Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Complete Failure of Leadership

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 13141516>
Author
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 12:47pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

^^^ Huh?

What pictures of Hitler and Stalin "cooperating" may look like: 

"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
GroupB View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GroupB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 12:56pm
They did cooperate.  Hitler's army was busy shooting Russians in the front for advancing while Stalin's officers were busy shooting Russians in the front for retreating.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 1:34pm
This isn't directly on topic but, since I'm not sure if even FE knows what the actual topic is anymore*, I don't care.  I'm going to quote myself** because it is a good introduction to the topic in question.***  The line in blue is what I mainly want to discuss.

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


Why don't you give your scholarship that you won based on your grades to the guy most needy in your class?... You know the guy, he doesn't have great grades as school is really hard for him.

Funny, I got this in a FWD: e-mail from my grandmother a few months back.

It is, as I explained to her, apples to oranges. 

A GPA starts at zero upon entrance into a school. Money doesn't work like that. GPA is not zero-sum, nor is it a physical tangible item. My 3.9 is not taking away from someone else's GPA, as there is not a GPA pool that everyone owns a percentage of. You cannot have a pie-chart with 100% of all the GPAs and divide them up. A dollar, on the other hand, is owned. The $1 I have in my wallet that I shall purchase coffee with later is one less dollar in a grand pool of dollars. 

GPA never runs out. Theoretically, everyone at a given university could have a 4.0.  It's a non-commodity

It's the comparison of a fungible good in the form of paper currency  to a ranking system.  

On the topic of scholarship, I donate money every year back to the organizations that gave me my scholarships and helped me get through undergraduate school.

Now, do you have any other FWD: e-mails with bad analogies? 


Devil's advocate time.  FE didn't suggest sharing GPA, only money.  I took it to mean you should turn over your scholarship to someone who wasn't smart enough to get one on his/her own.


While this is true about GPA, I would argue that perhaps FE inadvertently made a valid point.  While GPA, unlike money, doesn't run out; it can be subject to inflationary forces.  For instance, if a certain school did decide to share GPAs, or even just give better GPAs to lesser students based on the liberal principal of the smart students must have cheated so the less intelligent students deserve a break,***** the the GPA would indeed be worth less.  It may apply to this school in particular or it may be applied more widespread but the effect would be a need for higher and higher GPAs to get into college/get good jobs.  An employer might decide that since the school only gives away good grades, they will only consider those with 4.0 GPAs instead of those with 3.5 or above.  In regards to colleges, they might start applying the same standard to their entrance requirements or scholarships.  Such standards would have to be universally applied because trying to apply them differently to students from different schools (higher standards for graduates of a diploma mill high school for example) would be an open invitation to a lawsuit of some kind.  In this example, the students who went to schools where they actually had to work for their grades would be "punished" because of those who didn't.  I would argue, based on very limited evidence and personal experience, that we may already be seeing some of this and that it could be contributing to the difficulty in getting government grants from a limited money pool when more people meet the performance requirements because of such lowering of standards.  I could even postulate that the poorer (as not as studious/intelligent) students that displace deserving students contribute to the educational decline and possibly to the productivity decline in this country.

One thing that I have seen that makes me think this is happening is my foray into the job market.  I see degrees required as a prerequisite for jobs where no such degree is necessary in many cases.  (For instance does a $12.00/hour warehouse supervisor really need a 4-year degree?)  The glut of people with degrees, especially less than applicable ones to real life, is resulting in a situation where employers (at least up here) can set unreasonable standards for those they hire.  It is a self-perpetuating vicious circle.

* I suspect, if asked, he would indicate that it is which ever distraction subject he has currently been proven the least wrong about.
** It's sounds naughty but it's not.****
*** Also because I'm just cool that way.
****Unless I enjoy it.
*****Notice the clever correlation to several parts of the earlier discussion regarding taxing the rich and social programs.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 2:50pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

it can be subject to inflationary forces.


Grade inflation is very much a real thing. Just not because of the flawed analogy of "GPA sharing."

It's interesting stuff. I've read some things on the causes, but there isn't really a strong working consensus on its total cause. Like everything it probably has a load of things all contributing to the effect.

