Oh, btw, either you or someone else mentioned conservative groups "not" using the courts to overturn or inforce matters (or rarely considering)....look at massachusetts, new hampshire, vermont, california. These are places where conservative groups are either in the process of planning, or currently involved with movements to overturn judicial rulings. Is that not unconstitutional, pushing their point of view (versus live and let live), etc.? I guess apparently it is the amount of times that matters, not the ethical and moral principles of the act.
that somehow it was OK
What is OK - is ultimately dependent on the individual and law. So far as I know there is no law against what was done, and, it was his choice - not yours, and you don't define what is right and wrong for everyone else Charles.
You really don't get it do you? It's scary to think people like you actually get to be part of voting for the leaders of this nation. I'm gald there's enough people in this country to avoid a win by a single vote. Obviously, Mr Genius, there are differences but I was focusing on the similarities, something you chose to ignore, as usual. It's rare to find a person in history or life for that matter who did not show some sign that they might be more dangerous than anyone would ever consider yet more often than not these signs were ignored for fear of stereotyping, racism and denial. I am not sure what you mean by pick and chose your battles, this article was not trully intended to form some kind of legal argument against Obama but more of a poke at those who think Obama is a Saint, a guy who's not as bad as the Right portrays him, a great leader.
Yeah well I'm scared of people like you and others here who have shown that they are willing to support the suppression of a group of people based on the majority's religious beliefs (despite the constitution - and despite that they do not have equitable rights), the assumption that liberals (or anyone opposite of them) are idiots and/or evil which plays into the unscrupulosu politicians' hands(despite the freedom of expression/speech), etc.
Like I have said "pain-in-the-ass," ( ) I agree that there are some interesting concidences and similarities concerning Obama that are worth noting...I say for the billionth time, since you - again - don't pay attention.
I am not sure what you mean by pick and chose your battles
Simply: Take notes, be aware - ignorance is a horrible trait to have - however, sometimes the little things are just not worth the effort; sometimes, there are bigger fish to fry. Sometimes, the little things do not equal the grand claims (i.e. that he is a closet communist). Maybe, just maybe, he is merely someone who is far left? Maybe, just maybe, he is an opportunistic politician? I just can't reconcile the logical warp jumps some of you people have made. To me it's like you forgot to go through everthing between points A and Z. It's your life and your right though, as I've always said.
Does this prove Obama is a "closet communist"? Duh, of course it doesn't. (1) Doesn't take a genius to know this. But combined with many other "small things" it does show how little respect this Administration has for this country. How some idiot thought, because it's his right, that somehow it was OK to put an image of a murderer like Mao on something that's suppose to symbolizes peace and happiness, something you believe everyone in this country should be given. (2)
1. Try telling that to people like Nitro, who has implied it (whether intentionally or not).
2. Ah, but that is merely your opinion, and not law of the land. And the law is (supposed to be ) final. I've no issue with you believing that because it is your right, even if I think it's a silly conclusion. Again - to each their own Charles.
Tangent: I'm curious Charles - if a judge is supposed to interpret the law and give a ruling, thereby applying the law as they interperate it - and a judge rules in favor of a conservative group, is that judge now suddenly not an activist judge? I say they still are given that the term activist is, what i call, a "joker" term; it is defined, then used whenever needed and then the definition is skewered as needed. (Essentially, it is the wild card, malleable) The conservative who claims that a judge is being an activist - if they find the law is not in the conserative group's favor - would just as easily deny that a judge is an activist judge if they rule in their favor on a matter. The same goes for liberals.
Selfish? Self interest? Special interests?
It is ironic though, that given the nature of the constitution - there is room left to interperate it. This isn't just the case for what is in it (i.e. implied meaning), but for what is not (i.e. intention). As such, it is logical to see two overall different interpretations (static vs. living), with their respective ideaologies - conservative/liberalism.
So really, could it be that the "activist judge" is actually interpreting it in ? Even then, if groups don't get what they want, they follow the four step process: Whine/complain, , try again.
Lets just face it Charles. Flat out, bluntly, honestly...it isn't about the principle of things - it is about being right, or being in control. Both sides have shown that.
Welcome to America - Consevatives: watch out for the falling sky. Liberals: Watch out for those evil fascists. \sarcasm
Perhaps americans need to brush up on their understanding of the legal system/constitution? Not all "activist judges" are such, most of the time they're following the lettter of the law, despite certain political desires.
