Outstanding between you and popeer and wv mountaineer. Unfortunately these right wingers have been brainwashed over the years and their faulted beliefs has led to a bad direction in this great country.
One problem with ME refugges is the refusal to assimilate
- Thread starter Airport
- Start date
The media has had a hand in this by not saying that there is a guarantee of a non state sponsored religion vs separation of state vs religion. As far as the second amendment, it does say that there is a right to bear arms. As always, somebody ignores what the constitution actually says. Our constitution is the greatest document ever written by man. Unfortunately, Jefferson is right and the SC has tried to change what's in the constitution to fit a narrative.
Left wing socialist are the real problem. A perceived injustice, lets write a law that changes that, but wait, that new law causes another problem so lets write another law taking care of that but wait, that causes another injustice to a one eyed fat man so let's write another law. Liberals can't run a one man parade.
What about the immigrants from other places (not the Middle East) that don't assimilate? Why leave them out? The Chinese still live their way in many little "China Towns" in the United States. So do the Italians. But, yeah, let's just use the scare tactics more and more.
THE SKY IS FALLING.....THE SKY IS FALLING.....
I didn't realize that the Italians and Chinese were cutting peoples heads off and screaming alu akabar. What a tool you are. There is no equivalency of the Islamic radicals in the world.
Well, maybe not in recent times. But the Boxers did this same thing (excluding the Islamic phrase) in China. But, yeah, only Muslims are terrorists and do horrible things to Americans. And the Italians had their mafia killing Americans....but, yeah......
Again, THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!! PANIC PANIC PANIC!
We need to put pressure on the Saudi's to take them. They have air conditioned tents that they are no using at all. Would you be willing to sponsor a family? Guarantee that they will not end up on welfare and a burden to the rest of the country?
First off, I never said I wanted to bring in these refugees. Why don't you read before assuming? I actually said I would not take any AT THIS CURRENT TIME. But, to have people like yourself and the ring leader on this board go off the deep end is ridiculous. You all want the Arab nations to take them in, yet you are also the ones who say they ALL Muslims are the problem and we (the US) need to wake up and realize this or else. It was you all that say that these Middle Eastern nations are not helping with our war on terror. Yet that isn't true either.
Let me just say this, resorting to "nativism" is not the answer. What is the answer? I am not sure. But waging war against a Religion and a group because of a SMALL portion that the news sensationalizes is ludicrous. But, I guess on par with the ultra conservative groups in America. It fits their agenda.
In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution. Read more carefully before saying other's ignore the constitution. Stick to filling cavities.
Be careful. Only Liberals use the constitution to their benefit. The conservatives follow the letter of the Constitution. Nothing more than what it says. [thumbsup]
I have never said all Muslims are the problem. I have said that if the good muslims don't find a way to stop them, the rest of the world will have to at a great loss of innocent life. There can be no other way. The radicals are not content with us and the rest of the world living our lives as we see fit. Can you tell me how the rest of the world can live with these radicals without killing them?
A big problem is the Wahabi's of Saudi Arabia. They're the ones funding the radicals. We have to find a way to shut off their money.
It does indeed but on the pretext of a "well-regulated militia". I've never really understood how the Court can ignore that very important, very deliberate phrase that the Framers included in the 2nd.
I actually agree. But alienating and upsetting a region of people by making this a war against religion will not help. We don't know what these Islamic nations are doing because most of them run tight ships and don't have the freedoms we have nor the free press. I've seen where the Saudi government beheaded suspected terrorists in public executions. It's been stated numerous times that terrorist target western nations because in their Islamic states it is harder to complete the task of blowing something or someone up with the tighter government controls.
If there are good muslims as you say, they will want the BAD muslim terrorist eliminated so they can live in peace. I really think that that is true. Most don't want to be under fundamentalist Islamic rule. The problem is Wahabism in the House of Saud.
The Suprems has limited some aspects of the 2nd amendment. it's based on the English Bill of Rights that a Sir William Blackstone, I believe is his name, wrote that it is important for self defense.
Not the sky is falling, but those communities are content to make a living here, not spreading their culture and philosophy. Islam, on the other hand, wants sharia law everywhere. Even a majority of American Muslims. Don't sell yourself short and compare two cultures based on ethnic backgrounds to an entirely different religious culture. Oops, too late.
