
EBSB52
Members-
Content
1,032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Dropzones
Gear
Articles
Fatalities
Stolen
Indoor
Help
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Videos
Classifieds
Everything posted by EBSB52
-
"Read it again ..." Why, it wasn't that good the first time. "...and stop shouting." Are you talking to me or the voices in your head? "You read each paragraph so completely wrong that I don't even know where to start." But you refuse to substantively define your meanings, just offer up insult. "The short is, the current arsenic laws are tighter than ever before - so saying that this admin raised the levels is childish and just feeds dem talking points - it's ploy." Right, as a result of Clinton, and they would be more strict but for Bush. "That means in the direction of goodness for the simple minded." Is that your little voice telling you that? "The law that the dems complain about is one that was never cut in in the first place and was submitted on the way out purely as bait for this type of accusation (i.e., a setup) and is only good as a political ploy or in inane threads like this bit." Just like the Ergonomics Bill that OSHA and Clinton started, Bush killed. Ya, just a bunch of fodder..... (rollseyes) "as far as the rest of your list, I think this one has enraged you enough for now. " I'm not enraged. I'm not even upset. How aboutthese from the list - we'll see how you justify these: 3. Record budget deficit must be the fault of Congress..... oh wait, Bush has control of all of the gov incl the US Sup Ct... oops 4. Most job losses since Hoover, then refused to extend unemp beneifts must be 9/11.... I wonder how importing jobs overseas helped this out? Bush said that it is a good thing to export jobs, and that was in the middle of an attempted recovery after 9/11.... man has his priorities. 5. First time the US blatantly refused the UN, dissassociating us from them. Real smart to tell the UN to screw themselves 6. Most secretive administration ever public addresses and open books are way overrated 7. Entered a war without probable cause, and lied about all of it with the notion of WMD's well, he did. No pc, lied and then told us some crap about the Iraqis being better off now than before - like he cares about the Iraqi people. 8. Allows Mexican truck on the road even without safety, smog, or insurance requirements of the US truckers is this a good thing too? 9. Gave tax benefits to corporations that sent jobs overseas, and has been quoted as saying it's a good thing to outsource jobs. as cited above....welll???? 10. Patriot Act - please, let me hear you defend it. include the TSA and the ability of them to yank airmen's licenses w/o cause, sneek and peek searches and all the fun. 11. Largest stock market drop since Hoover I'm sure all of Clinton's fault (rollseyes) 12. massive tax cuts for rich It's a good thing, right? 13. State budget shortfalls lead to college tuition increases college isn't for the poor, right? 14. First criminal to enter office & first pres with military history to not voluntarily make his record public record this is in case you give me some, 'descency back into the White House' bull Tell ya what, let's be fair - post a list of all the great things he's done.
-
Care to elaborate on those beginnings? What exactly to you mean by that? (the public in GENERAL, please- I am not talking about any individual posters here) "Look at the change in society over the last (roughly) 30 years. " The reinstatement of cap pun in 1976, 28 years ago.... ya, what a wonderful thing. That puts us with China and Middle Eastern countries. Oh, and the execution of people that commit 1st degree murder as children (16 or 17) is hled only by a small handful of countries, one of which is the US. Even Russia and most of Europe don't execute any longer, but we do. I agree, the degradation of the US over the last 30 years. "The loss of the concepts of personal responsibility, ..." And that is a secular thing, not religious? Please, don't make me cite the failure of the Catholic Church as a direct result of molest-related bankruptcies and corruption. "...honor, ..." And only religious people have honor.... what a joke. "...glorification of drug use, ..." Who glorifies it? I despise drug use and am woring on a second degree, but I don't need Jebus and friends to do so. At the same time, I think drugs should be legalized, as most, virtually all drug-related crimes occur as a direct result of obtaining money as opposed to be a result of being influenced by drugs. "...denigration of religious people as "fundies"..." Ok, all that means is that the secular crowd refers to them as fundamentalists. If that's the biggest thing you have to worry about, semantic rhetoric, then I would go relax. And the religios/Christian folks call the seculars a bunch of Godless peole without direction. They say believing there isn't proof of a God is purposeful ignorance, so the rhetoric runs bith ways, hardly worth worrying about. "... and the fact that people as a whole just don't give a shit about anything except themselves anymore (the whole "me" generation)..." Religious folks are some of the most business-successful people in the US. When you say seculars don't give a crap, which I believe is the inference there, I would draw it across the spectrum. I'm not sure of your argument here, it seems more of a general dislike for secular people. "Then tell me that we're so much better off as a society." We have evolved/progressed in many ways, regressed in many ways too, and most of the regressions seemed to be based around moral fear.
