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.
Enjoy your mountain of debt and poor job prospects. I had planned on Law School too, studied it in college. Decided against it due to the oversaturation of the the market and ridiculously ludicrous tuition rates. That and law is all about prestige depending where you want to work, so getting into a top name school is nearly essential.
Not where I live(or more specifically - near) - the local law school is the leading source of both prosecutors and public defenders in the county.
Apparently everyone has the right to a driver's license, and we should not deny anyone a license, for any reason. If my state wanted to say only 18 year olds who can pass a written and practical test can get a license, then the left would scream its unconstitutional.
Well, there have always been "exceptions" to constitutional protections for children, which we arbitrarily declare over at 18.
That said, on the issue of driver's licensing, there does seem to be some question. Here in Florida, the chair of the Libertarian party some months back surrendered his license voluntarily, on the legal theory that the right to travel is absolute, and private citizens are not required to be licensed.
To my knowledge, despite his public efforts to be ticketed for driving without a license in order to test his theory in court, he has not yet been cited. I don't know that for a fact, but either way it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
You seem to hate gay people very much - to the point that you want them to be treated unequally under our laws.
I don't hate gay people. I do think that they are misguided. I am willing to bet that you think that stealing is wrong. Does that mean that you hate thieves?
Loving v. Virginia does not establish homosexual marriage as a civil right.
No it does not.The homosexual radicals delude themselves into thinking that somehow it does and then they become infuriated when the public doesn’t buy into their delusional hokum. If anything Loving v. Virginia serves to reinforce the definition of marriage as that being of a man and a woman with a white man marrying a black woman. Nothing was mentioned or inferred at all about homosexuality in this case.
Sexual preference is not a race and everybody already has the “right” to marry. Nothing has been taken away or denied. The homosexual radicals demand that the definition of marriage be redefined and expanded just to accommodate their particular sexual preference predicament. The SC is not very likely to establish a precedent and redefine society just to please and accommodate 3% of the population or else where will this end? Other fringe groups will demand similar accommodations citing marriage redefinition for one group so why not allow other modifications and redefinitions for their groups?
No it does not.The homosexual radicals delude themselves into thinking that somehow it does and then they become infuriated when the public doesn’t buy into their delusional hokum. If anything Loving v. Virginia serves to reinforce the definition of marriage as that being of a man and a woman with a white man marrying a black woman. Nothing was mentioned or inferred at all about homosexuality in this case.
Sexual preference is not a race and everybody already has the “right” to marry. Nothing has been taken away or denied. The homosexual radicals demand that the definition of marriage be redefined and expanded just to accommodate their particular sexual preference predicament. The SC is not very likely to establish a precedent and redefine society just to please and accommodate 3% of the population or else where will this end? Other fringe groups will demand similar accommodations citing marriage redefinition for one group so why not allow other modifications and redefinitions for their groups?
No it does not.The homosexual radicals delude themselves into thinking that somehow it does and then they become infuriated when the public doesn’t buy into their delusional hokum. If anything Loving v. Virginia serves to reinforce the definition of marriage as that being of a man and a woman with a white man marrying a black woman. Nothing was mentioned or inferred at all about homosexuality in this case.
Sexual preference is not a race and everybody already has the “right” to marry. Nothing has been taken away or denied. The homosexual radicals demand that the definition of marriage be redefined and expanded just to accommodate their particular sexual preference predicament. The SC is not very likely to establish a precedent and redefine society just to please and accommodate 3% of the population or else where will this end? Other fringe groups will demand similar accommodations citing marriage redefinition for one group so why not allow other modifications and redefinitions for their groups?
I wish for this to really happen to people with that attitude...
Your contempt for and lies about gay people suggests otherwise.
I have not stated any "lies" concerning gay people.
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.
