Profile: LuckyCurse
Send PM  Forum Posts  Forum Topics 

Recent Forum Posts [more...]

• • Not voting for either McCain or Obama?

  • Originally posted by Cabe2323
    

    Originally posted by LuckyCurse
    

    Seriously, you think this was good?

    - LC

    
     

    Of course.  The Federal Government should only be in charge of the Post Office, Highway system, and Military in a time of War.  Also Foreign relations and the printing of Currency. 

    The Federal Government should in no way be involved in Education, Energy, Housing, etc etc etc.  There shouldn't be any Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc.  There should be no Federal Income Tax. 

    Too many in this Country count on hand outs from the government instead of learning from their mistakes and taking responsibility.  In the past people would go to their community for help, their family for help, their local religion or social groups for help, but now everyone expects the Federal Government to bail them out.  Which is ridiculous.

    That is black and white thinking.  It leaves no room for a billion possibilities in which charity fails and people fall through the cracks.  We can look around the world today and see nations where the government does very little for its people, and the people do very little for each other.  America uses forced charity and it seems to work pretty well on top of the charity we already have.  I think you're asking for a lot of pain, suffering, and death when you ask for limited government.  But, some people don't care when they think they are right.  It's like communism or utopias, great on paper, fails when it contacts people.  Most of what we have exists out of necessity.

    - LC

  • Posted: 6/27/08 7:44 AM
    General Discussion
• • Recent Supreme Court Decisions

  • Originally posted by Vemoi
    

    Originally posted by LuckyCurse
    

    Originally posted by Vemoi
    

    Originally posted by SioBabble
    

    Originally posted by Dekron
    

    Originally posted by Vemoi

    Judges don't legistrate or make decisions on emotion. They are supposed to judge weather something is lawful or not...period.

    That's the keyword there. They are supposed to. Not all do. If they did, then all cases would be unanimous - there would be no dissenting opinions.

    
     

    The thing is, the reason the Supreme Court hears these cases is because there are differing interpretations of the law.  Not everything is cut and dried, so you're going to have dissents.

    For example, the 14th Amendment is pretty clear on the issue of Habeus Corpus, but four justices who seem to be closet authoritarians repeatedly refuse to read those words in the very plain non-legalese English that they are written in.

    
     

    Go read the 14th ammendment and see what it says about enemy combatants held outside the US, then get back with us.

    Then go read "Willful Blindness" and see what a great idea bringing terrorist into civilian courts is.

     

    Yes, holding innocent civilians captive for years without trial or charge is perfectly fine.  After all, they aren't you, so why should you care? No wonder we're so hated in this world.  We believe we're superior and therefore we can do anything we want.  We deserve the hate.

    Over 500 people have been released from Gitmo after years of being held for no reason.  Stealing years of a person's life is evil.   Unless you think Bushy released terrorists back into the world? Oh, the controversy!

    - LC

    
     

    This has to be the most off the wall post I have read. Innocent civilians!!!!! Are you living in a cave!?! Where do you think these inocents were picked up?!!!

    Took about one minute to find this info...http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080509140407.aspx

    Italy, Germany, France have all elected pro Bush leaders. Keep believeing you Left wing media.

    It seems you liberals are on some kind of suicide pact I want no part of.

    They weren't innocent civilians? Then why would Bush release them from Gitmo? My goodness.. he has sided with the terrorists and is now letting them back into the world to do harm to innocent Americans.  I think you just made Jesus cry...

    - LC

  • Posted: 6/27/08 7:36 AM
    General Discussion
• • Not voting for either McCain or Obama?

  • Originally posted by Cabe2323
    
    

    A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.

    Well, at least he starts out with a ridiculous and ill-thought point.  Comparing shelter from the elements, treatment of disease and emergency aid to owning a Hummer? Or perhaps he means blowjobs... Either way, I think an enlightened society knows that it is in its common interest to medically treat its own and shelter those who cannot shelter themselves.  We fail at these points, but we try.  

