|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:13 pm
Mistress Niksa ok...people....heres the thing....in the original pledge it said 'under my flag' not 'under god'!! next..i believe that religion and anything having to w/ the public should be seperated!! i mean look at our judges....like the new chick that gonna replace O'Connor...she supposedly 'very religious' and to tell the truth i dont think this country needs anymore conservative christains in any positions in power!! i mean look where our country is now!! in the hole financially, doing stupid s**t all the time, i mean the country is totally F***ED!!! like i said b4 religion and anything that contains public affairs should be seperate!! i mean im not saying that all christians r bad, but look at what happened when the church ruled over the king....we went on crusades (pointless murdering) which in turn made the iraqi ppls pissed at us FOREVER.....and the salem witch hunts (what a crock of s**t and more pointless murdering)...so u know just keep it seperated and everything wil be just fine!! im stepping off my soapbox now!! thanx for reading my opinion by the way even if u dont agree!!! Amen girlfriend.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:00 pm
ChivalrysRevival thats exactly what people do and nobody sues over it. What, no one sues over harassment? I beg to differ. Thousands of people sue over sexual harassment, verbal harassment, etc. Furthermore, harassment isn't necessarily a civil case; in a lot of states it's a criminal case - though you can still sue if you want. Quote: now if you then persist to the point of following someone when they walk away, then you have an issue Yeah, stalking and harrassment. Found at http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=853&bold=Harassment||Law Dictionary on Harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone anxious or fearful. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. Thus, if you are sitting next to me in a classroom, and are making unwanted passes at me (or anyone else) and have been continually denied those passes and asked to stop those making such passes, yet you blatantly go against my pleas; you are harassing me (or anyone else in that situation). Quote: if you take out under god because it offends some people Like I said, it's not that it's being taken out becuase it offends people (or at least that should not be the reasoning behind it) it is being taken out because it violates the rights of another person. Namely the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:34 pm
Mistress Niksa ok...people....heres the thing....in the original pledge it said 'under my flag' not 'under god'!! next..i believe that religion and anything having to w/ the public should be seperated!! i mean look at our judges....like the new chick that gonna replace O'Connor...she supposedly 'very religious' and to tell the truth i dont think this country needs anymore conservative christains in any positions in power!! i mean look where our country is now!! in the hole financially, doing stupid s**t all the time, i mean the country is totally F***ED!!! like i said b4 religion and anything that contains public affairs should be seperate!! i mean im not saying that all christians r bad, but look at what happened when the church ruled over the king....we went on crusades (pointless murdering) which in turn made the iraqi ppls pissed at us FOREVER.....and the salem witch hunts (what a crock of s**t and more pointless murdering)...so u know just keep it seperated and everything wil be just fine!! im stepping off my soapbox now!! thanx for reading my opinion by the way even if u dont agree!!! so you dont think that qualifications for a judge should matter if she's religious? you would choose someone less qualified based on religion, race, beliefs, whatever? wait... affirmative action already does that stare yes look where our country is now. look around the world and find one that is better. if by some miracle you do find it, move there and enjoy it. until you can find someplace better, you cannot say that our government is a total failure. we have more rights with so much diversity than anywhere else in the world. the closest is the british and guess where they got the idea? since when has america had a king? and the church rules over the president? he may be christian but he does not have the pope or a preacher telling him what to do. the iraqi former regime, yeah they hate our guts. the extremists who like to think that somehow the loving, life-respecting God they worship wants to have them blow themselves up and kill thousands and sully His name with their doctrinal hipocrisy, you bet they think we suck... the people hate us? maybe you're right, who wants to be freed from a violent dictator anywho? salem witch trials and under god... religious psycho zealots and a tradition for 50 years... still developing a form of governing america and a solidified, working major world power... no way to stop such a thing quickly and too much beuracracy to do much of anything too extremist either way... yeah i can almost see the connection! rolleyes slippery slope my left buttcheek. [/laughter at your expense]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:44 pm
chaoticpuppet ChivalrysRevival thats exactly what people do and nobody sues over it. What, no one sues over harassment? I beg to differ. Thousands of people sue over sexual harassment, verbal harassment, etc. Furthermore, harassment isn't necessarily a civil case; in a lot of states it's a criminal case - though you can still sue if you want. in a situation where nobody was forcing one to stay and listen and the opportunity to do so was available... not being restircted or anything. that isnt harrassment, thats being too stupid to do what is necessary to avoid the situation.Quote: now if you then persist to the point of following someone when they walk away, then you have an issue Yeah, stalking and harrassment. Found at http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=853&bold=Harassment||Law Dictionary on Harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone anxious or fearful. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. Thus, if you are sitting next to me in a classroom, and are making unwanted passes at me (or anyone else) and have been continually denied those passes and asked to stop those making such passes, yet you blatantly go against my pleas; you are harassing me (or anyone else in that situation). yes and the pledge of allegiance is raping your mind rolleyes ....Quote: if you take out under god because it offends some people Like I said, it's not that it's being taken out becuase it offends people (or at least that should not be the reasoning behind it) it is being taken out because it violates the rights of another person. Namely the first amendment. the guy in california who is suing says that he wants it out because it offends him. he tried it before with his own daughter, that he didnt even have custody for, and lost. now he wants to use others as his puppets to do it for him. by saying majority rules means just that. the majority has preference because guess what. there are more of us. minority rights means just that. the minority has the right to have protection and certain garuntees in the country... not the right to make legislation for the majority. is it fair to have a small group determine what is best for the entire nation? no that is the articles of confederation, and look how well that turned out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:00 pm
Now, you see, the problem with that was, you took things out of context - though it was something that I expected from someone like you. Still though, I thoght that you would be able to pick that your idea's are made of complete idiocy.
Anyway, if you want to stay as obstinate as you are, go ahead, and I'll just merely laugh at your general blatant and freely chosen ignorance.
Quote: the guy in california who is suing says that he wants it out because it offends him. he tried it before with his own daughter, that he didnt even have custody for, and lost. now he wants to use others as his puppets to do it for him.
Why someone is trying to change it, does not necessarily coincide with why it is changed. For example, I could sue over something, say abuse, and latter down the line, it brings out a whole new idea/direction for the law to go in - maybe better defined rape laws.
Quote: by saying majority rules means just that. the majority has preference because guess what. there are more of us.
I am certain, that you are familiar with the fact that one, it is not that we have a direct democracy - seeing as we do not vote on every single matter. We have a representative democracy, in which we elect delegates who vote on our behalf. Thus, to say there is a majority approval of what is happening is completely and utterly wrong, as there may not be 150,000,001 Americans who agree with a certain action. Our delegates, that we elected, have decided to commit to a certain action, because they think those who voted for them, would prefer them to do that action. Thus, there may or may not be more of you majority of citizens, however, it is a majority of those who the citizens voted to represent them.
Quote: minority rights means just that. the minority has the right to have protection and certain garuntees in the country... not the right to make legislation for the majority.
Oh, the contradiction, you do see it right? I'm sure you do not, as you probably would not have typed it if you did.
If the minority has rights that they are guaranteed to then, in essence, they have set legislation in which they restrict what the majority can do. I.e. they have enacted legislation that rules over the majority.
Quote: is it fair to have a small group determine what is best for the entire nation? no that is the articles of confederation, and look how well that turned out.
So, then tell me, why a representative democracy is good? It is a small group of people, less than 1% of the population of our country, that determines what is best for an entire nation.
As for the articles of Confederation, look at the Constitution as well as the Amendments thereof, and how well that turned out.
Here's a helpful hint: next time, think before you speak. Oh, and another, learn how to think correctly, unless you like being wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:55 am
our representatives are chosen by a majority vote. therefor they represent the majority. the majority has to repect the minority yes but the minority is not in charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:45 pm
AmmonSuperCombo our representatives are chosen by a majority vote. therefor they represent the majority. the majority has to repect the minority yes but the minority is not in charge. Only about 100 million citizens voted in the last presidential election. Please, tell me, how is 100 million 51% of 300 million? Last I checked, 100 million was 1/3 i.e. 33.3% and I am pretty positive that 33.3% is less than 51%, but you know what, I only went as far as Calculus I, so I might be wrong. Furthermore, we do not even directly elect our president, we have an electoral college who elects the president for us. Finally, even fewer citizens vote in non-presidential elections. P.S. Don't forget that there is a restriction on voting. You have to be a citizen, above a certain age [18], and have registered to vote. So, you cannot logically say that a majority of the population has voted for a certain person. You can only say that a majority of those who voted in that election, voted for a certain person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:28 pm
KONORET Mistress Niksa ok...people....heres the thing....in the original pledge it said 'under my flag' not 'under god'!! next..i believe that religion and anything having to w/ the public should be seperated!! i mean look at our judges....like the new chick that gonna replace O'Connor...she supposedly 'very religious' and to tell the truth i dont think this country needs anymore conservative christains in any positions in power!! i mean look where our country is now!! in the hole financially, doing stupid s**t all the time, i mean the country is totally F***ED!!! like i said b4 religion and anything that contains public affairs should be seperate!! i mean im not saying that all christians r bad, but look at what happened when the church ruled over the king....we went on crusades (pointless murdering) which in turn made the iraqi ppls pissed at us FOREVER.....and the salem witch hunts (what a crock of s**t and more pointless murdering)...so u know just keep it seperated and everything wil be just fine!! im stepping off my soapbox now!! thanx for reading my opinion by the way even if u dont agree!!! Amen girlfriend. Where are you getting that Iraq is forever pissed at us because of the Crusades? That was England and they fought the Turks....which aren't Iraqis.....so yea, that was pointless. stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:20 am
chaoticpuppet AmmonSuperCombo our representatives are chosen by a majority vote. therefor they represent the majority. the majority has to repect the minority yes but the minority is not in charge. Only about 100 million citizens voted in the last presidential election. Please, tell me, how is 100 million 51% of 300 million? Last I checked, 100 million was 1/3 i.e. 33.3% and I am pretty positive that 33.3% is less than 51%, but you know what, I only went as far as Calculus I, so I might be wrong. Furthermore, we do not even directly elect our president, we have an electoral college who elects the president for us. Finally, even fewer citizens vote in non-presidential elections. P.S. Don't forget that there is a restriction on voting. You have to be a citizen, above a certain age [18], and have registered to vote. So, you cannot logically say that a majority of the population has voted for a certain person. You can only say that a majority of those who voted in that election, voted for a certain person. ok so the majority of people in our country who are here legally and who care about their government. if you dont bother to vote, then good. you are actively forfiting your right to chose a representative. i have no sympathy for apathetic people who complain about the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:47 am
AmmonSuperCombo ok so the majority of people in our country who are here legally and who care about their government. if you dont bother to vote, then good. you are actively forfiting your right to chose a representative. i have no sympathy for apathetic people who complain about the government. First of all, to be more of an a*****e than I have already been, you need to work on your grammar; I mean, hello there's a thing called capitalization. Secondly, I do vote, I was just pointing out people who don't vote. Thirdly, people who don't vote, are more likely to be apathetic towards the politics in general about this country. In other words, they probably are less likely to complain about how the government is running. Finally, you never addressed the whole electoral college issue. I would also like to know how you feel about those who complain about the government currently, but who are incapable of voting due to some restriction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:58 pm
chaoticpuppet AmmonSuperCombo ok so the majority of people in our country who are here legally and who care about their government. if you dont bother to vote, then good. you are actively forfiting your right to chose a representative. i have no sympathy for apathetic people who complain about the government. First of all, to be more of an a*****e than I have already been, you need to work on your grammar; I mean, hello there's a thing called capitalization. Secondly, I do vote, I was just pointing out people who don't vote. Thirdly, people who don't vote, are more likely to be apathetic towards the politics in general about this country. In other words, they probably are less likely to complain about how the government is running. Finally, you never addressed the whole electoral college issue. I would also like to know how you feel about those who complain about the government currently, but who are incapable of voting due to some restriction. -Big whoop, so some people don't capitolize. Who cares? -Thank you for voting. For those who choose not to vote, what the heck are you doing in our country you lazy freeloaders! -I think he was refering to people who don't vote because they don't think it will make a difference more than the completely apathetic. -I like the idea of the electoral college. What better, feasable(sp?) solution is there? -Due to what restriction? Age?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:33 am
ChivalrysRevival -Big whoop, so some people don't capitolize. Who cares? -Thank you for voting. For those who choose not to vote, what the heck are you doing in our country you lazy freeloaders! -I think he was refering to people who don't vote because they don't think it will make a difference more than the completely apathetic. -I like the idea of the electoral college. What better, feasable(sp?) solution is there? -Due to what restriction? Age? Some people can't vote, you can't make the assumption of laziness based on their voting habits. Maybe they're too old to get out, maybe they've been convicted of a felony and no longer have the right to vote. Maybe they're over seas and don't know how to get an absentee ballot. There are a lot of variables to cover there. A straight up count actually The electoral college is around mostly to ensure a continuation of our two party system. It was created near the begining of our nation to make the voting easier. (Obviously a straight count would have taken a lot of time, not to mention resources) The electoral college is based almost solely on population, hence why the coastal states have most of the votes. The electoral college isn't particularly necessary, it's purpose was to simplify the voting. The only real reason why it's still around is to keep the status quo. There can be a lot of restrictions on voting. Age, naturally being one of them. If you're an Alien, you don't have the right to vote, which is pretty obvious. Legal (or resident aliens) I believe cannot, I'm not entirely sure. If you're convicted of a felony you can have your right to vote taken away. There are of course more, these are just the ones that came to mind right away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:05 pm
Knives` ChivalrysRevival -Big whoop, so some people don't capitolize. Who cares? -Thank you for voting. For those who choose not to vote, what the heck are you doing in our country you lazy freeloaders! -I think he was refering to people who don't vote because they don't think it will make a difference more than the completely apathetic. -I like the idea of the electoral college. What better, feasable(sp?) solution is there? -Due to what restriction? Age? Some people can't vote, you can't make the assumption of laziness based on their voting habits. Maybe they're too old to get out, maybe they've been convicted of a felony and no longer have the right to vote. Maybe they're over seas and don't know how to get an absentee ballot. There are a lot of variables to cover there. A straight up count actually The electoral college is around mostly to ensure a continuation of our two party system. It was created near the begining of our nation to make the voting easier. (Obviously a straight count would have taken a lot of time, not to mention resources) The electoral college is based almost solely on population, hence why the coastal states have most of the votes. The electoral college isn't particularly necessary, it's purpose was to simplify the voting. The only real reason why it's still around is to keep the status quo. There can be a lot of restrictions on voting. Age, naturally being one of them. If you're an Alien, you don't have the right to vote, which is pretty obvious. Legal (or resident aliens) I believe cannot, I'm not entirely sure. If you're convicted of a felony you can have your right to vote taken away. There are of course more, these are just the ones that came to mind right away. if you are unable to get to a voting booth there are other ways to vote. if you are overseas, you should know how to send in an absentee ballot, and if you don't shame on you for not planning ahead. convicted felon? good. you dont get a lot of things. nobody wants you screwing up the country. and misdemeanors do not count for this (little known fact that only severe felony charges bring the loss of voting rights) unless you are in the big house at the time of the election. the electoral college is there to save resources (both human and monitary), time, and confusion... imagine florida in 2000 with direct vote xp did my lack of capitolization get on your nerves chaoticpuppet? blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:44 pm
ChivalrysRevival if you are unable to get to a voting booth there are other ways to vote. if you are overseas, you should know how to send in an absentee ballot, and if you don't shame on you for not planning ahead. convicted felon? good. you dont get a lot of things. nobody wants you screwing up the country. and misdemeanors do not count for this (little known fact that only severe felony charges bring the loss of voting rights) unless you are in the big house at the time of the election. the electoral college is there to save resources (both human and monitary), time, and confusion... imagine florida in 2000 with direct vote xp did my lack of capitolization get on your nerves chaoticpuppet? blaugh So you're saying that we should just expect people who are handicapped to just take care of it? What if they don't know how to cast an absentee ballot, who are you to judge someone who doesn't understand how to do it? Shame on you for expecting everyone to know everything about sending in an absentee ballot. So, if you're charged with a felony, you think that automatically makes you incapable of voting, that you're somehow less worthy of the chance to influence the way the counrty is run? What if you're falsely imprisoned? What if they're politically astute? Are you just going to ignore the fact that they are in fact U.S. citizens too? You do know that the electoral college is based solely one the direct vote how is cutting out a pointless step saving resources? I can imagine florida with a direct vote, it would have been the same, just less important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:05 pm
Knives` ChivalrysRevival if you are unable to get to a voting booth there are other ways to vote. if you are overseas, you should know how to send in an absentee ballot, and if you don't shame on you for not planning ahead. convicted felon? good. you dont get a lot of things. nobody wants you screwing up the country. and misdemeanors do not count for this (little known fact that only severe felony charges bring the loss of voting rights) unless you are in the big house at the time of the election. the electoral college is there to save resources (both human and monitary), time, and confusion... imagine florida in 2000 with direct vote xp did my lack of capitolization get on your nerves chaoticpuppet? blaugh So you're saying that we should just expect people who are handicapped to just take care of it? What if they don't know how to cast an absentee ballot, who are you to judge someone who doesn't understand how to do it? Shame on you for expecting everyone to know everything about sending in an absentee ballot. So, if you're charged with a felony, you think that automatically makes you incapable of voting, that you're somehow less worthy of the chance to influence the way the counrty is run? What if you're falsely imprisoned? What if they're politically astute? Are you just going to ignore the fact that they are in fact U.S. citizens too? You do know that the electoral college is based solely one the direct vote how is cutting out a pointless step saving resources? I can imagine florida with a direct vote, it would have been the same, just less important. what did i say about the handicapped? "there are other ways to vote." there are special voting provisions for the disabled or if worse comes to worse they can hitch a ride or something... if you know you want to vote and are going to be gone, it is your responsibility to learn how. if you do not then how can it conceivably be anyone else's fault but your own? not everyone needs to know how to send an absentee ballot ( stare although it is a good idea for those of us who like to be informed about the political process...) just those to whom it is applicable. if they do not take it upon themselves to figure out how, then too bad. they screwed up. better luck next time. falsely imprisoned? it's called appeals and pardons. and yes i dont like the idea of a serial rapist voting on curfew hours, penalty severity, or things relating to their convictions. armed robbers and gang members voting on whether or not i can have a gun to protect myself from them? not so hot on that idea either. charles manson on civil rights? how about you? if they were really politically astute, they would know the reparations for their actions, including the loss of voting rights, and probably wouldn't have done it the first place... stare that is if they are truely politically astute. the electoral college is: "Under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, each state chooses electors in the same number that the state has senators and representatives. The electors have the discretion to choose the candidate they vote for, but in practice the electors vote for the candidate that wins the most votes in their respective states. In all the states except Maine, the candidate that wins a plurality of the popular votes wins all of the state's electoral votes." it isnt based on the direct vote. it is based on the electors who get the most votes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
