Ion01

Numerous tests, and mythbusters, have shown that talking on a cell phone is worse than drunk driving. Also, if it was only an issue of taking care of ones self then the government should stay out of it, however, this is not the case. Just like drunk driving is against the law because it effects and kills other so to with cell phone usage while driving. If people only killed themselves while driving and doing these things thats fine but that is not the case. If you make a poor decision on the road it almost always effects other people who were making good decisions and that is what is wrong. PS. Driving is a privilege...not a right.

I am a first responder and you are continually taught in the class that you must ask if they want help, if they say no then you can't help no matter how bad it is. Should they pass out then there is "implied consent" (I think its called that) and you can help. Its still a messed up situation as say someone may be bleeding out and freaking out saying "don't touch it! don't touch it!" but by the time they pass out so you can help they may have lost so much blood they die. Also, what if there was a burning vehicle and someone died in it. Could someone be sued by the family for not helping if they could have. Lets say that this person had called 911 proving they were there and observed it all for a certain amount of time before the guy burned up?

Also, do a google search for burning cars and you will find many cases where people were pulled from burning cars and some where people died in burning cars.

Better yet, do what the dropzones do. Carry an eight page waiver and a videocam around with you. Then if you stop for an accident, cram the waiver and a pen through the window (but DON'T break the window to do this, knock politely). Then MAKE them watch a video of your lawyer explaining what the waiver means. You can have a lawyer video loaded into either your videocam or cell phone, preferably both, since you never know. Then start filming the victim as you ask them whether they understood the waiver and the lawyer video. Ask them to state their name, the date, and that they agree to the terms of your waiver, and that they are in fact requesting your assistance, then film them as they sign it. And meanwhile, if the car does catch fire, or the victim is not old enough to sign a legal contract, be sure to bring a bag of marshmallows with you, you can always offer one to the cops when they arrive. Sadly even that may not work as they could claim they were forced to sign it "under duress and under influence" due to the situation.

How does one climb up in order to sit on their slider?

(365days in a year/180 new repack cycle)/(365 days in a year/120 old repack cycle)=.66666666 or 66% This means that if a rigger didn't raise his prices he would only make 66% of what he used to make. Thats a huge difference! Therefore to make the same amout of money a rigger must increase his profits by 33%! So if it used to cost $50 per pack job and 365/120=3.04166667 that means the rigger used to make $152.08 a year from one jumper. If he is only going to make a 66% of that under the new cycle that means he is only going to make $101.39 from one jumper a year leaving a difference of $50.69. Since 365/180=2.02777778 packs a year under the new cycle we can take 50.69/2.02777778 and find that we must charge 24.9978082 or 25 dollars extra per pack to make the same amount which also means the jumper is paying the same amount per year. This means a 50 dollar pack becomes a 75 dollar pack (not a 70 dollar pack). To make it really simple 3*50=150 and 2*75=150 (2*70 does not = 150).

Here would be the definition I was using: render according to one's own understanding or sensitivity. This seems to be what they often do with the laws, and what is not in the constitution, instead of giving or providing meaning.

Interpretation is needed because different people think certain phrases in the constitution mean different things. We saw it in our earlier conversation - you thought the 1st meant one thing, I thought it meant another, when I explained my interpretation you then seemed to agree with with me. I see what you are saying, however, we ultimately found that it was my understanding that was wrong and it was just that wrong...close but missing a small but important piece. As a result we find that there is only one meaning or correct explanation of the amendment or law. I just looked up the definition of interpret and it can mean to give or provide the meaning of whereas I was approaching the use of the word a bit differently. In that meaning that is exactly what they are supposed to do however they often go beyond what is said and try to determine what was "intended" when it was written. The ammendment still says what it says and only has one correct meaning as do all the other laws and to attempt to stretch them or determine what was intended and as a result ignore what the laws actually say and such is not correct and that is what I am really talking about. Its like some have done in the past where they say that this country was founded on christianity so the intent of the first amendment is blah blah blah so what it really means is blah blah blah. Well, you can go the otherway to and say they were trying to get away from religious control so it really means seperation of church and state. Well, it means what it says and that doesn't included either of those "interpretations".

It doesn't matter what you see ... read and remove your ignorance. Dude...cool down. I did read it and found nothing indicating what you are talking about in the constitution. If I am wrong show me! Prove it! If you would prefer I get in your face about it and be dogmatic then fine! Its not there! Its not constitutional for the supreme court, despite what they have to say, to interpret the laws. Well, that doesn't really help anybody does it? Seriously, I don't know why I keep coming here expecting an educated and respectful debate! At least I got that out of a moderator and one other person (even though it took this person a bit to give me an explanation I needed) and guess what, I actually gained something from it and hopefully they did too. No one gains anything from these types of responses!

