why people from the above countries fight so hard to move to the US.
It is a freaking free country...If you don't like it don't freaking listen.
We are becoming a nation that is afraid to speak its mind. If you don't like someone why shouldn't I be able to say it.
Free speach...... I don't see you knocking down Bill O'Riley's door to get him fined..... there is something called turn off the tv or radio... that's how you stop hearing what you don't like.... but then again you're the only one not paying attention to what is going on in your country... if you want to stick your head in the sand do it alone.
Should the elderly have to take an eye test every year to drive.?
One day I actually saw an old man walk into Braums Restraunt and ask if it was the eye clinic (which was across the street). This man was driving all by himself.
I think the elderly should be required to take an eye test to check their vision every year to be able to drive legaly.
Answer:
I feel that by age 65 they should have a annual eye exam, for many reasons not just driving, there are many diseases of the eye that could change their vision. If medicair will pay for it...I am not sure but I believe they do then there shouldn't be a problem, not to mention frames and lenses are somewhat covered, probably not completely but they may not have the most stylish glasses and still stay in their alloted amount.
I have seen many older individuals who should not be driving, but then I've also seen younger people, so I think that some of it is due to driving behaviors.
i do to. but what age to you say is the age to start and how do you justify it without violating any rights? I think it should be after 65 you get a yearly eye exam.. heck why not let the tax payers pay for it i would... i had a similar experience.. i was sitting in the pharmacy waiting on a prescription when this lady next to me started a convo and said she had been declared legally blind in both eyes.. and that her 13 year old nephew was waiting in the car... well 13 year olds cant drive so she was drivng UGH!! she even had to ask me what her ticket number said!!!!
Everyone should volunteer to maintain their ability to drive. If it means a psych exam, eye exam, ear exam, whatever.
When you drive, you're inside a 3000 pound weapon. You need to take that seriously.
I've lived in numerous states when I was a young man and even middle aged. I've never been to a motor vehicles office that didn't require everyone to take a vision test no matter what your age is. What information do you have that makes you think that any state doesn't require a vision test. Sounds like you may be trying to bash older people. Even little kids can have very bad eyesight thus the reason that all motor vehicle departments test eyesight of any aged person.
Every year is a bit harsh. How about if they take a test every time they have to renew? How about splitting the difference and saying every three years, past age 65. Yes, they can be a hazard, sometimes, but think about how you're going to feel about the deal, yourself, in a few, very short decades.
We can find something that works, that isn't too inconvenient.
While we are at it-let's have a required drug test every month, if you are between the ages of 16- 55. Of course, all drivers should be required to take an oral and written exam every year for license renewal. Cell phones, TVs, radios, mp3 players are to be forbidden in the vehicle at ALL TIMES because they could distract the driver and cause an accident. ANY driver should have the RIGHT to report every other driver for driving too SLOW or too FAST by calling a specific telephone and telling the car tag number. Three call ins on YOUR vehicle warrants a month's license suspension. I hope you get the drift of what I am saying. If not, then they should put you in the coo coo's nest.
I think the elderly should be required to take an eye test to check their vision every year to be able to drive legaly.
Answer:
I feel that by age 65 they should have a annual eye exam, for many reasons not just driving, there are many diseases of the eye that could change their vision. If medicair will pay for it...I am not sure but I believe they do then there shouldn't be a problem, not to mention frames and lenses are somewhat covered, probably not completely but they may not have the most stylish glasses and still stay in their alloted amount.
I have seen many older individuals who should not be driving, but then I've also seen younger people, so I think that some of it is due to driving behaviors.
i do to. but what age to you say is the age to start and how do you justify it without violating any rights? I think it should be after 65 you get a yearly eye exam.. heck why not let the tax payers pay for it i would... i had a similar experience.. i was sitting in the pharmacy waiting on a prescription when this lady next to me started a convo and said she had been declared legally blind in both eyes.. and that her 13 year old nephew was waiting in the car... well 13 year olds cant drive so she was drivng UGH!! she even had to ask me what her ticket number said!!!!
