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.
He was back peddling when he realized he had just alienated the entire Jewish constituancy. At AIPAC he said something completely different from what he said before bibi lectured him on reality. He went from the lines have to go back to 67 (which really means 48) to 67 lines with tradeoffs (meaning pretty much can remain as is).
How many balls this guy can juggle at once will be amazing to watch. How many fish he can keep on the hook will be even more amazing.
The ban was partly based on evidence that circumcision is not needed and can cause more harm than good (since there is evidence to support that circumcision is not needed and things can go bad). Has nothing to do with religion. It's more a public health issue.
And would be perfectly legal in California since the Restoring Religious Freedom Act does not apply to the states and California does not have a state counterpart of said act unlike many other states.
If it passes in Santa Monica, it would spread rapidly - Beverly Hills usually copies every Santa Monica law immediately after it's passed. Other LA County cities usually follow, except for the more ghetto towns - and all too often the city of L.A. adopts said laws.
Quote:
I think that circumcision is not a bad thing since there are also studies done that have shown less AIDS infections, however..
If that was true the HIV infection rate in the US would be much lower.
Quote:
I think that's another difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives, lately, are too decisive and not willing to see more evidence. They simply are more reactionary now.
Liberals are more likely to cite scientific evidence as well as psychological evidence.
I think part of it the conservative backlash against science and higher education.
And would be perfectly legal in California since the Restoring Religious Freedom Act does not apply to the states and California does not have a state counterpart of said act unlike many other states.
If it passes in Santa Monica, it would spread rapidly - Beverly Hills usually copies every Santa Monica law immediately after it's passed. Other LA County cities usually follow, except for the more ghetto towns - and all too often the city of L.A. adopts said laws.
this would be unconstitutional under the 1st amendment combined with the 14th amendment according to the literal meaning of those amendments (the personal freedoms will apply according to even the critics of the bill of rights applying to the states). Or do liberals only like constitution for the so called "implied rights" but will not do a thing for the ones actually given. Legally speaking what do you think of Roe vs Wade? Also have you ever claimed that states can't ban gay marriage do to the establishment clause (not a personal right but still liberals apply it to the states). Because if you do so you would be a hypocrite (which would lead us to 4 more for the list all these apply to some liberals even though I doubt all 4 would apply to the same 1)
95. interprets the word religion to include atheism for the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and doesn't include atheism for the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
96. applies the freedom of religion part only to the fedral government (except by Ground zero mousqes) and applies the establishment clause (misused of course)to the states
97. believes in the double implied constitutional right for abortion, but has a problem with clear cut right of freedom of practice of religion.
98. believes that freedom of religion only includes how you pray but other religious practices aren't included (the Soviet's had this one)
Taxing money out of the private sector economy and putting a fraction of it back in will magically grow the economy.
Confiscating more of a business's capital will cause the owner to expand the business and hire more people.
Every private sector industry is owned and run by inherently evil people while those who run the government are caring and compassionate and will always put the people's needs first.
It's okay to steal if the person you're stealing from has more money than you.
The government is better at spending your money than you are.
Health insurance companies are evil, diabolical people who would rather have people dying out in the streets than part with a nickel.
When a private sector company profits from providing a product or a service people need, it's theft/wealth redistribution, yet when the government confiscates wealth/private property from individuals (in return for nothing), it's compassion.
If you steal money from a rich person and give it to a poor person, you've done a good deed.
Slavery is okay as long as the government runs the plantations.
Banks are evil for giving mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, even though the government mandated they be given mortgages.
Every dollar not taxed out of your paycheck is a generous gift from the government.
Government bureaucrats are better suited at making health care decisions for you than you and your doctor are.
People who work in the private sector should eat dog food, while government union workers are entitled to paychecks that are disproportionately large to the work they do, long vacations, gold-plated retirement benefits, full health benefits, and can continually demand more and more.
Printing money and putting it in the economy will cause the economy to grow.
Failure to redistribute wealth fast enough will result in the Earth's climate changing.
If we outlaw guns, criminals won't use them.
Sentencing a criminal to death is cruel and unusual while killing a baby who hasn't yet even had a chance to experience the world is compassionate.
Islam is a religion of peace, while Christianity is a religion of violence.
Tolerance is trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you.
Appeasing our enemies will make them like us.
(Insert name of private sector industry) is now making RECORD profits.
French fries are hazardous to your health, yet snorting heroin is good for you.
Marriage is wrong unless it's two men, two women, transsexuals, man and animal, etc.
Global warming is happening because Al Gore says so.
Teaching children about the bible is bad, yet teaching them how to put a condom on a cucumber is good.
80 year old white nuns and white babies are more likely to hijack an airplane than middle-aged Arab men.
The same policies that were utterly destructive under Bush are okay when they're continued by Obama.
Women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews are all too stupid to know what's best for themselves, so they best shut up and vote Democrat.
Throwing more money at a problem will always fix it.
It's okay to break the same laws you advocate for everyone else.
When your side wins, elections are fair, when you lose, it's because elections are rigged.
It's okay to use the public treasury as your own personal piggy bank.
It's okay to ignore the Constitution when it doesn't support your agenda.