It doesn't work with the presented analogy as GPAs are not "taken from" a higher-ranked student, as there is nothing to take, as GPAs are an intangible good, unlike a dollar. They're a ranking system.

Grade Inflation is where standards are lowered without raising the ceiling for a higher standards. Kids, believe it or not, are more intelligent now than in times past, so the average has been moved up the scale, but without the grading and curricula system adjusting to this change in society. It's also a sociological thing, as it's been seen that a 'C' grade is a failure now, whereas it's meant to be an indication of 'average' on the scale.

What you end up with are tons more people who are average getting the grades that show they are above average.
 
It's certainly a thing, but it's not really comparable to taxes.


Edited by agentwhale007 - 29 April 2011 at 2:53pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 3:24pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Of FE's list, I only really object to two of them, the gun regulations


Wait, your pro gun control?
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 3:26pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Of FE's list, I only really object to two of them, the gun regulations


Wait, your pro gun control?


No I'm the opposite of that, generally. It depends on the situation, "gun control" is about as vague as "welfare."
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 3:44pm
Do you believe people should be able to carry a firearm for self defense?

Do you believe people should be able to own evil looking black rifles?

Do you believe people should be able to carry on campus?

Do you believe people should be able to own fully auto firearms?

Do you believe people need to have a permit to buy or carry a firearm?

Do you believe there should be a national registration of firearms?
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 3:54pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

Do you believe people should be able to carry a firearm for self defense?

Do you believe people should be able to own evil looking black rifles?

Do you believe people should be able to carry on campus?

Do you believe people should be able to own fully auto firearms?

Do you believe people need to have a permit to buy or carry a firearm?

Do you believe there should be a national registration of firearms?


Yes. Although I think the times when firearms actually come in handy are extraordinarily slim, the right should still exist, for sure. Open carry and concealed are both fine with me.

If you're talking about the Brady Bill and such that tend to be more about cosmetics, yes, those are silly and don't do anything. It's a feel-good legislation.

No.

With licensing and permits, yes.

Buy, no. Carry, yes. As long as the permit system isn't cost prohibited.

I go back and forth on that one. Don't really have a set opinion.


Edited by agentwhale007 - 29 April 2011 at 3:55pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 3:55pm
I wasn't the one this was directed at . . . but I've never let that stop me before.

Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

Do you believe people should be able to carry a firearm for self defense?

Yes

Do you believe people should be able to own evil looking black rifles?

Yes

Do you believe people should be able to carry on campus?

As a private organization, responsible for the safety of a great many students (some of which reside in dormitories provided by the organization), I believe the call on this should be left up to the organization itself.  Students who don't like the school's policy, whatever it may be are free to go somewhere else.

State schools are a bit harder to decide upon than private institutions, for a myriad of reasons,  but I lean towards a yes there.  I don't believe weapons should be allowed in dormitories/living quarters of any school.


Do you believe people should be able to own fully auto firearms?

Yes, but I have no problem with background checks or registrations for these.

Do you believe people need to have a permit to buy or carry a firearm?

No to buying; as long as there is no criminal record that would prevent purchase.  Yes to carrying; as long as the intent of the permit is to ensure training on safety and usage rather than to just prevent ownership/carrying.

Do you believe there should be a national registration of firearms?

Yes, but only for more dangerous ones or accessories.  (Fully automatic weapons and silencers would be examples.)


Edited by Mack - 29 April 2011 at 3:56pm
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 3:58pm
A suppressor makes a firearm more dangerous? I think lowering the chance of hearing damage would make it safer...
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

Do you believe people should be able to carry a firearm for self defense?

Do you believe people should be able to own evil looking black rifles?

Do you believe people should be able to carry on campus?

Do you believe people should be able to own fully auto firearms?

Do you believe people need to have a permit to buy or carry a firearm?

Do you believe there should be a national registration of firearms?


Yes. Although I think the times when firearms actually come in handy are extraordinarily slim, the right should still exist, for sure. Open carry and concealed are both fine with me.