Everyone should volunteer to maintain their ability to drive. If it means a psych exam, eye exam, ear exam, whatever.
When you drive, you're inside a 3000 pound weapon. You need to take that seriously.
I've lived in numerous states when I was a young man and even middle aged. I've never been to a motor vehicles office that didn't require everyone to take a vision test no matter what your age is. What information do you have that makes you think that any state doesn't require a vision test. Sounds like you may be trying to bash older people. Even little kids can have very bad eyesight thus the reason that all motor vehicle departments test eyesight of any aged person.
Every year is a bit harsh. How about if they take a test every time they have to renew? How about splitting the difference and saying every three years, past age 65. Yes, they can be a hazard, sometimes, but think about how you're going to feel about the deal, yourself, in a few, very short decades.
We can find something that works, that isn't too inconvenient.
While we are at it-let's have a required drug test every month, if you are between the ages of 16- 55. Of course, all drivers should be required to take an oral and written exam every year for license renewal. Cell phones, TVs, radios, mp3 players are to be forbidden in the vehicle at ALL TIMES because they could distract the driver and cause an accident. ANY driver should have the RIGHT to report every other driver for driving too SLOW or too FAST by calling a specific telephone and telling the car tag number. Three call ins on YOUR vehicle warrants a month's license suspension. I hope you get the drift of what I am saying. If not, then they should put you in the coo coo's nest.
Should the Duke lacrosse players counter sue ?
Answer:
Heck yeah they should. Why some beotches have to lie about being raped I will have no idea.
THe stripper? FOr what - her millions???
I would, especially those butthead 88 professors that slandered them so bad, Nifong, and the "victim"
A B S O L U T E L Y !
The School and the hoe they should but i don't know if they can sue nifong or what ever the prosecutor name is i'm not sure if prosecutor's are protected like judges i think the judges are bonded.
either that or buy an assault rifle.
One recalls the old quot, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
I hope that the profs at Duke have a few troubled nights sleeping for their courageous stand for their students.
The stripper is pretty much judgment proof. She has nothing of value. That leaves the prosecutor/state.
Counter sue who? You would have to prove alot of things that would be unlikely to prove...remember just because the charges were dropped does not mean they were innocent.
They can't counter sue because they were never sued.
Should the driving age be kept at 16?
I'm writing an essay on the driving age being kept at 16. THIS ESSAY IS DUE THIS WEEK SO I NEED ANSWERS QUICK!! Can you help me think of 16 REAL FACTS on why the driving age should be kept at 16?
Answer:
parents compaian about having to "taxi" their children around
kids need the independce
we have to learn the seriousness of freedom
with great power comes great responsibility (that should be the title)
we hae to get to work somehow
parents have something to control, at taht age its hard to find things to take away!!
learn the value of the dollar
thats all i can think of!!
you only need 3 strong ones for an essay,
1.Discrimination- Assuming all young drivers are reckless
2.the real facts- old drivers are more hazardous than young drivers(provide statistics)
3.Reasons why 16yr olds need to drive (to work or school)
Bonus:
propose a maximum age to drive
improves economy by more people having to buy cars in a market were american made cars are not successful
remember its an essay so BS it
I think it should be changed to 18.
Answer:
parents compaian about having to "taxi" their children around
kids need the independce
we have to learn the seriousness of freedom
with great power comes great responsibility (that should be the title)
we hae to get to work somehow
parents have something to control, at taht age its hard to find things to take away!!
learn the value of the dollar
thats all i can think of!!
you only need 3 strong ones for an essay,
1.Discrimination- Assuming all young drivers are reckless
2.the real facts- old drivers are more hazardous than young drivers(provide statistics)
3.Reasons why 16yr olds need to drive (to work or school)
Bonus:
propose a maximum age to drive
improves economy by more people having to buy cars in a market were american made cars are not successful
remember its an essay so BS it
I think it should be changed to 18.
