EBSB52

Uh, no it's not. Dude, you need a dictionary. - Jim The dictionary won't define it as such, but that the way it is often done in Communist countries as a way to control people. Communism - The gov controls everything Socialism - The people control everything Capitalism - The market controls everything (*The problem is that in most Capitalistic countries the elite control the market, so it is a form of bastardized Capitalism. An unencumbered, unmolested free market is the best system IMO - we don't have that)

SkydivingNurse I know another Murse who shtdives! BTW, not a real good thing to write on a public forum..... I love my country. I love the troops and cops and firefighters, but I will say it again. Try to take my property so that a business can move in and I will do my best to make you pay for it in blood. I probably wouldn't last very long, I have no illusions in my head of being a tenth as good as a police or military sniper, but I will sell myself dearly. I know it looks like "shitdives" but as fast as I type with this god damned latop keyboard, it was upposed to be "skydives." H 2 letters away from K - T next to Y..... oops I do know a Murse, male nurse, who skydives and I'm going for nursing. I dunno, he might shitdive too, but I don't wanna know Trust me, get into nursing and you WILL be shitdiving. EYwww . Ya, I've heard many stories. I'm just finishing all the prereqs now, so I'm off to NET test and go to school.

Nice one Jenfly..... oops up side yo head Rhino

Their are people that stand for what THEY believe in.. Then their are people that go with the masses.. You do the math.. OK, since there has been a Republican in office 16 of th last 24 years and there will be for the next 4 years to come equalling 20 of 28 years, who's the sheeple? More people are voting Repugnican, who is following the masses? ......."You do the math.." To further argue the point, the House and Senate are stacked Rep., and the US SUp Ct is stacked, and it's an indirect reflection of the White House / Senate...... Who's following the masses?

What a dink, modifying my words. Simple things - simple minds Not hardly kid. It was not intentional. Just what do you mean by dink? For some of us it's like gook or other hate words.EDITED TO: ADD BTW don't go back to school. It sounds like some liberal commie pinko got your soul the first time. You need to develop some good work ethics and prepare for a dismal future. Kid? I could be a grandfather, berley, but still a gramp and I'm a kid..... It was not intentional. Uh, ok. You modified my words and posted them as mine - be man enough to admit it. Just what do you mean by dink? I'm thinking of how many ways that can be taken. For some of us it's like gook or other hate words. Wouldn't that be, "Chink?" Quit weakly attempting to make yourself a victim - you know what I meant. BTW don't go back to school. It sounds like some liberal commie pinko got your soul the first time. Instead of aimless rhetoric, why not discuss what makes an American conservative and what makes a, "liberal commie pinko" and the merits of each. I'm sure you are inable. You need to develop some good work ethics and prepare for a dismal future. Why, I'm working on my second degree and I'm entering a very lucrative field - life will be great.

What a dink, modifying my words. Simple things - simple minds

How aboutthe protestors of Woman Suffrage in the 1920's? How about Rosa PArks; she was a protestor. W/o protest, the gov would run amuck.... how do you feel about Viet Nam protestors from what you've read? You're prolly way too young to have witnessed it first hand.

bla bla bla.. So you don't have the backbone or the balls to back up your position.. So you have gang mentality? Would you have to be with a group of flagburners to feel comfortable doing it? Where did he say anything about a gang??? Can we pls stick to the issue?

I dare you too to walk into the vfw and burn one.. And see that goes outside the purview of flag burners or the supporters of such people. There act isn't to overtly offend in the venue of someone else, they want to celebrate their beliefs in a safe, legal way. To burn a flag insode a hall would be a safety concern for starters, and then it would be illegal to trespass onto somoeone elses property.

Totally agree, but when someone's (parties) principles suck so bad, they have to distract the issue. In this case they pretend to care about fabric, which relieves the issue of gov murder, Fascism and all kinds of goodies

YOU BURNING MY FLAG IS BASICUALLY YOU WIPING YOUR ASS WITH THE CONSTITUTION The US Sup Ct has already beat you to it - it's no fun to have second wipe

nothing entertaining about the burning of the US flag, Depends what it is made of. COuld you imagine a flag made of pure cotton, laced with gun powder and other volatile substances? That would be cool to watch old glory glow like it never has when place high uppon a pole.

My name is Lisamarie, .... and I'm a patriot of a country that kills people and calls it Democracy. Honey, you need an intervention....

Ironically, I bet those cheap little American flags are made in India

SkydivingNurse I know another Murse who shtdives! BTW, not a real good thing to write on a public forum..... I love my country. I love the troops and cops and firefighters, but I will say it again. Try to take my property so that a business can move in and I will do my best to make you pay for it in blood. I probably wouldn't last very long, I have no illusions in my head of being a tenth as good as a police or military sniper, but I will sell myself dearly. I know it looks like "shitdives" but as fast as I type with this god damned latop keyboard, it was upposed to be "skydives." H 2 letters away from K - T next to Y..... oops I do know a Murse, male nurse, who skydives and I'm going for nursing. I dunno, he might shitdive too, but I don't wanna know

OK but first we need to finish our teachings to our fellow countrymen and women that greed is placed before help. Our model of Darwinism wil be taught first by way of survival of the fittest, natural selection, and just plain greed..... then we can have giveaways..