What I see is it is the supreme courts (which is an appeals court) job to determine if a law has been broken and enforce the law and judgement which is the same for all courts. There is no interpretation involved in this nor is there any need to try to determine what the forefathers or anybody else intended when writing the law. The only interpretation involving the bible should be when its interpreted from greek to english. There are problems in that the languages are so drastically different that there is very rarely word for word equalities between the two languages. However, the constitution was written in english not another language. It says what it says and I would say the same about the original greek writings of the bible. However, I can't say that about the english version because interpration was involve and there are slight differences in what is being portrayed due to the interpreters own opinions so I go to greek dictionarys to try to get the best and most accurate understanding. Its also important to not the new testament is conceptual based commands. Love your neighbor is a bit different than the commands of the old testament such as "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them,(A) When any man has a discharge from his body,[a] his discharge is unclean. 3And this is the law of his uncleanness for a discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is blocked up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. 4Every bed on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. 5And anyone who touches his bed(B) shall wash his clothes and(C) bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening....." No context is needed as you are told exactly what to do and what not to do. Our laws are the say. We are told exactly when we can kill and when can't. No interpretation is needed. It says what it says. If something is not covered then it doesn't say it then no one can be guilty of something that doesn't exist. If the law is needed then it is not the judges who make the laws but other branches of the goverment yet the courts have taken it upon themselves to "make laws" in a sence through "interpretation". (“And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.”)

Once again, do some research regarding the Supreme Court ... I see nothing in the constitution about them "interpreting" laws. Once again, why is interpretation needed when the laws are in english?

Very interesting.

Does the law not say what the law is?

When was that law established? This can also be used to make the point that "interpretation" of the constitution and amendments or to try to "interpret" what they were trying to say with the amendments doesn't really work in that, assuming it was make law extremely early on near the time of our "fore fathers" one could say they didn't didn't think it conflicted with the first amendment and use that to "interpret" the amendment to make it looser. If nothing else I think we can be sure politics haven't really changed.

But really they are just days off that coincide with a "christian" (catholic) holy day so the goverment is not making you observe any of the customs of the catholics or christians and the catholics don't require that you not work these days either so by not working you are not observing this holy day.

You know, this really brings us to the point of not whether or not the law is breaking the first ammendment or not but why is it even a law. I mean...whats the point when you don't have to have a law to let people off work....or maybe you do because I the goverment doesn't work like a business where the CEO at corporate can just let people go home on certain days and still get payed and tell all of the other divisions to do the same. So maybe the only way the goverment can tell its "divisions" to not work is with a law. Your thoughts please...

However, they are not requiring the observance of the holiday just that you don't have to work. As for the rest of your post I must agree.

You know, in regards to holidays why is a law needed to let people off for work? I mean its company policy to let people off for work where I work...however, I could come in to work but I am going to get payed the same either way so I should probably just stay home.

It's a Federal law respecting an establishment of the Christian religion. I take it this means you've abandoned your silly stance on the meaning of the amendment? . Hey, no need to approach things that way. You made a good point that I had missed once you finally got around to explaining what was different. I asked and will ask for further explanation: However, if a religion chose to establish january first as some special religious day should they not allow people off for that day all of a sudden? Also, according to your definition the amendment still can't apply to removing the ten commandments from a courthouse (because there was no law saying it had to be there) or making a law not allow pray in schools or at the opening of congress and such.

I never said that or implied that. So tell me how the goverment has done that by letting people not work on particular dates. Also, how does that apply to taking the ten commandments out of a courthouse or not allowing bibles or prayers in public schools and such.

How about this....I went back and change to post so that it is a direct quote and guess what.....the point and definitions are still the same.

No, I was tired of having to take the time to copy it and put it in quotations because I assumed everyone knew what it said and how the english language worked. Then explain what the difference is.... even if it is different use the definition of the two word I supplied in the post or look them up yourself and my point remains the same.

Okay, here is where I didn't quote it exactly word for word....which is why I didn't put it in quotations... and makes the point I am refering to which doesn't change.

Do you know what the Supreme Court is? Do you know what the Supreme Court does? Do you know what the Supreme Court has decided regarding separation of church and state based on the first amendment? Yes. It is a court of appeals and all because they do certain things and make certain decisions doesn't mean they are right or are carrying out thier duties they way they are supposed to.

I actually already explained that I didnt put it in quotations for that reason and that does not change the point made in my post or the definitions and application of those definitions of the two words. Also, since we are talking bible here to: Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Why(B) do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you? “So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say? Why do you call Me, Lord, Lord, and do not [practice] what I tell you? Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? Are they all saying completely different things? Either way, call me wrong but that doesn't change the definition of the words or the meaning of the first ammendment.