Should the death sentence be introduced for paedophiles?
i have been reading in my local paper about a portuguese child snatcher who flew over 50 children out of Faro airport in 8 months.children as young as 5 were
abducted and sold into prostitution and slavery. some of these children may be in the uk, sold onto wealthy abusers. pedro miguel da costa damba was jailed for 6 years in 2002 for the string of abductions, but was released early for good behavior. this dangerous, vile thing is now obviously out theresomewhere and i doubt very much he has been rehabilitated. he was only caught when an immigration officer noticedhe was flying his second "family" to Egland in a week. surely in cases like this there is no other option but to put these things down. life imprisonment is an option, but as a tax payer i am not happy paying for these individuals to live a life of luxury.
Answer:
Possibly, castration also springs to mind! (And i mean the full meat and veg)
A shark tank would be a good start(make sure those sharks are HUNGRY!!!)
YES!!!! We have to protect our children!
i think the death sentence should be used for them but then theres always the chance someone could be wrongly convicted and if they've already been killed theres no going back
yes
we live in a democracy and Parliament syas no. If you want to change the laws vote for a different government.
.
No, it is unacceptable to use the death penality.Taking a life is a crime, also there is always the case of miscarriages of justice.I think life imprisonment should mean life for these people, and it certainly wouldnt be a life of luxury!
naa, should just get some big fat ugly man to poke them and abuse them for the rest of there life. deths to good for them, rather torture them.
Yes Juicy dont think anyone on here would argue against that...
yes as long as it is proved without a doubt .also i think a lump hammer and an anvil should come into play first whack
Who are you to decide the life of another? That makes you no better than them. A hard life prison term should do the trick.
I vote for death! Sick people like that don't change.
Unquestionably Yes
I agree.
or use them for medical testing for the remainder of thier life...with NO painkillers. we can at least get a couple cures out of them.
DEFINITLY
where there is unquestionable guilt...then yes they bloody well should. hope they all rot in hell. disgusting evil scum! but watch how many down thumbs i get by all the do gooders who think its ok for them to clutter up the prisons living it up with colour tvs like ian huntley. or even worse some morons think they can be reabilitated and move them into a hostel next door to a kiddies playground!
That sort of story certainly makes you want them to suffer the ultimate price!
Where do you draw the line though? This evil man actually trades in children and causes them to be abused and mudered. Should the paedophile who only downloads images get the same?
Don't misunderstand me, I know how that trade brings misery to thousands of children...but where do we draw the line?
Yes, that or Castrate them !!
i say no. not for any crime. if we have the death penalty we have to have people within our society that carry it out. are you prepared to do it ?
no you wouldn't.
would you be friends with a person that puts people to death for a living ? i think that once a society has moved on like we have you can't go back to it. usa will eventually see sense too.
I agree with you. Many of the pedophiles seem to do it over and over again. I have no pity for them.
We should take them out in a field tie their hands, let the parents beat them to death, and if they live through it, I volunteer to finish them off, as long as I can do it however I wish.
I truly think the death penalty (especially the way it's set up now), is too easy for them. They are killers (of childhood and innocence) and should be treated as the scum they are. I would love to be like a third world country and torture the hell out of them. Almost to the brink of death, then let them recover, and do it all over again. I can think of a lot of things that would be a worthy torture for those monsters. But, unfortunately, there are too many bleeding heart liberals who think they should have rights.
yes,, if anything happened to my little girl i would gladly take it upon myself to do the job! no problem.
Why Paedophiles and why not Murderers?
At times I am all for it, but then there are always miscariages of justice that make me think twice. If a member of my family or friends was sentenced to death only for years later to be found innocent how and what can be done to compensate the person who was tried and their innocent life taken away from them? Nothing!
Also, lets remember that althought he majority of Paedophiles are men, there are some women out there the same, so please don't come up with the usual "Castrate them" comments.
I hate paedophiles with a vengeance however I am 100% against hanging.I would lock them up %26 throw away the key.
or you could put them into womens prisons and just sit back and watch the women rip them to pieces
I would have the thought the answer is obvious......castration.