I think it goes both ways at different times. Sometimes they are outright cuts, sometimes they are proposals that are cut. Kinda like when Bush cut the proposals to cut the amount of arsenic we would have in the drinking water. Bush didn't overtly add arsenic to the drinking water, he refused to carry thru with the proposed cuts, vircarioulsy increasing the amount of arsenic we have in the water today. Same with these cuts, which were done by our Republican Congress, if they are about proposals to the increase that are cut, then vicariously they are roadblocks to future assistance and are cuts. Again, I don't know that these are proposals that are cuts as you conjectured, they may be overt cuts to existing prograns.

What you're not doing is looking at the hypothetical end to your model of a selfish nation. If there were zero assistance then we would litterally have people dying in the streets. Your model is viewable if you get ahold of a book about the Hoover 1 era, which Reagan and Bush 2 seem(ed) to want to immulate. In Hoover's era, people were homeless by the millions and they were even turning toward Communism, not as an ideology, but for survival. Many rich who were benefiting from Hoovers corp cash giveaways actually voted out Hoover due to the fatc that they would suffer more if people rejected Capitalism than if the cash freebies stopped. You are a young guy and like most young people, maybe a little idealistoc. Ya it would be nice to have everyone self-sufficient all the time, but that is beyong utopia. As for your correlation from health insuranece to car insurance, these are the types of arguments that people turn to when theyreally don't have one and want to be semantic. An auto is somewhat of a luxury with public transit, but health insurance or public health care is a neccessity. I worked my way thru college too, just got my degree 3 years ago, now working on a second one. You won't like what you see when we keep putting personal and corp profits ahead of social care for each other. Why do you think the crime rate is so high as compared to some other socialist nations? If people can't eat they will die trying to survive. Most of us would do what we had to do to feed themselves and their kids, and bad things happen to good people. If your model was to be placed into effecst, you wouldn't like what you see.

Really? The Fifth Amendment provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." It turns out that, thanks to some Big Government justices, that Constitutional right is not guaranteed anymore. Instead, "use" is now defined as "purpose." Since anything can be for a public "purpose" the government can now take your property on terms it feels are "just compensation" and let another private entity have it for their own "use," so long as it's a public "purpose." So, the right to counsel at a criminal trial might be challenged now if the states re-define their "criminal" codes into "administrative" codes. You mentioned "search and seizure." What this court did with redefining "public use" is the same as redefining "probable cause" to mean "possible cause." This comes on the heels of the marijuana case, wherein this court held that the federal government can regulate ANYTHING under the commerce clause, since there is nothing that the commerce clause cannot touch anymore. "Government ROCKS! Private individuals SUCK!" We are moving back to Kings and Peasants. I wonder whether an "equal protection" argument would apply. Probably not. I think this court would only use a "rational basis" test to determine whether the government's law allowing forced transfer of property from one private person to another private person violated the Equal Protection clause. After all, the right to buy and keep private property is not a right that our forefathers viewed as particularly important. Damn lawyers . I wasn't aware the 5th had the priv property use in there. I know it is packed with many things tho. OK, so then the gov is Fascist with this and subverts the document that protets us. This comes on the heels of the marijuana case, wherein this court held that the federal government can regulate ANYTHING under the commerce clause, since there is nothing that the commerce clause cannot touch anymore. Furthermore, RICO has the word, "commerce" in it, which allows them to seize cars used to pick up hookers, abortion clinic protestors who block doorways, hence commerce is impacted. I think you guys are starting to agree with me that this country is a FAscist POS. Most won't admit it, but the elements are there. We've gone from individual rights to utilitarianism, a Communistic concept.

corps help generate income, thus tax revenue. The government is looking out for itself Private property rights are really in trouble. It's a bad place to be. I don't trust the right or the left in this. That's a way to circumvent the definition of Fascism. I could do that with Communism. Communism is a way the government can better their position by executing people in the streets so inact deterrence and peace in the streets. And by closing the borders, they can maintain more people so they can better their manufacturing base...... see, we can rationalize anything....truth is this law is Fascist by intent, since it was likely backed by corps./amicus.