-
"That's another example of political misdirection. Both sides do it." Show me where the Dems do this with some kind of similar example that matters, not some wag the the dog BS. "Just prior to leaving office, the Clinton admin also approved another unreasonable tightening again of the requirements which weren't ever implemented. " So you're saying that allowing more arsenic in the water is unreasonable...... okeedokee. Let's talk the Ergonomics Bill that Clinton and OSHA started, Bush axed as the first thing he did when he entered office. Also a bad (unreasonable) thing to do, right? I mean, paving a fast-track means for the working people that get carpel tunnel to get medical attention is unreasonable for corporate profits. "2nd change - last minute, extremely prohibitive and likely unenforceable." Besides, with the right flavor coolaid arsenic actually tastes good. "The Bush admin only cancelled the 2nd shift, not the first. So under Bush, the requirements for arsenic are actually less than historical. So saying there is more arsenic in the water is a lie. " No, the failure to allow the Clinton-initiated effort did increase the amount of arsenic in the water by not following the previous president's legislation to lower it. That's like saying you have $1,000 dollars in the bank, you have another thousand to deposit, but are robbed on the way to the bank. Subsequently, you never really lost that 2nd thousand because it was never deposited. That...... is dangerous thinking. "There would actually be less due to the 1st rule change. Provided the 1st change is followed." Let's go back before mass industrialization and give Bush credit for that level also. This vicarious credit, acting as if Bush is to credited for Clinton's good deed of both events, is nuts. Let's be more direct, instead of this, "political misdirection" as you call it, and quit misdirecting credit/blame. Look, Clinton lowered it twice, Bush repealed the last one - that simple. "most points of argument like this between candidates follows this pattern." Right, hiding and misdiecting the negative deeds, claiming victory for doing things that aren't the doing of said politician. Nice job of you misdirecting the arsenic issue to that of - just politicians being politicians.... How 'bout the rest of that large list of Bush goodies I gave you?
-
My knee-jerk reaction is to say no, but if I owned a DZ I would probably charge something, as that is business that would be paying my JM's if not for you. It's kind of like competition, even tho you brought your own student. I guess if you just brought 1 student I wouldn't make that big of a deal, but I wouldn't want to get that trend going. And if you guys bounced, then it would look as if it was one of my tandems. I dunno, I guess it depneds on whether I got laid the night before!!!
-
Trucker involved in high speed Chase through Eloy
EBSB52 replied to flyingferret's topic in Speakers Corner
um...how about Resisting Arrest and gross negligence while operating a motor vehicle with intent to kill ?? ("stating that if police continued to try to stop him he would take out an officer or citizen") AKA Felony Endangerment Throw in the Actus Reus of the threat, which correlates the Mens Rea to define attempted murder. -
"You are the (ex) physics student" Watch out, nerd fight! JK, I majored in Justice because I'm a math idiot!!!
-
See, and that's my point exactly. When Bush or whoever talks about God, he's talking about Christianity and that becomes a state-sponsored religion. If we could reasonably believe he was talking about some generic God, then that would be a little different, but we know the deal. God/Jesus is the Pepsi-sponsored religion of choice in the US, and it's not supposed to be that way per the US Const.
-
I think I did with the example I gave of the 2nd; explain how the language in the 2nd allows me to place a gun under my pillow. Also, in AZ, I can carry a gun in my car, loaded, but it must be in a holster; explain why I can do that here and not in many/most states? The US Const is supposed to be supreme, so how is that, "equal protection/equal rights" don't permeate to that too? Medical marijuana - voted in by many states, the US Sup Ct overrode that, how can they? After becoming less ignorant of the law and US Const, a person comes to the reality that the Const is just a tool of many that the gov plays with to justify what they're going to do anyway. The find their decision, then look for an amendment that works with it. In case you didn't fully understand (not condescending here) my example and set of rhetorical questions, I'll answer it by saying that the 1st doesn't address your issue of: "Please explain how the President or other government officials mentioning God so they use the spirit of: "equates to "Congress passing a law regarding the establishment of religion". Does that help? Since the Constitution doesn't address school vouchers, the pledge, and a million other issues, a body of some sort has to be responsible to take what is written and try to think what the founding fathers meant. Of course that's the flowery bs, as they will do what they want based upon politics and pressure, but there is so much that was missed and vaguely written that someone needs to interpret. Again, the 4th is the most vague. The word, "uneasonable" is 100% subjective. Inthe 50's-60's there was a case where a guy swallowed a balloon of what the cops thought was heroin, they took him to the hospital and pumped his stomache - they were right, got the conviction and it was thrown out at the US Sup Ct due to that particular court thinking the process, "Shocked their conscious." The DUI laws today allow cops to get telephonic warrants to slam defendants that are unwilling to give blood, to the ground and forcibly draw it. Now I'm not looking for opinions as to whether that's a good or bad/right or wrong thing, just that what used to be abhorrent police/gov conduct is now interpreted as just fine. Now please, tell where in the US Const it allows for the cops to fircibly draw blood. Tell me where it doesn't allow the gov to forcibly draw blood. See, your asking questions for which there are no answers. Tell me where we would decide and who would decide these questions if not for the US Sup Ct. I'm not blowing their whistle and I dislike most of what the US Sup Ct has done over the past 20 years, but tell me who is going to decide the rules if not the US Sup Ct. Some people will say legislators, but they pass very different laws from state to state, and the idea is to have 1 America, even tho they aren't even close. Keep the input and thx for everyone keeping it nice. LMK what you think.