Edit. Frosty you are right..I had forgotten that these women often are far more evil than the male...Rosemary West, Myra Hindely......may others.
So the answer has to be Life....... Paedophiles both men and women often become murderers as well.
Yes and not just pedes but serial killers etc
Yes! But be generous and give child molesters ONE chance to rehabilitate. On the first offense, don't just jail them for a fixed term; jail them indefinitely and give them intensive therapy. Don't release them until/unless a PANEL of psychologists agrees that recidivism is highly unlikely. I'm willing to pay my share of the taxes for this humane treatment.
Fry all convicted second-offense child molesters!
Paedophiles who only look at pictures do not deserve such harsh treatment.
In cases like that one, absolutely! It's time we told these sub-humans that if they touch our children they DIE!
abducted and sold into prostitution and slavery. some of these children may be in the uk, sold onto wealthy abusers. pedro miguel da costa damba was jailed for 6 years in 2002 for the string of abductions, but was released early for good behavior. this dangerous, vile thing is now obviously out theresomewhere and i doubt very much he has been rehabilitated. he was only caught when an immigration officer noticedhe was flying his second "family" to Egland in a week. surely in cases like this there is no other option but to put these things down. life imprisonment is an option, but as a tax payer i am not happy paying for these individuals to live a life of luxury.
Answer:
Possibly, castration also springs to mind! (And i mean the full meat and veg)
A shark tank would be a good start(make sure those sharks are HUNGRY!!!)
YES!!!! We have to protect our children!
i think the death sentence should be used for them but then theres always the chance someone could be wrongly convicted and if they've already been killed theres no going back
yes
we live in a democracy and Parliament syas no. If you want to change the laws vote for a different government.
.
No, it is unacceptable to use the death penality.Taking a life is a crime, also there is always the case of miscarriages of justice.I think life imprisonment should mean life for these people, and it certainly wouldnt be a life of luxury!
naa, should just get some big fat ugly man to poke them and abuse them for the rest of there life. deths to good for them, rather torture them.
Yes Juicy dont think anyone on here would argue against that...
yes as long as it is proved without a doubt .also i think a lump hammer and an anvil should come into play first whack
Who are you to decide the life of another? That makes you no better than them. A hard life prison term should do the trick.
I vote for death! Sick people like that don't change.
Unquestionably Yes
I agree.
or use them for medical testing for the remainder of thier life...with NO painkillers. we can at least get a couple cures out of them.
DEFINITLY
where there is unquestionable guilt...then yes they bloody well should. hope they all rot in hell. disgusting evil scum! but watch how many down thumbs i get by all the do gooders who think its ok for them to clutter up the prisons living it up with colour tvs like ian huntley. or even worse some morons think they can be reabilitated and move them into a hostel next door to a kiddies playground!
That sort of story certainly makes you want them to suffer the ultimate price!
Where do you draw the line though? This evil man actually trades in children and causes them to be abused and mudered. Should the paedophile who only downloads images get the same?
Don't misunderstand me, I know how that trade brings misery to thousands of children...but where do we draw the line?
Yes, that or Castrate them !!
i say no. not for any crime. if we have the death penalty we have to have people within our society that carry it out. are you prepared to do it ?
no you wouldn't.
would you be friends with a person that puts people to death for a living ? i think that once a society has moved on like we have you can't go back to it. usa will eventually see sense too.
I agree with you. Many of the pedophiles seem to do it over and over again. I have no pity for them.
We should take them out in a field tie their hands, let the parents beat them to death, and if they live through it, I volunteer to finish them off, as long as I can do it however I wish.
I truly think the death penalty (especially the way it's set up now), is too easy for them. They are killers (of childhood and innocence) and should be treated as the scum they are. I would love to be like a third world country and torture the hell out of them. Almost to the brink of death, then let them recover, and do it all over again. I can think of a lot of things that would be a worthy torture for those monsters. But, unfortunately, there are too many bleeding heart liberals who think they should have rights.
yes,, if anything happened to my little girl i would gladly take it upon myself to do the job! no problem.
