Professur
Well-Known Member
There were pigs in the vicinity.
Arizona moving towards police state
- Thread starter spike
- Start date
- Status
There were pigs in the vicinity.
Who wrote this crap? Wanna tell me Stalin wasn't a fascist? Pol Pot? Fidel Castro? Mao?
I am opposed to liberalism because of philosophical reasons.
Democracy is a highjacked word too...you did know that Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, right?
Democracies can't work, thus we have a Republic. Whenever you hear a modern pol discuss democractic rule, they are impying socialism.
Would you care to go over government regualtions into my life? The left forces change. The right upholds tradition.
spike
New Member
The right forces change and gives up freedoms like in this AZ law.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Can you show me exactly where that is in the COTUS? Seems to me that we're not suppose to create a state sponsored religion. ie: Church of England.
The Rite is recognized by the state for matters related to legal affairs and taxes. You need not have marriage license to be ritually married.
Your definition is generalized. It's not the right dear whos nationalizing health care, student loans, pummeling corporations under the iron fist of the government.
Yes, you are misunderstanding that smaller government doesn't means bigger government. See, there's this movement going called the "TeaParty" that is currently offering some fresh insight to political conservatives. You can pretend that you're right, but you really have it all wrong.
If the sexual deviants would simply accept civil unions offered by the government it would not be an issue. But, as it is people who hate religion, like a number of posters here on this board, are hell bent on forcing themselves into the long standing rite of man&woman marriage. It's like rape, its about power and hurting others, sick really.
Yeah, conservative politicians fell into the appeasement of the left crap and started to resemble them. It was a huge mistake. It's time we remind those fucks that the far leftist are fucked-up nut jobs and we should just let them cry a river. -- How is larger government not more in your business?
Simply said: The left needs a good old fashioned ass-whooping, let them sleep in the bed they made.
- Let SanFrancisco destroy itself financially.
- Let California go broke.
- Build a HUGE wall along the Mexican border.
- Fuck federal Education programs.
- Dismantle the EPA.
- Destroy Endowment for the Arts.
- Fuck FEMA.
- Give Nat'l guard back to the states.
- Stop welfare programs.
- Reduce the federal government by +50%
- Get rid of used up race/gender laws.
- GTFO out of the UN
- Let people govern at the local and state levels.
The way I see it: Some people just can't handle the real risk and dangers inherent in freedom, they're not strong enough to make something of themselves. They constantly whine to the power that be "protect me", "give unto me", "I am weak and 'they' are strong ". Victims of themselves who feel someone else should provided for and protect them, to force others to accept them.
As much as Spike ol' boy wants to paint me a racist (I know he can't help it, its his programing) I'm not. BUT.... in a free society someone can be racist if they choose to be. If I own a house, I should be able to rent it who ever I choose for whatever reason that satisfy's me, the owner. You have 5 poorly behaved kids I don't want in my rental, I shouldn't have to rent to you. If I don't like your attitude for any reason, I shouldn't have to rent to you. If I don;t like your lifestyle I shouldn't have to rent to you. It's MY property to do with as I see fit without fear of persecuted by made up rationals.
Butt-hurt feminized whiners are the problem, they are inadequate to handle true freedom and stand on it. ...So they seek out facade laws of pseudoequality and protection. I mean: If a grown man can't handle being told to "eat-a-dick" - just how strong is he really? -- answer: Hes' not.
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
That is simply stupid. What you are saying is there should be no nations, free and open borders for all. IF for the past 30 years we did enforce the laws and the protect borders, we wouldn't have to do this massive clean up.
Once it's all cleaned up and big-assed wall is built life can get back normal fairly quickly. +70% of the people who live there like it and are willing. Why don't you invite the illegals to become your burden.
You are aware that if someone from Guatemala try's to illegally cross into Mexico they could, in reality, be killed if caught? (no link, go look for yourself)
What freedom has a citizen given up?
spike
New Member
And it should be regardless of your sexual orientation or not at all.