-
Really? Please find me the laws that say that what the Constitution says is open to interpretation, activist justices aside. Also, please explain to me how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is "vague and incomplete". It either says that "Congress shall make no law..." or it does not. Which is it? "Really? Please find me the laws that say that what the Constitution says is open to interpretation, activist justices aside." "Really? Please find me the laws that say that what the Constitution says is open to interpretation, activist justices aside." So what you're saying is that the US, under the Constitution has been operating illegally since the inception of the Constitution? Well, that's a larger issue. If you think that's the case, then you'll have to go higher than this board. Besides, define, "unreasonable searches" as prohibited in the 4th. Point is, the US Const is full of voids. Either way, sorry to advise, but the US Const has undergone interpretation since the conception of it. So your argument here is moot within the context of our argument - reason is that the constitution has been interpreted - like it or not / legal or not. Oh, and as for activist judges, enough about the parade of clowns appointed by Reagan/Bush1. See, the right loves to call the 9th activist, but the truth is that judges on the other side are activist from the dissenting side. Also, please explain to me how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is "vague and incomplete". It either says that "Congress shall make no law..." or it does not. Which is it? Explain to me how the 2nd and well-regulated state militia (or something to that effect) means I can keep a gun under my pillow. Explain how the 4th is reinterpreted. Explain how prisoners can be treated differently throughout time, based on different interpretations of the 8th. Ex: 1972 Fuhrman vs. Georgia wrote that it was considered cruel and unusual that prisoners are executed with racial bias. Then in 1976, with Gregg vs. Georgia, they decided they fixed it and reinstated cap pun. I have a BS in Justice, and found that when you start talking US Const that professor's eyes roll up in their head. You need to understand that this gov will do what it wants and even issue stare decisis that contradicts each other. Conclusion: Don't get to enamored with the US Const., even tho we reference it and use it as a standard for equal protection. Also, legal or not, like it or not, you'll have to come to terms with the interpretations of the US Const - I'm sure you don't bitch too much when decisions go your way. See, what the thumpers don't realize and refuse to accept is that some of these fine federal laws designed and implemented by the conservatives to do positive things are actually used against them. Great example is RICO. RICO is now used to prosecute abortion clinic protestors that block the doors to abortion clinics, hence fall under the purview of, "commerce" as is defined in RICO. Also, please explain to me how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is "vague and incomplete". It either says that "Congress shall make no law..." or it does not. Which is it? To give more depth into this, I would say that US Sup Ct, or any appellate court interpretations can take that any way they want. If it goes your way, the judges are fair. If it goes the other way, the judges are activists. Since the 1st doesn't make mention of public expressions of religion, AKA God, then it is therefore incomplete. The best example of the incomplete nature of the US Const is in the absence of the word, "privacy." I challenge you to find that word in there, anywhere. So the judges realized it is contemporarily important, but was left out, so they interpreted it in, like it or not. I think to assert that the concept of privacy being unimportant and not a US Const issue is nuts. Now they have the, "Expectation of Privacy" in the living const that excludes autos, but includes houses, which is why anyone can snap your picture in a non-harassing fashion in public.
-
Hmmmm, a plea deal for segregation...... better look up Brown v Board of Education (seperate but equal) So if "ministers" can dabble in politics, then politicians can mention God... fair enough. Uh, no. Ministers of the cross have zero duty to anyone, but maybe God in their minds. Politicians have a distinct duty to the peole to follow laws and in this case uphold them. The parallel you're drawing would be tantamount to saying criminals can break the law so can cops. Also, cops can't break the law, but they can lie to criminals to get a conviction and it's US Sup Ct approved. But criminals cannot legally lie to cops. At the same time, cops cannot commit crimes to sustain the conviction. These are not like parallels; they're very different even though the players might seem to be the same. You cannot reasonably draw this goose/gander comparison - much more complex. The church has no duty to the US Constitution, but the cops do, the gov does.