Why Paedophiles and why not Murderers?
At times I am all for it, but then there are always miscariages of justice that make me think twice. If a member of my family or friends was sentenced to death only for years later to be found innocent how and what can be done to compensate the person who was tried and their innocent life taken away from them? Nothing!
Also, lets remember that althought he majority of Paedophiles are men, there are some women out there the same, so please don't come up with the usual "Castrate them" comments.
I hate paedophiles with a vengeance however I am 100% against hanging.I would lock them up %26 throw away the key.
or you could put them into womens prisons and just sit back and watch the women rip them to pieces
I would have the thought the answer is obvious......castration.
Edit. Frosty you are right..I had forgotten that these women often are far more evil than the male...Rosemary West, Myra Hindely......may others.
So the answer has to be Life....... Paedophiles both men and women often become murderers as well.
Yes and not just pedes but serial killers etc
Yes! But be generous and give child molesters ONE chance to rehabilitate. On the first offense, don't just jail them for a fixed term; jail them indefinitely and give them intensive therapy. Don't release them until/unless a PANEL of psychologists agrees that recidivism is highly unlikely. I'm willing to pay my share of the taxes for this humane treatment.
Fry all convicted second-offense child molesters!
Paedophiles who only look at pictures do not deserve such harsh treatment.
In cases like that one, absolutely! It's time we told these sub-humans that if they touch our children they DIE!
Should the death penalty be gone?
yes or no
Answer:
no we should kill dumb people
Yes.
no.
Yes
no if it can be proven beyond a doubt , then so be it
no
If anything it needs to be accelerated. Execution should come in a matter of weeks, not years. Execute the garbage and clean the trash out of society.
No
in most cases, but when you're dealing with psychos like the Columbine murderers, 9-11 terrorists, and Virginia Tech murderer, they should get it. The last thing we need is one of those psychos escaping from jail.
Yes...the state has no business killing it's citizens. The reason is that every time we execute a person that's innocent it makes a murderer out of every tax payer and I do not want murder carried out in my name.
No. It shouldnt be, but then I think that the laws of the Old west should be brought back.
If punishment was actually handed out rather than a slap on the hand, then crime would go down.
Seriously dont you think that if the next criminal had to face his victim who carried and gun, used it and could harm him, dont you think he would think twice about commiting crime?
I'm not sayin that the old west was without its fair share of crime, criminals and the like. It wasnt by any means.
But if the same laws then applied now, our crime rate would go down. Its amazing that in the country were there is the most laws, we have the greatest of injustices.
NO! In fact, we should put in an "Express lane" for people convicted of murder where there is no doubt of guilt!
No reason to suspect that the shooting was justified.
No reason to doubt the "chain of evidence", as in under police surveillance from committing the crime to arrest, or positive DNA evidence linking the killer to the crime.
Upon being found guilty under these circumstances, the killer should have 2 years, and only 2 years to disprove the prosecution's case.
Can't do it? FRY, baby, FRY!!!!
Answer:
no we should kill dumb people
Yes.
no.
Yes
no if it can be proven beyond a doubt , then so be it
no
If anything it needs to be accelerated. Execution should come in a matter of weeks, not years. Execute the garbage and clean the trash out of society.
No
in most cases, but when you're dealing with psychos like the Columbine murderers, 9-11 terrorists, and Virginia Tech murderer, they should get it. The last thing we need is one of those psychos escaping from jail.
Yes...the state has no business killing it's citizens. The reason is that every time we execute a person that's innocent it makes a murderer out of every tax payer and I do not want murder carried out in my name.
No. It shouldnt be, but then I think that the laws of the Old west should be brought back.
If punishment was actually handed out rather than a slap on the hand, then crime would go down.
Seriously dont you think that if the next criminal had to face his victim who carried and gun, used it and could harm him, dont you think he would think twice about commiting crime?
I'm not sayin that the old west was without its fair share of crime, criminals and the like. It wasnt by any means.