It's great. We can finally start to catch up to other industrialized nations in healthcare and cut out some middlemen that contribute nothing while saving the taxpayers a bunch of money with the student loans.
Yes, it shouldn't mean bigger government and less freedom as with this new AZ law.
They're mostly a bunch of corporate controlled morons but maybe they'll rally against this AZ attack on freedoms.
Separate but not quite equal is bullshit. Full equality and freedom for all citizens regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
They aren't hurting anyone. People who want them to have lesser rights are hurting them. Sick really.
I think we already reminded them that the far rightist are fucked up nutjobs and they did cry a river.
Yeah, like anyone who would support this fascist anti freedom AZ law.
I got a couple questions for you on that subject...
1. "Are you saying that Northern European genes are superior to whatever racial background your wife comes from and that people without European genes aren't normal?
2. "The pic doesn't actually show the number of people who support Aztlan. It shows the latino population of the US. So the question is what point where you trying to make by showing the latino population?"
Yes, like this fascist AZ law.
Oh, I can handle any insult you care to throw at me and completely pummel you in return. Except I'm not allowed to do that, so neither should you. Equality and all that.
If a grown man can't stand behind the statements he made, runs away from questions, and then makes childish remarks instead....just how strong is he?
spike
New Member
I'm not saying anything remotely similar to that. Looks like you made that up.
I said "everyone should be free to leave the house without "papers"". Not sure how you confused that.
Relevance?
spike
New Member
I guess you haven't kept on this too much. You need to have your papers on you at all times now if you leave the house. If you don't have them you can be arrested and detained.
Just read the OP.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
As a driver, I doubt that you are required to drive around with your birth certificate or passport. You need a drivers license to drive the vehicle you're in, eh. Your drivers license is NOT proof of citizenship.
You could very well be asked for your 'papers', Gonz.
Ya know, to prove that you're a citizen and don't need to be asked for your papers.
Cute little cycle, no?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
I've been stopped on Tash for driving my old van..the reason? That kind of van was often stolen. I showed my lic and registration and got a move-along, thanks. I did not have to whip out my Canadian Passport nor B.C. nor face arrest if I didn't have it on me. Have you?
Gonz, you should know that any justification for a bigger, more powerful government is just that: a justification. It is wrong on any level unless the law is set to protect the rights of one citizen (or group) from another. You can say "change" or "tradition" but it all adds up to the same thing: more intrusion and control of government on the lives of citizens. Tradition and religious morality can not be legitimized through law. Slavery was once a tradition but was abolished through law. Can you see how that law protected the rights of one group from another?
Would you care to go over government regualtions into my life? The left forces change. The right upholds tradition.
Exactly. Again you make my point. Thanks! And this is found in...
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
<much whining and complaining here, so I cut this out of the quote>
Yes, you are misunderstanding that smaller government doesn't means bigger government. See, there's this movement going called the "TeaParty" that is currently offering some fresh insight to political conservatives. You can pretend that you're right, but you really have it all wrong.[?quote]
Actually the "Tea Party" whines about all sorts of vague things but doesn't have a clear focus. If I ask one Tea Bagger what he/she is angry about they will give a different answer completely from what is asked of another Tea Bagger.
Marriage is a social rite, not necessarily a religious rite. Example, there is nothing that prevents Atheists from being legally married. The ceremony does not include the mention of a deity. This doesn't mean the couple are in a Civil Union.
You say you want less government but you ask for bigger, stronger laws to protect what you describe as your "religious rite". Why do you need big government to come to your rescue? There is no harm to you if others are allowed legal marriage. You have contradicted yourself in this very post (repeatedly).
Off topic but, I do not hate religion and I would defend to the death your right to believe whatever you choose to believe. It's in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
That's what I've been saying. Thanks for supporting my argument.
Agreed on some of this and I've left the parts that I agree with here...