Where in the hell have you been over the last year or so?
There was A LOT of opposition to gay marriage and they weren't forcing their beliefs on anybody. When the final ruling came down and then Kim Davis was found in contempt (a Christian that didn't want other people doing something even though they weren't forcing their beliefs on her), I have a friend who is a priest who proclaimed "the butt ******* won".
Who was forcing anybody to be gay?
However, the religious community was trying to force their beliefs on the gay community.
And then you have the employers fighting the ACA because they didn't want to cover specific contraceptives for their employees ... whether those employees shared their beliefs or not.
First, Christians didn't want to cut off your head because of your belief in gay marriage. I'm for civil unions for gays, not for marriage. Marriage is a biblical term and should not be used for gays since it's between a man and woman. Sorry, I just disagree but I don't want to cut off your head even though sometimes it would explain some of your thoughts.:chairshot:
Go look up what the 2nd amenments was taken from. It was from the English Bill of Rights which said you had the right to bear arms for self defense. I looked it up. You can too.
Marriage is a biblical belief, union between a man and woman to create children. It was the gays who were trying to get marriage to be something it was never meant to be. Gays were trying to force their beliefs on the Christians.
Gays did force their beliefs on Christians. And the government too. So much for separation of church and state.
Look chief, I have a doctorate in law, a large portion of my studies dealt primarily with constitutional law. Your original comment was that the constitution doesn't specifically say "separation of church and state". I provided an explanation that the constitution through the establishment clause and Supreme Court interpretation provides separation of church and state. I then stated that the constitution doesn't specifically say you have a right to bear arms for self defense, but that the Supreme Court ruled that a person does as per McDonald v. Chicago. The point is just because the words "separation of church and state" or "right to bear arms for self defense" aren't specifically stated in the constitution does not mean those rights are unprotected by the constitution or court interpretation of the constitution. Another word not specifically stated in the constitution is marriage but you believe that the government should uphold the traditional definition of marriage. Desegregation of public schools is not in the constitution verbatim; abortion isn't either; however, the interpretation of the 14th amendment and a penumbra of other rights guaranteed in the constitution allowed for the Supreme Court to decide on those matters as well. So, your argument that if the constitution doesn't specifically state "x phrase" doesn't hold water.
So do the justices on the supreme court but most intelloigent people think that they really had to stretch the imagination to come up with their rulings on recent obamacare. Isn't the 2nd amendment adopted from the British Bill of Rights written by Lord whatshisface and that he specifically says that you have the right to bear arms and it is for self defense?
The constitution was drafted primarily by James Madison derived from discussion and debate at the Constitutional Convention. If you review those notes from the Constitutional Convention, they deal primarily with the right to bear arms for militia. Sir Blackstone was British and drafted bill of rights for England in the 1600s. British law is common law; thus based on past precedent more so than codified law. British common law greatly influenced our judicial system and still does today--especially in Conmonwealths. So, it would be fair to say that Blackstone's writings were discussed and relied upon in formulating the ideas of our separate constitution. But, the 2nd amendment is not mirrored after Blackstone's writings. It was drafted after the constitutional convention by James Madison.
The Supreme Court upheld the affordable care act as constitutional legislation due to the fact that it dealt with Congress's ability to make laws regarding taxation. The fact that people who don't have health insurance are taxed by the government means that congress did not act improperly by enacting the affordable care act/obamacare. Justice John Roberts, a conservative, is the man you can thank for that.
The Supreme Court upheld the affordable care act as constitutional legislation due to the fact that it dealt with Congress's ability to make laws regarding taxation. The fact that people who don't have health insurance are taxed by the government means that congress did not act improperly by enacting the affordable care act/obamacare. Justice John Roberts, a conservative, is the man you can thank for that.
We subtly changed a few things already, expecting to have to change more in the near (5 year timeframe) future, more drastically. That's just the start.
As Scalia said, the majority served up apple sauce to come up with the last ruling when anybody, even the President expected the last ruling to go against them, with half a brain new it wasn't legal. I hope for the country that we get a conservative president to undo these socialistic and communistic laws that this president thru one of the worst congresses ever has perpetrated on the American public.