But if the same laws then applied now, our crime rate would go down. Its amazing that in the country were there is the most laws, we have the greatest of injustices.
NO! In fact, we should put in an "Express lane" for people convicted of murder where there is no doubt of guilt!
No reason to suspect that the shooting was justified.
No reason to doubt the "chain of evidence", as in under police surveillance from committing the crime to arrest, or positive DNA evidence linking the killer to the crime.
Upon being found guilty under these circumstances, the killer should have 2 years, and only 2 years to disprove the prosecution's case.
Can't do it? FRY, baby, FRY!!!!
Should the courts have the power to create crimes?
Answer:
I'm a little confused by your question. Courts don't create crimes, criminals create crimes. If you mean should laws be passed criminializing acts that were once not considered illegal, then yes, there need to be specific laws to address areas that were overlooked or not foreseen when the original law was written. Btw, it is the legislative body of the government that passes laws, not the judicial system.
No.
Why?
Because that would shift the balance of power. Courts are used simply to interpret the laws, and to find out if in accordance to the letter of the law, if someone broke the law. Giving them the right to create law would give judges a lot of power in a court room. It would then become if they like the way the law is written or not, or if they created the law how it is enforced.
Absolutely. If we vested this power in the judiciary, we could do away with the legislature and save buckets of cash. In addition, we could streamline the executive branch as well by making them answerable to courts instead of to the President or Governors.
Man, I'm excited by the idea. I'm glad I have a law degree, let's get this into effect so I can become a judge.
I will assume that your question refers to the power to declare an action illegal. If that is the case the answer is no, Courts do not have the power to create new crimes as they do not legislate.
No. That is properly the job of the legislature. (I assume that by "create" you mean "define".)
Should the Brits and Other Countries Stay Out of Americas Internal Affairs RE: Gun Control?
My opinion for the Brits and others. STAY OUT OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS. We have always sorted out our own problems and still can.
If your afraid to come here, stay in the UK. Yes where there are special armed police task force to deal with your rising gun crime. "Oh! but that isn't suppose to happen in your Utopia".
Do you remember in the early days of WW2, when England had its back to the wall. When you cried for help and ARMED AMERICANS sent you thousands of their own personal arms for your defense? Then never asked for payment or for their return. errrrrrr...Thank you!
Stay in your little cubical of a house, that your not even permitted to defend. Yea! You try to defend your home, family and property you can end up in jail and the criminal is made the victim.
Your King George tried to enforce arms control in the Americas on 19 April 1775, look what that got him.
This is my Opinion! 12 years US Army, 14 years Civilian Police. LEAA, NRA %26 American Legion
Answer:
LOL...I love it
The subjects of Britain gave up their self defense rights as well as the Canadians. Their violent crime rate in England alone has risen 17% and have you been to Toronto lately, jeez.
If they want in our affairs, they should at least repay the loan.
There is always going to be someone out there that knows better. As the Brits and everyone else can play the lost little sheep watching out for the big bad wolf if they want hoping that us Americans will come in and play Shepherd for them for me they will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead fingers.
Well maybe people will stay out of your affairs when you stay out of thiers iraq, vietnam the list goes on. Oh and by the way 19 April 1775 the only people capable of defeating the british was in fact the british themselves, more of a cival war i think. And yes you did get paid for the weapons in WW2, the only country to make a profit from the war, well done.
If your afraid to come here, stay in the UK. Yes where there are special armed police task force to deal with your rising gun crime. "Oh! but that isn't suppose to happen in your Utopia".
Do you remember in the early days of WW2, when England had its back to the wall. When you cried for help and ARMED AMERICANS sent you thousands of their own personal arms for your defense? Then never asked for payment or for their return. errrrrrr...Thank you!
Stay in your little cubical of a house, that your not even permitted to defend. Yea! You try to defend your home, family and property you can end up in jail and the criminal is made the victim.
Your King George tried to enforce arms control in the Americas on 19 April 1775, look what that got him.