If a Palestinian fires rockets at Israeli schoolchildren it's okay, yet if an Israeli flings a rubber band at a Palestinian it's attempted murder.
It's okay for taxpayer-funded organizations (e.g. NPR, PP, etc) to use taxpayer money to lobby for more taxpayer money.
Misappropriation of funds by the government is compassionate.
Republicans are out to kill everyone who isn't a rich, white, heterosexual Christian male.
As a person who has some liberal beliefs this is one of the few items on your list that I somewhat agree with.
Teaching children how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy if they choose to engage in sexual intercourse is more useful, therefore better, than teaching them about a thousands of years old goat-herder fairy tale.
The sex part if supposed to be the parents job, not the school's.
You can twist it any way you want, but facts is facts. Obama will walk away with the 2012 election because there is no one on the republican side appealing enough to win a majority of the votes.
An ultraconservative cannot get elected, nor a Mormon, nor an unknown (not enough time left for a grassroots campaign), nor anyone with a loose zipper, nor a twit who quit her job as a governor somewhere.
BTW - can you furnish a source for your definition of "viable"? I never saw it used the way you just used it. Thanks
All those that you stated are all better equipped than Obama. Now everyone knows that he's not capable of doing a good job. He's proven that now. Before he was an unknown. Now, he's known. And it's over for him.
You can twist it any way you want, but facts is facts. Obama will walk away with the 2012 election because there is no one on the republican side appealing enough to win a majority of the votes.
An ultraconservative cannot get elected, nor a Mormon, nor an unknown (not enough time left for a grassroots campaign), nor anyone with a loose zipper, nor a twit who quit her job as a governor somewhere.
BTW - can you furnish a source for your definition of "viable"? I never saw it used the way you just used it. Thanks
elections are about the economy. When Bush had it a 5% unemployment the Dems cried for years about how bad the economy is. Now at 9.1 they cry about how things are better. The attacks worked the first time. Should UE sat above 9% Obama is done . By 2012 if things are not much better, anyone will beat him. The meter is running on the election and the economy.
this would be unconstitutional under the 1st amendment combined with the 14th amendment according to the literal meaning of those amendments (the personal freedoms will apply according to even the critics of the bill of rights applying to the states).
That is what I thought until recently.
It is not certain whether the ban would be constitutional or not due to California not having a state level Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The RFRA only applies to the federal government. Many states, however, have RFRAs (including New York). California doesn't because then-governor Pete Wilson vetoed a state level RFRA on the grounds that it would mean that laws prohibiting marijuana would have to be repealed on grounds of interfering with religious freedom.
Now, if the ballot measures became law, California could void said measures by passing an RFRA. I'd all be for that. I'd accept legal circumcision if it would mean legal marijuana. I highly dislike state laws against cannabis but unfortunately they are constitutional. Just like you highly dislike anti-circumcision laws but unfortunately they are legit in California (but would not be in many other US states). Now I favor repeal of marijuana laws and don't particularly even like anti-circ laws just because I don't think that's government's business, but apparently they could be constitutionally legit.
There is a possibility that a court might give Jews and Muslims a religious exemption. (For example, the Amish are exempt from participating in Social Security due to their religious beliefs). However remember that 85% of San Francisco's population is neither Jewish nor Muslim. But this is not certain.
FWIW even the constitutionality of a ban does not mean I would vote for it. Better to reduce circumcision through education and informing people rather than via law. I would vote against such a ban even though I feel it is well intended.
Quote:
Or do liberals only like constitution for the so called "implied rights" but will not do a thing for the ones actually given.
So would you favor striking down anti-marijuana laws because they blatantly violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment considering that they interfere with the religious practice of Rastafarians and some other heterodox Christian groups?
Quote:
Legally speaking what do you think of Roe vs Wade?
I agree with the result of Roe v. Wade but the legal reasoning was somewhat faulty. Abortion should have been an issue for the states. If it had been left to the states abortion would probably be as widespread as no fault divorce is.
Quote:
Also have you ever claimed that states can't ban gay marriage do to the establishment clause (not a personal right but still liberals apply it to the states). Because if you do so you would be a hypocrite (which would lead us to 4 more for the list all these apply to some liberals even though I doubt all 4 would apply to the same 1)
There is ample precedent suggesting they cannot ban gay marriage, or at the very least would have to accept gay marriages performed elsewhere.
Quote:
95. interprets the word religion to include atheism for the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and doesn't include atheism for the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
96. applies the freedom of religion part only to the fedral government (except by Ground zero mousqes) and applies the establishment clause (misused of course)to the states
97. believes in the double implied constitutional right for abortion, but has a problem with clear cut right of freedom of practice of religion.
98. believes that freedom of religion only includes how you pray but other religious practices aren't included (the Soviet's had this one)
Most liberals in the US aren't atheists. And the Establishment Clause does apply to the states due to the 14th Amendment. Roe is settled law whatever one thinks of it.
As for #98 - I'd personally support California passing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act which would make bans on circumcision impossible. It would also mean that the laws prohibiting marijuana possession and consumption would be void. The Soviets didn't recognize freedom of religion of any sort. What you describe reminds me more of the laws in Franco's Spain than the USSR. (NOT that I would want to live under either government, ever).
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.