-
Six Hunters Murdered on Private Land in Wisconsin
EBSB52 replied to Viking's topic in Speakers Corner
"...but then that opens up a debate about the "vegetable community." I hate vegetables -
Six Hunters Murdered on Private Land in Wisconsin
EBSB52 replied to Viking's topic in Speakers Corner
PETA quote (not exactly): "A dog is a pig is a rat is a boy" You think those people have any respect for HUMAN life? No, I think PETA are assholes, and OH how I would love to see a PETA member hit a deer on a highway and watch their reaction when EMS got there and left them to bleed out on the pavement while they tended to the wounded deer! We'd see the depth of their bullshit "people are no better than animals" convictions then. Gimme a fucking break. -Jeffrey "No, I think PETA are assholes, and OH how I would love to see a PETA member hit a deer on a highway and watch their reaction when EMS got there and left them to bleed out on the pavement while they tended to the wounded deer! " So you think it's ok that a person is dying in the street? What is it you have against people? "We'd see the depth of their bullshit "people are no better than animals" convictions then." That's not quite their agenda, not that I've even been to their website. It's just a matterof not killing animals and letting them fend for themselves naturally. "Gimme a fucking break." Woaw! Sounds like you need one! Maybe one in a room with nice people wearing white suits. Didn't mean to strike a cord with you - maybe go out and kill animal or two and you'll feel better. -
And where are we advocating inserting religion into the gov't? That would be a violation of the First Amendment - something the left seems to think means any MENTION of the word "God"... Well, actually it is. A state-sponsored religion is one that a state representative endorses. If that representative is on his own time, maybe not so much, but when you get to the level of Pres, if you mention anything then you are endorsing it, especioally when giving adresses to the nation. Negative - what part of "Congress shall make no LAW (bolding and capitalization mine) regarding an establishment of religion" do you not understand? The President (or any other government official) mentioning God is NOT making "a law regarding establishment of religion". How much more clearer can that be? Quit trying to read nuance into it - read the words as they are put on the paper. The concept of political correctness is a recent one - you don't need to look for the "hidden meaning" behind the writings of the Founding Fathers. The original writing of the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) and all subsequent amendments is a foundation. The living Constitution is found in all of the legal precident from appellate courts, which is the living Constitution. A lot of people hate the idea, but it's been that way since the writing of the Constitution. So reading the verbatum text of the 1st is vague and incomplete to say the least.
-
Hmmmm, a plea deal for segregation...... better look up Brown v Board of Education (seperate but equal)
-
Bush invokes (one) religion just about every time he opens his mouth. Last time I checked he was still head of the executive branch. And again...please show how the President or any other member of the government mentioning God is against the First Amendment. Here's the actual language, in case you need reminding: And please, something other than "he IS the government", please - the argument is invalid on it's face, as you well know. The President (or any other member of the government) making mention of God is NOT: 1: Making a law respecting an establishment of religion. 2: Prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. finis http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13sep20010740/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-1407r.pdf This has to do with the palcement of written religious symbolism in government buildings, so I think verbal religious representations should carry the same weight and be prohibited. They use the legal concept of, "The Establishment Clause." This has more to do with physical representations of Christian symbolism, but a little more research might prove fruitful.
-
And where are we advocating inserting religion into the gov't? That would be a violation of the First Amendment - something the left seems to think means any MENTION of the word "God"... Well, actually it is. A state-sponsored religion is one that a state representative endorses. If that representative is on his own time, maybe not so much, but when you get to the level of Pres, if you mention anything then you are endorsing it, especioally when giving adresses to the nation.
-
The you should send me all of your money immediately. Almost every single item of cash you possess, contains the phrase "In God We Trust". I'll be happy to relieve you of this terrible religious fundamentalism which you are forced to endure. All for the sake of altruism, of course. That's ok, I just shaprie mine out!!! Just jokin if anyone thinks I'm serious.....
-
Right, and if we go all the way back (sarcasm) to WWII, we can talk about Japanese-American internment. If we do, we must then talk the 442nd, which was an infantry comprised wholly of Japanese-Americans that were interned, and they beat the crap out of Italy and I believe they liberated France almost single-handedly..... so..... yes, there are plenty of other races that die liberating America, but do the books clearly show this? Nooooooooooo.....