If you're talking about the Brady Bill and such that tend to be more about cosmetics, yes, those are silly and don't do anything. It's a feel-good legislation.

No.

With licensing and permits, yes.

Buy, no. Carry, yes. As long as the permit system isn't cost prohibited.

I go back and forth on that one. Don't really have a set opinion.


Why no on campus carry? If someone wants to go on a mass shooting, where do they go? Schools


Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 4:05pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

I don't believe weapons should be allowed in dormitories/living quarters of any school.


That's generally the reason that public schools maintain a weapons ban, because if you open it up to the campus, then the dorms become a part of that physical boundary, and the question becomes "Well if guns are allowed on the campus, why not the dorm, as they're on the campus?"

But yeah, we pretty much agree on the gun thing.

Hooray agreement!
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 4:08pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:


Why no on campus carry?


Too many generally immature people crowded into a very small area.

Quote If someone wants to go on a mass shooting, where do they go? Schools


The reasons for school shootings usually have nothing to do with any sort of predetermined concept of "They won't fight back." At least from the psychological studies looking into school shootings.







"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 4:29pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:


Why no on campus carry?


Too many generally immature people crowded into a very small area.

Quote If someone wants to go on a mass shooting, where do they go? Schools


The reasons for school shootings usually have nothing to do with any sort of predetermined concept of "They won't fight back." At least from the psychological studies looking into school shootings.









How about mass shootings in malls that are posted no weapons?
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 4:35pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:


How about mass shootings in malls that are posted no weapons?


So you're proposing that someone planning a mass-shooting chooses their location based on the presence of firearms?
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 4:43pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

A suppressor makes a firearm more dangerous? I think lowering the chance of hearing damage would make it safer...


It makes the potential damage from misuse significantly worse.  I.e. It gives a nutter the capability to take out a few people without the loud reports from the gun as a warning to others that it is time to be elsewhere

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

I don't believe weapons should be allowed in dormitories/living quarters of any school.


That's generally the reason that public schools maintain a weapons ban, because if you open it up to the campus, then the dorms become a part of that physical boundary, and the question becomes "Well if guns are allowed on the campus, why not the dorm, as they're on the campus?"

But yeah, we pretty much agree on the gun thing.

Hooray agreement!


Hooray

Yes, immature people, alcohol (a common campus weekend staple - or so I am told) and guns have the potential to be a very bad mix.
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 4:55pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

A suppressor makes a firearm more dangerous? I think lowering the chance of hearing damage would make it safer...


It makes the potential damage from misuse significantly worse.  I.e. It gives a nutter the capability to take out a few people without the loud reports from the gun as a warning to others that it is time to be elsewhere

So due to a few bad seeds, all law abiding citizens have to suffer the consequence? I really think if a nutter wanted a suppressor, he would just google how to make it. It is not that hard. But we law abiding citizens don't want to go to prison.

But the "nutters" are usually just lazy. Jared Loughner didn't even practice with his glock, and don't think he cared about a suppressor.

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

I don't believe weapons should be allowed in dormitories/living quarters of any school.


That's generally the reason that public schools maintain a weapons ban, because if you open it up to the campus, then the dorms become a part of that physical boundary, and the question becomes "Well if guns are allowed on the campus, why not the dorm, as they're on the campus?"

But yeah, we pretty much agree on the gun thing.

Hooray agreement!


Hooray

Yes, immature people, alcohol (a common campus weekend staple - or so I am told) and guns have the potential to be a very bad mix.

But to legally drink, one must be 21 years old. The same age one must be to buy from a FFL, and to have a CCW in communist states. So we think they are mature enough to drink, buy a firearm, and carry one off campus. But as soon as you put them on campus, they turn into retards?
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 4:57pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:


So we think they are mature enough to drink, buy a firearm, and carry one off campus. But as soon as you put them on campus, they turn into retards?


Pretty much.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 5:23pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:


So we think they are mature enough to drink, buy a firearm, and carry one off campus. But as soon as you put them on campus, they turn into retards?


Pretty much.


