Right to privacy? Not any more.

Obama i spromising us a rose garden. This won't be a problem in the new world order.
 
I still don't see a problem with it.

The thing is, you don't see stopping criminals as a bad thing. Neither do I ... until they start changing what 'criminal' is to suit their purposes. After all, once you declare poluting a crime, then driving a V8 is a criminal offence. Under pedophilia laws, a nudist has no rights to own his own summer vacation photos. You, today, can get pulled in for trying to have printed photos of your kids in the bath .... photos that your mom never had any trouble with. Are you a criminal? Under this, you would be.

The laws under which police can invade your privacy are very clearly and rigidly defined for a reason, and more than a few criminal cases have been thrown out of court for violation. The KGB didn't have rules like that.
 
Illegal acts are not protected by the constitution.

Illegal search and seizure ring any bells? Much as I'd like to see someone with kiddie porn impaled the way Vlad did it, the way you get to that point should be clean.
 
And oddly enough ... the ad reads Children's books for gay and lesbian parents





Fluffy, d'ya think you could find more insulting ads?
 
The fact that you can even ask such a question says so much about you.
I know of one gay couple with a kid (he's a bit old for a kids' book). They've been together for 27 years...the last one married. He's (their son) a well-rounded and intelligent man. :shrug:

Nuthin' wrong so far.
 
That depends on whose morals you select, eh.
Some morals say that homosexuality is wrong...others not
some morals say that women are property..others not
some morals say that book burning is right..others not

Some people follow the law of the land...others not. :shrug:
 
"Bigot" in that context is simply a debate-stopper word, anyway, much like "racist" or "intolerant." "No point you make is valid because you're a bigot."
 
Back
Top