People don't put pictures of killers on their walls unless they somehow agree and condone such people. Do you? BTW, whether it's your right or not, putting something like this on a "Gov't" tree is not a single persons right when the tree is for everyone. I would like to see how you would feel if someone put a picture of someone who killed someone you cared about on a Christmas tree. I seriously doubt you would be all "freedom of expression" with them. Let's be realistic here, even freedom has it's limits.
Bullshit, that's a fallacy Charles (guilt by association), and illogical. Hell, I've the book "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life," does that mean I'm automatically like him or that I condone what he did? No, of course not.
Honestly? I would be extremely disapointed, but my values and principles dictate that I not do anything about it. I may say that I disagree, but that's it. Ultimately, I would hold true to a part of what makes me who I am; I'm not some person who will drop their principles and values when it suits them, period. If I did, I would be less of a man and not worth respect - in my opinion.
AJ, I'm curious; you say the Founding Fathers weren't aware of homosexuality; so, there were no homosexuals in 1776, then? I kind of thought it had more or less always been around; I mean, there are references to it in Bible, after all. Wow; silly me.
Just when did homosexuality start, and when did it become an issue?
It dawned on me that what I meant, and what I typed were two largely different things; so I apologize for that. My point was intending to cover the fact that they may have been religiously opposed to it, and the states may have had laws against it (ironically due to religion)...but, the founders actions via the constitution (and individual sovereignty) would indicate that they would likely support it on principles.
They set up a constitution that granted each individual american ultimate sovereignty over themselves (aside from women, blacks, and non-land own whites...). Again, as I said earlier (rephrased): While they may have been opposed religion wise, what the founders wrote in the constitution (and individual sovereignty) would indicate that they would likely support it on principles.
Ultimately though, as noble as we may find them, they were just as fault as anyone. They were human after all.
So now you're saying we should depend on other countries? I'm curious, aren't you one of those who thinks we should not be sticking our noses in other countries problems? How come now you expect them to do the same for us? I, personally, don't care about the international community at this point. Our people, US official, were warned by the father of this man and they did nothing. The people on that plane are thanking God more than the US Gov't for this persons sheer stupidity that make him a failure. But I'm curious, why did you ignore the other terrorist attack I posted with this one? Kinda funny how you could not blame the International Community for a guy who made it as far as Major in our own military and with many reasons to be watched yet you chose to ignore the fact that stereotyping was the excuse in that one.
There's a difference between stick our nose into other people's business, and working with other countries' toward a common goal - in this case: terrorism. I was talking about the latter.
Kinda funny how you could not blame the International Community for a guy who made it as far as Major in our own military and with many reasons to be watched yet you chose to ignore the fact that stereotyping was the excuse in that one
Of course they are at fault for their share, but the ultimate blame lay with the military and/or government for not flagging what was obviously a red flag case.
Would you mind providing your proof for your assertion about stereotyping, so I could read it first hand. As is, I cannot say one way or another because of my limited info on that (the stereotyping issue concerning hasan.
They're are all on your side of the line, AJ, yet you and your kind seem to purposely blind yourselves to their machinations and general effects.
Would you associate yourself with any (hypothetical) domestic terrorist who happens to be of your faith? What if someone in your family did something wrong and was sent to jail, then freed after time served and are found to be up to their own manipulative shit. Would you not ignore them/dissacciate yourself with them?
Just because a group or person happens to be connected to a 'side' or whatever, it doesn't mean that the side as a whole or the individuals within the group, agree with what that they do.
The NAMBLA movement association is on this side merely because, well, would you logically think it would be right wing? It's logical to assume that such a thing would fall on that side - aside from the occasional catholic priest - you just don't see it. Additionally, just because it is on that side doesn't mean that all on that side agree to it. There may be one or two people, but for the most part, left wing groups oppose it (Hell, the majority of gay rights groups also).
That said, my side, as you call it, at its roots supports the rights and principles of the constitution. We generally favor freedom Charles, freedom. With that we also support liberty, justice, fairness, equality, etc. Modern democrats push that belief via various erroneous schenes, but....that doesnt mean however, that they represent all liberals.
Again, just because a side or person doesn't consistantly reject something, doesn't mean that they support it.
Personally, I don't agree with it. They are, however, allowed to believe in what they want and to use the legal system.
That said, I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs, ethics, comments on here, etc. I'm confident and proud of who I am, what I believe - even if others think I'm an idiot. To be honest, I've got better things to do than debate this topic with y'all; we're just never going to see eye to eye. Apparently my explanations are not translating well, and vice versa. So, with that, I will say good night and happy new year.