-
Yeah! Damn those Dead White Men (tm) anyway, for being religious and referencing God in their documents!! Who did they think they were???? I know this one..... it's too easy.... they were slave owners, rapists, and murderers. Before you get mad, you must agree it's true. They may have been the most honorable of the time, but they may not have been either. Point here is, the government may not establish a religion, and when they push or in any way reference Christianity, they are. BTW, that's a pesky lil 1st Amend thingy....
-
I have never heard him reference Mother Nature..... even if he did, so what????
-
Right, kind of like calling Ohio a red state as if to infer that ALL of Ohio residents are Repub.... Here's a site that exemplifies your statement: http://www.thestranger.com/2004-11-11/feature.html
-
Utah totally scews its numbers since such a large population of the state are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints and they are expected to give certian % just to remain in the the good favor of the community. When 30%+ of a state gives 30% of their income to the church and writes it their taxes it raises the numbers a lot. Right, and donations to the church are about as polar as it gets. Ok, so the preacher/minister/etc gets a new caddy or a new wing onto the church, but the kids are still hungry. Even donating to corporate charities (Red Cross, American Heart Ass, etc..) stinks, as there is so much lost in the administration that it's futile.
-
Hmmmmmmmmm, and which, "charities" are we talking here??????? Could it be.... the church? Uh, ya.... This is so abstract that it's nonsense.
-
Six Hunters Murdered on Private Land in Wisconsin
EBSB52 replied to Viking's topic in Speakers Corner
Now I don't consider that a very mature thing to say, at all. People died, here. Show some respect. Now you're likening these humans to animals? I think it speaks something of the people who were killed that they did NOT circle this guy like they were out to kill him (his claim is that they shot at him first); there was ONE gun found among the hunters who responded. I myself find this odd, if they were hunters summoned by a guy who said he'd been shot, but then maybe they thought he meant a hunting accident... Of course, with stories like this, often the inaccurate first reports are seldom corrected in follow-up stories. It's not like the Palm Beach Post is going to dog this story to its conclusion. They'll report only those refreshers that can tittilate the audience, but they are certainly not wrapped up in a responsibility to make sure you can follow all the developments along the way. For certain, it is possible that after the first "one gun was found among the 8 hunters" report, more guns might possibly have been found. Who knows. I'm a non-hunter also, but that's just a personal thing and I don't have a problem with people hunting. And I don't disparage them the way you seem disposed to. I too shoot non-living targets and will shoot only those humans who threaten my life. -Jeffrey Now I don't consider that a very mature thing to say, at all. People died, here. Show some respect. Hey, I don't like people that kill for sport; I do, however, like people that jump out of acft for sport Now you're likening these humans to animals? No, the animals that are usually hunted don't make hobby of mounting heads on walls and call it sport. So I would never demoralize an animal in that way. I think it speaks something of the people who were killed that they did NOT circle this guy like they were out to kill him (his claim is that they shot at him first); there was ONE gun found among the hunters who responded. I myself find this odd, if they were hunters summoned by a guy who said he'd been shot, but then maybe they thought he meant a hunting accident... Of course, with stories like this, often the inaccurate first reports are seldom corrected in follow-up stories. It's not like the Palm Beach Post is going to dog this story to its conclusion. They'll report only those refreshers that can tittilate the audience, but they are certainly not wrapped up in a responsibility to make sure you can follow all the developments along the way. For certain, it is possible that after the first "one gun was found among the 8 hunters" report, more guns might possibly have been found. Hmmm, I hadn't heard that, but it doesn't change my opinion. I read that after the first guy was shot, he phoned/summoned other hunters that came in to a surprise ambush attack. Either way, but they were there to kill innocent animals and they got it instead - see an irony? I don't advocate the killing of people animals or wild animals, but when one continually kills the other it's kind of hard to feel sorry. Ever watch discovery or the like and see prey get away, or better yet the hunter get hunted? Don't you pull for the Gazelle, or do you pull for the lion/tiger? Let nature do it's own thing, as we as humans have divorced ourselves from it over 100 years ago. We encroach on their land and are then offended when coyotes wander onto our streets.... .....the humanity (not in a positive light) -
Six Hunters Murdered on Private Land in Wisconsin
EBSB52 replied to Viking's topic in Speakers Corner
And here I thought they were there to murder non-human animals only....... hmmmm, rules must have changed and didn't send down the memo. Being an animal lover and vegetarian, I don't see a real problem with this. The animals looked on at a bunch of idiots shooting each other. Also, per a newspaper report I read, after the first one was shot, he called in the rest of the other hunters for help........ seems like role reversal, as hunters buy various devices to call-in animals, yet they were the ones getting called-in here. BTW, I'm pro-gun as anyone here - own several, just chose to shoot non-living targets and use them for personal protection.