Strange. Utah has campus carry. Seems to be working for them. Are things different at colleges east of the Mississippi?
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 April 2011 at 5:38pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

All of this goes back to a lack of understanding our foundation as a country. Since we were founded as a Christian nation, we had a different belief than any other government that existed at the time. We were the first, who considered our conscience, and put our internal "right and wrong" as part of our rule of law. That is why so many of the local state constitutions of that time secured the "rights of conscience".
 
Today, those rights are not taught, and are ignored in many instances. A major plank of the democratic party is to force people into submission of the government by threats of being thrown in jail, or confiscation of property, if they attempt to use a fundamental right of our foundation of America.
 
The "conscience objection" is a major difference between our system of government, and the progressive government desired by the left.
 
Here are examples of what I am talking about.
 

"SEC. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. "

 
 
19. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience.
 
 
This part of Pennsylvania's constitution is interesting... Each member of the state government was to make this swear when they entered public service.
 
"I do believe in one God, the Creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

And no further or other religious test shall ever here after be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State."

(and Benjamin Franklin led the writing of this document... hmm.)
 
Anyway, back to their example;
 
"VIII. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto: But no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives: Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent, nor are the people bound by any laws, but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good. "
 
 New Jersey, 1776;  Vermont, 1777;  New York, 1777; South Carolina, 1778; Massachusetts, 1780;  New Hampshire, 1784 all have similar use of the conscience as a necessary freedom and right.
 
 
Of course the US constitution saw each of these constitutions as the law of their states and The US constitution wouldn't impede these rights (article 4). Of course the first amendment includes these concepts.
 
Now, I laid all that out so that I could point out the massive conflict that the Democratic party has towards "conscious objectors".
 
Today, we have a President and most members of the Democratic party that feel it is their right to throw down the conscious objections of others and FORCE their whims on the supposidly "free" citizens.
 
1. Today, I don't want my tax dollars going to fund abortion, as I feel it is morally wrong to murder a human baby because of it's location and size...
 
Democrats forced that funding to continue.
 
2. Lt. Col Lakin is currently in jail because his conscience disagreed with being sent to war by a President that  he didn't think was an American... Now, regardless of what you think about his decision, we have plenty of evidence that conscience objectors shouldn't be forced to do something with the threat of jail. This week while LAUGHING about how it wasn't a big deal, Obama released his birth certificate...
 
What hubrus, to laugh while a man is in jail, that HE put there by not releasing a document that would have eliminated the issue when asked. Clearly contempt for the citizens he serves and was a "leader" to.
 
3. Now the courts have recently ruled that conscientious objectors (Like pharmacists who don't want to give out over the counter abortion drugs and were being threatened with losing their jobs, or jail time by democratic "rulers") have a right to NOT give out those drugs, if it conflicts with their moral objections.
 
"The Circuit Court concluded that the Illinois rule requiring Messrs. Vander Bleek and Kosirog to dispense Plan B violated the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the federal right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."
 
 
4. Now the President is creating his own laws without congress on gun control under the guise of "regulations"... Clearly another example of ignoring the constitutional rights of people that using their conscience want to carry a gun to protect themselves and their community. Pretty amazing if our education actually covered the history of guns accurately... I bet not one of you know that in 1643 it was the law in Connecticut REQUIRING everyone to carry guns to church...
 
 
5. Obamacare... Clearly since this is mandatory (unless you are one of his union buddies who gets a pass) it breaks the laws of conscientious objector, as you can't opt out...
 
6. Gay marriage. This is the reason people are so vocal about their objections to gay marriage, as they know that the media is completely silent on conscientious objectors being trampled over, and the democrats are so focused on forcing their will on others.
 
Today, everyone knows that if gay marriage passes, EVERY church will have to open their doors and participate in the services because they will be sued or put in jail by the progressives who now run our 4th estate, and our democratic majority government.
 
 
THAT is why people have a problem with "gay" marriage.
 
Bring back true freedom with the conscientious objections. And then we could discuss it, but that isn't the case today. When special rights are given, they trample on the rights of others.
 
At the end, we aren't "free" at all...
 

I love your religious rants almost more than god does.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 13141516>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.