    A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.

    Duh. Who says happiness is guaranteed? No one? Yeah, this guy is a champ...

    A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.

    He should just say he thinks that the rich should not be taxed heavily.  Instead, he does this mealy-mouthed clap trap which can mean a thousand different things and most of which do not apply.  Example:  What if a company owner finds happiness in dumping chemicals into a nearby stream instead of paying for it to be carted off? His profits are up, so that makes him happy right? What about the public health? Should pursuit of happiness lead to the harm of others? Somehow I think he put little thought into his statements.

    A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.

    Bankruptcy due to health issues and unemployment? No? Lost your home and you're a paraplegic? Too bad!  He isn't writing exceptions to his rant, so why assume he has any?

    A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.

    Doesn't even sound like a political view... whatever.

    A conservative believes that real compassion can't be found in any government program.

    Some people will accept fake compassion when it feeds their hungry children and puts even a temporary roof over their heads.  Why not have fake and real compassion?

    A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.

    Again, why not both? And if the system is broken, then how about someone who cares about it to FIX it? If programs are broken, I tend to feel it is the ones that want them gone the most that are breaking them. 

    A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it's not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family's needs than some faceless, soulless government program.

    Yeah, it's awful how they stand in your dining room and tell you how to run your family.   I'm not even sure what this point means.  People have a lot of freedom with their families.  Sure wish he had attached some examples to this crap.

    A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else's throat.

    Glad to hear it.  Will be nice to remove 'In God We Trust' from our money.  And 'God' from the Pledge.  And everywhere else.  Yay!

    A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.

    Funny, I believe in the freedom to make a politically motivated movie.  Guess in a conservative America we don't have that? Pfft. 

    A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.

    Okay.

    A conservative believes that a child's education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

    I've met parents.  I don't think so.  Stone Ages, here we come!

    A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.

    Okay.

    A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.

    The smaller a government is, the more easily it is crushed! See? Anyone can throw out any inanity and it can be just as untrue...

    Those are the things a conservative believes in, and they're the things that I believe in. Now, if only I could find a candidate to match.

    Yeah, let's hope... pfft x2.

    Seriously, you think this was good?

    - LC

  • Posted: 6/26/08 3:02 PM
    General Discussion
• • Supreme Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

  • I've always felt the ban was unconstitutional and, moreover, ridiculous.  Glad to see it going bye bye. Yay for freedom.

    - LC

  • Posted: 6/26/08 1:37 PM
    General Discussion
• • Recent Supreme Court Decisions

  • Originally posted by Vemoi
    

    Originally posted by SioBabble
    

    Originally posted by Dekron
    

    Originally posted by Vemoi

    Judges don't legistrate or make decisions on emotion. They are supposed to judge weather something is lawful or not...period.

    That's the keyword there. They are supposed to. Not all do. If they did, then all cases would be unanimous - there would be no dissenting opinions.

    
     

    The thing is, the reason the Supreme Court hears these cases is because there are differing interpretations of the law.  Not everything is cut and dried, so you're going to have dissents.

    For example, the 14th Amendment is pretty clear on the issue of Habeus Corpus, but four justices who seem to be closet authoritarians repeatedly refuse to read those words in the very plain non-legalese English that they are written in.

    
     

    Go read the 14th ammendment and see what it says about enemy combatants held outside the US, then get back with us.

    Then go read "Willful Blindness" and see what a great idea bringing terrorist into civilian courts is.

     

    Yes, holding innocent civilians captive for years without trial or charge is perfectly fine.  After all, they aren't you, so why should you care? No wonder we're so hated in this world.  We believe we're superior and therefore we can do anything we want.  We deserve the hate.

    Over 500 people have been released from Gitmo after years of being held for no reason.  Stealing years of a person's life is evil.   Unless you think Bushy released terrorists back into the world? Oh, the controversy!

    - LC

  • Posted: 6/26/08 1:25 PM
    General Discussion