Coming from a person who complains about their extensive relationship crisis online, I don't think you can really make this arguement, Rhino. Just because one is not a parent does not mean that they can't make reasonable moral decisions. Just like just because one is not in the armed forces, doesn't mean that they cannot make a valid complaint about the actions of someone who's served. You know better. edited: it sucks that your and other parents smoked around you and you put up with a variety of related illness, but to think that ALL people cannot smoke responsibly and thus need to be made illegal, or condemned abusive is preposterous. .jim I'm gonna call you the Ad Hominem queen. So what does Rhino's personal love life have to do with whether smkoers should have the 'right' to smoke in public or in confined spaces? When you attempt to impeach the author and not the issue, you have committed an Ad Hominem. Now, in an internet forum, most people aren't intelligent enough to discern or even notice. But in higher levels of argumentation, they would immediatley shut you down. Just like just because one is not in the armed forces, doesn't mean that they cannot make a valid complaint about the actions of someone who's served. Just because someone might or might not complain about their personal life on-line doesn't mean they cannot argue about the merits of outlawing smoking in public or around kids.... same/same... but to think that ALL people cannot smoke responsibly and thus need to be made illegal, or condemned abusive is preposterous. You mean, "all smokers" not, "all people." All people don't smoke, in fact, isn't it like 20% of all people in America that smoke? Also, many people can drive 90mph and never have an accident. But some people cannot and we live in a country of millions, so the law just draws a line and cites above that. Well, since so many smokers cannot behave - we need to draw that line and have the cops cite all who violate.

Brilliant reasoning. If it helps you sleep at night so be it. We all already do it, we can't stop now. So you need transportation to keep the world spinning? Ever ride a bus? Carpool? Ride a bike? Don't push your car polluting habits on me and the kids. The point of all of this is: It is asinine to decide that one form of polluting the air isn't ok, and yet another form which no doubt dumps a far greater amount of pullutants in the air, is ok, just because it keeps the world spinning and YOU decide that it is not nearly as consequential as the first, because you think the first is so localized. As mentioned before, there's a lot of other shit that needs to be fixed before we start crying about this. And once again I will re-iterate that the parents PROBABLY shouldn't smoke around their kids, and smoking outside is FINE. If they are blowing smoke in their kids face, that's a different story. If they are putting their cigarettes out on their kids, that's a different story. Finally, lets up the conversation with one more thing that I am not a smoker, and have never smoked. .jim Brilliant reasoning. If it helps you sleep at night so be it. Instead of stating ignorant semi-illiteration, try to refute the points. We all already do it, we can't stop now. Can't stop what, smoking? This isn't about the smokers, this is about the health and rights to breath air w/o carcinogens. Don't stop, I don't care, but don't polute my air or the air of your kids or other kids. So you need transportation to keep the world spinning?Ever ride a bus? Yep. One deosn't go to my work now. Carpool? Ride a bike? If I can, I work 38 miles from home in a semi-remote area. Don't push your car polluting habits on me and the kids. Don't be ridiculous. Cars are neccessary to make the world go around, yes they are. I don't drive an SUV, so that arg won't apply to me. Sadly, that is your best arg to support smoking around people. Furthermore, auto emissions aren't released in my face, whereas smoke form cigs is. It is asinine to decide that one form of polluting the air isn't ok, and yet another form which no doubt dumps a far greater amount of pullutants in the air, is ok, just because it keeps the world spinning and YOU decide that it is not nearly as consequential as the first, because you think the first is so localized. It is assinine to ignore the fact that smoking is a compulsion and driving a car, riding an airplane, train, etc is not neccesary. Furthermore, it is even more assinine to confuse the argument to be one of gross polution. I don't care if smokers smoke in the privacy of their own property and thus polute the air. I do care if they smoke in the confined spaces with kids or in the public. As mentioned before, there's a lot of other shit that needs to be fixed before we start crying about this. So what you do atrocious, butthere are worse things out there.... that is assinine logic. Isn't that like saying rape is bad, but there are unsolved murders out there so let's ignore the rapes? Why can't we simultaneously correct all the wrongs of society at the same time? We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And once again I will re-iterate that the parents PROBABLY shouldn't smoke around their kids, ... Probably? Jesbus. ...and smoking outside is FINE. But not in public. If they are blowing smoke in their kids face, that's a different story. If the kids are in the same room, they get to enjoy the smoke as well. Finally, lets up the conversation with one more thing that I am not a smoker, and have never smoked. Didn't this: "We all already do it, we can't stop now." refer to already smoking, or was that some vague reference to something else. Regardless, this is not an attack on you whether or not you smoke. I don't care what you do, but the issue of allowing people to poison others due to no public neccessity is inane.

Yes, but it's a different degree than something like hitting them. It's more like neglect which is a less escalatory term. You can't legislate courtesy, you can't legislate intelligence. But as individuals, we can be decent to those who find ways to get their fix without affecting the rest of us. And be direct with the assholes. Remember, smoking is the epitomy of selfish behavior. So we need to recognize those smokers that understand that from those that don't. Yes, but it's a different degree than something like hitting them. It's more like neglect which is a less escalatory term. Neglecting to remove your kods from another environment where people are smoking, but you failed to check it out is neglect. Smoking in the same confined area as your kids is very procative and is virtually malicious. I think it's more along the lines of endangerment.

Holy crap.. We agree on something@!

wtf are you talking about? Because I have smoked a few times in the past I am addicted? WTF. That's funny. My apologies if that is not what your implying. But if not I don't know what your point is I interpreted it as saying you smoke. Maybe you're a social smoker as opposed to a cumpulsive smoker, but if you can't kick it you're addicted. Either way, you're defending the"right" to smoke inthe presence of others, which is a tough position to hold.