This is my Opinion! 12 years US Army, 14 years Civilian Police. LEAA, NRA %26 American Legion
Answer:
LOL...I love it
The subjects of Britain gave up their self defense rights as well as the Canadians. Their violent crime rate in England alone has risen 17% and have you been to Toronto lately, jeez.
If they want in our affairs, they should at least repay the loan.
There is always going to be someone out there that knows better. As the Brits and everyone else can play the lost little sheep watching out for the big bad wolf if they want hoping that us Americans will come in and play Shepherd for them for me they will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead fingers.
Well maybe people will stay out of your affairs when you stay out of thiers iraq, vietnam the list goes on. Oh and by the way 19 April 1775 the only people capable of defeating the british was in fact the british themselves, more of a cival war i think. And yes you did get paid for the weapons in WW2, the only country to make a profit from the war, well done.
Should the borders of the US be militarized?
How else can we stop the flow?
Many countries have a shoot to kill policy, should we do the same?
How else can we be taken seriously?
Is there a 'nice' way to do it?
Answer:
yes yes yes.
2 words:
Land Mines
Yes, and ok, what is a nice way to do it. There is no nice way, we just round every illegal up ,and make them walk home.
I don't know where you live, but in Texas, border guards have dogs and guns.
yes
Extend our border...invade Mexico.
No! it should be fun by adding slides, swings, human-sling shots, horses so could be fun to cross the borders.
I agree.
I think you should militarize all the borders to keep Americans from escaping and menacing the rest of the world as they are doing now.
What a relief that somebody sees it our way.
I think it would do America more good to protect our own borders rather than protecting Iraq's.
A Guard in place is sufficient. But it must have authority to act or it is useless. A warning issued "Trespassers will be shot" means that.Do not BREAK INTO OUR COUNTRY! Or expect the consequences, this is OUR HOME.
YES! every other country has militarized borders...we should do the same to protect our country. i find it funny that if we do it we are racists and when other countries do it ...it's fine.
ok you red necks !!! why is the answer for you guys is to KILL ! KILL ! KILL ! Would it REALLY be better if everybody you didn't like was murdered? By who..YOU? What if everybody had the same "right"you feel you have to kill anybody you want. That, my fellow[?] AMERICAN ,is called anarchy%26chaos ! The policies of the RepubliCONS have always been on the side of BIG BUSINESS and our immigration problem would be managable if large employers paid a decent wage to lower wage AMERICANS and NOT hire illegal workers at slave wages. You try to live on min. wage !!
Many countries have a shoot to kill policy, should we do the same?
How else can we be taken seriously?
Is there a 'nice' way to do it?
Answer:
yes yes yes.
2 words:
Land Mines
Yes, and ok, what is a nice way to do it. There is no nice way, we just round every illegal up ,and make them walk home.
I don't know where you live, but in Texas, border guards have dogs and guns.
yes
Extend our border...invade Mexico.
No! it should be fun by adding slides, swings, human-sling shots, horses so could be fun to cross the borders.
I agree.
I think you should militarize all the borders to keep Americans from escaping and menacing the rest of the world as they are doing now.
What a relief that somebody sees it our way.
I think it would do America more good to protect our own borders rather than protecting Iraq's.
A Guard in place is sufficient. But it must have authority to act or it is useless. A warning issued "Trespassers will be shot" means that.Do not BREAK INTO OUR COUNTRY! Or expect the consequences, this is OUR HOME.
YES! every other country has militarized borders...we should do the same to protect our country. i find it funny that if we do it we are racists and when other countries do it ...it's fine.
ok you red necks !!! why is the answer for you guys is to KILL ! KILL ! KILL ! Would it REALLY be better if everybody you didn't like was murdered? By who..YOU? What if everybody had the same "right"you feel you have to kill anybody you want. That, my fellow[?] AMERICAN ,is called anarchy%26chaos ! The policies of the RepubliCONS have always been on the side of BIG BUSINESS and our immigration problem would be managable if large employers paid a decent wage to lower wage AMERICANS and NOT hire illegal workers at slave wages. You try to live on min. wage !!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)