Comment Re:Not a lobbyist (Score 1) 296
Boy, are you a rube, or what? Lobbyists, by definition, buy influence. With enough money (or other "currency") one can buy anything at all in Washington.
As for sexuality, I see truly monogamous relationships as the only way to truly respect a spouse and one's own sexuality. I also see sexuality as intended for the complementary sexes. They're intended for each other, whether you believe it was designed or if it evolved that way. To do otherwise is to disrespect one's own body.
"Intended"? By whom?
Oh, right - God. That's your set of beliefs. You are welcome to them, of course, but you are not welcome to compel others to adopt them. When, oh when, will otherwise bright and reasonable people grasp this important point?
It is pretty damned obvious by now to anyone with a brain that the feds aren't gonna do jack shit about illegals, and as anyone who has lived in one of the border states can tell you illegals are turning the towns into war zones!
Hyperbole much? Jeezuz, you make it sound like lead is flying down every street in every border town. Not that there isn't a serious problem going on, but it's the "war on drugs" that's failing here, and BTW, it's not "immigrants" who are doing the shooting. It's smugglers and organized crime. AZ's new "show uz ze papers" law is going to do exactly dick to solve that problem.
Lets be honest here folks...having a wide open border is the biggest clusterfuck of our century!
Can't argue with that, other than to point out the practical impossibility of shutting down thousands of miles of border. Or did you have some heretofore unheard suggestion on how to do that? Nah, didn't think so.
... anyone who has been in one lately can tell you the ERs are looking at 12+ hour waiting lines thanks to illegals using them as clinics (and of course never paying so YOU get to pick up the bill on your insurance),
Though it's been a few years since I retired, as a paramedic I spent a fair amount of time in ER's, certainly far more than you have, and I'm fairly certain most of the people sitting in the waiting room with non-emergent complaints (those who are using the ER as a "clinic") are U.S. citizens who have been kicked to the curb by the rest of our fucked up health care system. You're right about one thing though, the rest of us have to pick up the tab for every runny nose that get's treated in an ER instead of a more appropriate venue (that would have cost a tiny fraction of that ER visit).
just look at the crime rates for places like Phoenix, the towns are becoming warzones!
No points for repeating yourself. Besides Phoenix isn't a border town. Neither are L.A., Detroit, N.Y.C, Boston, Atlanta, etc., but those towns damn sure have places where it isn't safe to be unarmed and alone. I suppose now you'll tell us that it's just a different color of hoodlum in those cities and that they're all the problem and we should get rid of them next.
So until the fed gets off their pandering asses and actually does something about the borders the states are gonna have to step up. If you don't like it, don't go there! That is one of the nice things about having 50 experiments in democracy, if you don't like one state's laws you are free to move. As someone whose state (AR)...
Why am I not surprised.
The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses...
True, but without a doubt, they have perfected the institutionalization of greed and corruption, wrapped in a yummy cloak of "doing the work of the Lord". The RCC has, for centuries, used every dirty trick in the book to gain influence and spread it's power. While The Reformation saw to it that the Church's influence would never again be what it once was, the Church certainly has not given up on those ways. We hear a lot about the pedophile priests and how their crimes have been systematically hidden by the Church, but their other crimes and moral transgressions are just as foul, if nowhere near as extensive, as they ever were. The RCC's pronouncements in Africa alone, on the "sinfulness" of condoms, may be realistically attributed to the loss of thousands of lives.
The question is: will they simply pay a fine, or will someone actually get to face a criminal charge? All too often (in the US) people get off free because the offense is blamed on the Corporation® and not the individual acting on behalf of the corporation. If this is knowingly purchasing stolen goods, then it should be treated like any other case of the same.
You don't understand. The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that corporations (e.g. "big business") get to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship with none of those annoying responsibilities (paying taxes, obeying the law, etc.). If you think that''s wrong, you must be some kind of socialist.
I sincerely hope that US people are less dickheaded than you. In civil law countries (like Italy too) the judges have little choice in applying the law.
If I yell in the streets something libelous I am responsible, even if someone else told me first. The same applies to Google...
Well, no. It does not. Not even close. By your logic, the owner of the pavement upon which the "yeller of libelous words" was standing would be as culpable as the yeller himself. This is, of course, absurd, just as it is absurd to suggest the Google should, or even could, exercise editorial control over anything uttered in any portion of it's formidable "street corner".
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein
