If liberals truly were pro-choice... (Canada, carry, money, federal government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
with the above being your answer, I think the question should have been, being able to send your child to a private school without paying a tax or levy to support a public school.
Oh, so that would mean all people who do not have children of school age, or have no children at all, should not pay taxes that go towards schools?
Well then, why should people who do not use the fire department because their house HAS NOT YET burned down pay taxes for that?
Or those who have not called the police for help would not have to pay for those taxes?
They are non-people until they take a breath of air????
I see, you can justify killing a 6 month old fetus, because its not a human being. Well, that's good to know, I'll use that defense and harvest endangered sea turtle eggs, and the eggs of the snowy owl too.
As far as I know one is breaking the law (endangered animals), while the other is not.
I don't like 3rd term abortions personally, however, I definitely support abortions when the mother's life is in danger.
I think you might be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The rights in the Constitution, according to the preamble, come from the people.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
No confusion. The documents compliment and support each other. The people establish the Constitution but the unalienable rights are previously recognized as coming from the Creator. They are given to the people by our Creator, thus belonging to us, the people. The people, in instituting Government to secure those rights, also establish the Constitutional rule of law to affirm the rights and seperate and equal station given to them by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitled them" as recognized in their Declaration of Independence and explaination of seperation from England.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 09-06-2010 at 09:59 PM..
Oh, so that would mean all people who do not have children of school age, or have no children at all, should not pay taxes that go towards schools?
Well then, why should people who do not use the fire department because their house HAS NOT YET burned down pay taxes for that?
Or those who have not called the police for help would not have to pay for those taxes?
Stupid Idea.
not stupid at all, heck even now fire departments are charging people for their services even though they are paid with taxes. you might think it is stupid, but as long as goverment officials make others pay for things people dont want, you will have arguements in the opposite way.
You are not one of those believers who thinks 200 years of the 10th amendment should be undone because it does not come out the way the right wants it?
You are not out to reinterpret the 14th?
YOu must be a rare conservative. Most are stuck in dream worlds discussing how it is going to be when all changes.
It is the left that is attempting to re-interpret the 14th amendment to apply to the children of illegal aliens who happen to drop onto American soil (a.k.a. anchor babies). The 14th amendment was specifically created to deal with the recently freed slaves and their children and to make them citizens following the war between the states.
Unlike government those nameless, faceless insurance company employees are incapable of using force to coerce compliance. If they can't or won't provide a competitive product at a reasonable price people are free to look elsewhere.
Government removes all choices. You're given a choice of doing it their way or accepting whatever penalties they deem appropriate.
Flawed as the current system is I'd much rather deal with it than have something forced upon me by a government that has long ago forgotten it's supposed to work for us rather than rule us.
You have a very naive view of insurance companies if you think there is much real competition out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
It is the left that is attempting to re-interpret the 14th amendment to apply to the children of illegal aliens who happen to drop onto American soil (a.k.a. anchor babies). The 14th amendment was specifically created to deal with the recently freed slaves and their children and to make them citizens following the war between the states.
It is not the left that is attempting to reinterpret the 14th amendment in this way. This is settled law.
The states voted on the Second amendment, and its the law, so individual states cannot vacate it all on their own.
This was not a very strong comparison on your part, since the right to abort a baby, just because bikini season is approaching soon, is not granted in the US Constitution.
No, it was a supreme court case over the summer that incorporated it.
The rights affirmed in the Constitution apply across the board to every state. Are you suggesting that the Constitution should not equally apply across all states?
Are you suggesting that freedoms of speech and religion should be decided on a state by state basis?
Are you suggesting that a poll tax is ok in some states while expressedly prohibited by the Constitution?
Are you suggesting that in some states people should be able to vote at age 21 and in others not until age 30 or that in some states only men should vote and in others only women when the Constitution clearly spells out the eligible voting age at 18 and that gender/race based exclusions from voting are unConstitutional?
There is no Constitutional amendment affirming abortion as a "right"; only a court decision. Constitutional rights are endowned by our Creator and affirmed/protected through the Constitution, not granted by government.
Where did you come up with that idea? I'm calling his list the grand shmuckiness list. That's right. Shmuckiness.
I think that it is funny that the whole pro state thing was fine until it deals with a right that the right wants. Then the 2nd needs to be incorporated. It is ludicrous.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Don't want anyone else to have one........in a safe place..............get an amendment.
Answer me this, the Bill of Rights does not say that YOU have a right to privacy, does it?
If conservatives were truly pro-state, they would have continued to allow the states to make the call on the second ammendment.
Oh, I see......
Except that the second amendment is not controlled by the state. The second amendment is a liberty granted to the individual citizen. The state may set its own rules with regard to the sale of arms, concealed carry regs and so on. But, the state does not have the authority to make the sale or ownership of arms illegal within its borders.
Therefore, it is not the state's call. Also to shed more light in which context you are making your statement, I would advise that you clarify which elements of the second ammendment you are referring to so as to make it a less ambiguous statement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