States can handle some but not all of their own business. Federal laws protecting a citizen's rights should always overrule any state law that would contradict that. Federal laws should also prevail when it comes to interstate business.
As for the rest...
[*]Let SanFrancisco destroy itself financially.
Not sure what you mean by that, so I can't agree or disagree. I don't follow California news.
[*]Build a HUGE wall along the Mexican border.
Too expensive... I don't feel like paying more money to put up a wall with our neighbor. A temporary worker visa that is easy to obtain would be a cheaper and more viable alternative to building and maintaining the huge wall.
[*]Fuck federal Education programs.
Not sure which programs you're talking about but if you mean Educational Loans then I would have to disagree. If you mean No Child Left Untested/Behind then I would agree with you.
[*]Dismantle the EPA.
Disagree completely on this one. The EPA is there to protect my land well against some jackass who would otherwise dump toxic wastes on a neighboring land making mine worthless and forcing me to move or die.
[*]Destroy Endowment for the Arts.
Disagree. All evolved societies have valued art as a form of expression and beauty. Art should be supported.
[*]Fuck FEMA.
Disagree. I have no desire to have sex with FEMA. You go ahead, though. 0_o
[*]Give Nat'l guard back to the states.
The National Guard is composed of citizens who serve their country, state and local community part-time. Each National Guard is controlled by the Governor of each State. The President of the US can activate the National Guard for federal missions.
[*]Get rid of used up race/gender laws.
Disagree completely. I don't want to lose my right to vote.
[*]GTFO out of the UN
Disagree. We are part of a global community and involvement in the UN is part of that community.
[*]Stop welfare programs.
Disagree. Each state can add to the federal funds of Welfare and Food Stamps. Some states do not, such as Texas. If you want to reduce Welfare programs to reduce the lifelong dependency then start working towards that in your state and local government. Welfare programs were designed as a temporary relief and this should be the continued goal.
... and we move on...
Again, why do you need the government to come to your rescue and protect you?
Actually, you have a good argument in favor of the gay movement that eventually got Harvey Milk elected and stopped the violations against the gay community.The police refused to protect them from obvious violations (beatings, murders, etc.) and the police themselves violated their rights as citizens.
It is also a good argument for the Suffragettes as well! Again, the police arrested them, detained them, and refused to stop the violations against their peaceful demonstrations.
I'm impressed, RM!
You are allowed to be a racist so long as you do not take it outside your house and intrude on the rights of others. Once you do that you have violated the law.
And you have the right to rent to whoever you want. My step-father has rental houses and he picks and chooses who he wants to rent his houses. It's all in the potential tenant's rental and credit history. Someone with kids that misbehave is going to be someone lax in their credit history or have problems with the former landlord.
There would be no reason to ask me for my citizenship. If I was speaking, say, Swahili, with little English, I'd expect to be questioned.
I agree. The law passed & signed by the AZ Governor (Governess?) allows the AZ police to enforce existing FEDERAL law, nothing more.
Precisely!
That is the whole problem. It is enough that:
1. you are a citizen*
2. a cop thinks (or just wants to give you a hard time) that you are there illegally and proceeds to ask for proof of residency, tourist visa/passport or citizenship
3. you don't have your birth certificate or some other form of id to prove your citizenship status
to get you arrested until you can prove you are not there illegally.
Way to shoot yourselves in the foot. I believe you are so obsessed with solving illegal immigration that you are willingly giving up the freedoms you all so zealously seem to defend.
I'm all against illegal immigrants and you guys can do whatever you want with your country, I just didn't expect you'd be willing to get butt raped by your government.
*I'm leaving foreigners out of the debate as they should have the proper papers with them the whole time (that is if what RM said in the other thread is true)
spike
New Member
Way to shoot yourselves in the foot. I believe you are so obsessed with solving illegal immigration that you are willingly giving up the freedoms you all so zealously seem to defend.
- Status