ParanoiA

The problem with this line of thought, on the surface anyway, is the alternative - which is what we have today, an increasingly powerful central government with no fiscal incentive. So, we have problem X and a list of proposed solutions. We will pick one of those solutions and never turn back for any reason. We will throw money at it, more and more, and never stop no matter how aweful the resulting failure. The many sides of the issue will all tout how their solutions "would have fixed problem X". The "reasonable" position becomes an appeal to quit being "extreme" and focus on fixing the problem X with the pathetic solution already in place. Meanwhile, we'll NEVER know if ANY of the various sides' proposed solutions would have been better to solve X or not. Think of the Public Education system for X - that's a good one for this template. Tough problems would be better solved if we spread out the solutions. Problem X will be better solved when 50 different states can all exercise their own respective solutions. That's potentially 50 different ideas being measured against each other - rather than the 1. The best solution will be obvious and states will want to emulate. We have a much better chance of solving problem X, rather than just dealing with problem X on the central, one-size-fits-all plan. Yes, the obvious is..well obvious. A good solution by the same central government becomes 100% rolled out and consistent. But, the odds of picking the correct solution the first time is apparently pathetic and we never go back to try other ideas. That would mean listening to the other side, or some such forbidden inter-partisan mingling.

If it's impossible to ignore, then a case can be made for harassment, or maybe noise ordinance. You don't have a right to not be bothered or annoyed.

Not to mention, Alex Jones is a complete joke. He has no call screener, or so he says, and what little I've heard of his show (it's entertaining, but worthless) he believes every caller that claims to have encountered "black ops" and government agents trying to silence the movement. Of course, none of these "black ops" seem to own a radio...

It's interesting how republicans and democrats have turned compromise into all out "moving sales" for their principles. Oh sure, they disagree on the war and partisan politics pollutes an intellectually nil playing field; fighting over power and money. They just want to outspend each other. Both are so used to bending over for the other, neither of them have much distinction other than the "core" beliefs - which are also up for sale. And anyone that advocates anything outside of this two party orgy is considered a quack or is idiotic. Really Pangloss? Hard money is idiotic? Printing money and over burdening the poor, which are already over burdened by definition is NOT idiotic? Over spending is NOT idiotic? You don't think printing money out of thin air is idiotic? Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that uses the word "constitution" when he speaks. He uses it alot because that's his JOB. They're job is to uphold the constitution - they are sworn by it. Yet, the word is bullied about like a relic of a bygone era. The constitution is where our laws and principles come from and it is fundamental to a nation of laws. In fact, most of our problems we're experiencing come directly from the lack of reverence to the constitution. He's pro-life, yet he shucks the power at the federal level. This is because he's a man of principle and has this uncanny ability to partition his agenda from his sworn duty to operate within the confines of the constitution. This pro-life, ant-federal stance is exactly what I expect from EVERY legislator. Everyone of them should be following his lead. Your agenda does not trump the constitution. And he doesn't seem willing to make excuses to mangle it for his elitist whims. And what's this business about his pursuit of a pro-life agenda? So, the ONE guy who actually comes right out and tells you his beliefs and intents and you are more fearful of him than ALL of the idiots the republicans and democrats have bought, buffed and displayed in their little showcases that keep all of their beliefs AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE. Hell, they are actually criticized for NOT moving to the middle toward election time. Take that in for a minute. They are actually criticized for not lying and misrepresenting themselves so as to appear "middle of the road" - and they are criticized by the media for this! The media. The supposed "truth detectors". The precious free press. Oh yeah, Ron Paul is the nut job. Yeah I get it. I'll happily jump on that bandwagon. Ron Paul scares the hell out of partisan compromisers that love the status quo. I didn't know about the gay marriage bit, but I'll research that out. That isn't consistent with his other views. I'll wager it's going to hinge on the same principles that "don't ask, don't tell" hinges on - that it's not up to federal government to decide. And personally, I don't think it's for government to decide at all. How people hook up is none of the government's business - state or federal. "Don't ask, don't tell" is based on the principle that sexual conduct or preference has no place in the military. I've heard him elaborate on this in several interviews. The idea is the military should not know or care or even consider anyone's sexual activities or preferences. Heterosexual relationships are just as forbidden and off limits as homosexual ones. That's called principle. It may not be easily recognizable to those who wish to govern and legislate every little issue that pop culture latches on to. So yeah, it's probably unrealistic. But men of principles are like that...they don't allow seemingly insurmountable odds to rationalize selling out their beliefs. We need guts Pangloss. Politicians with guts.

On the contrary, it's precisely the grim nature of depression that leads me to my conclusion. Why wouldn't you kill yourself?

I like it. Even if it was based on total credit hours, with various levels of class - higher levels worth more credit so you're rewarded by succeeding in the tougher classes; motivation. Maybe kids would want to study harder so they could get out of school sooner.

But Dak's got a point. I've known many people suffering from depression, and while they do feel hopeless as you say, if they didn't think someday they'd feel better then I'm convinced all of them would commit suicide - it's debilitating and the self loathing becomes a futile feedback loop. It's grim, and it's not clear to them, but it's in them and is the only reason they try. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but I do believe it does most.

Dictating where they can speak is as important as what. Protesting an abortion clinic could be said to be cruel, inflicting harm on someone going through an emotional crisis and loss - with seemingly no more persuasive power than the Phelps' message - causing no more than maximum offense. I don't think you get to dictate free speech based on taste and expect it to be of any value to the people.

Excellent post. I don't give congress as much credit, in that I believe they were just as happy to shuck the responsibility of the particulars as Bush was to take it. If it works out, 'hey, we authorized it'; if it doesn't, 'hey, we didn't authorize that'. Passing off these war powers allows them to wage war without answering to the american people about the consequences of it. I read this and immediately envisioned a giant boob nuclear warhead descending from the clouds as men in the streets stare in a lost glow of awe...no missle defense system could beat that

No, I'm with you on privacy - I have a right to that too on my own property, or through contract, like DrDNA pointed out. But the Phelps were on the sidewalk. If they're on public land, then I see no broken law. It has to be protected speech from an objective point of view. To allow an exception, or dream up a loop hole is blatant dishonesty and contributes to the lack of respect for the constitution, and ultimately our rights. Well, the jury will determine facts and gauge harm but the judge can always override if law was never broken. I believe I'm inferring correctly. The levels vary, but many posts have demonstrated a fairly low price set for freedom of speech. Most seem to have this idea that free speech is cool until it's really super duper mean...then out flies the excuses and pleas for limits. I'm not sure how free speech could leave one responsible for any effects. We agree that certain kinds of speech are only restricted due to the overwhelming potential of actual physical harm. But beyond this? Are you really suggesting we become responsible for other's interpretations of our speech? The first part implies a broken law. The state has no business authorizing any "punishment" of any kind with legal behavior. Law should be objective; to remove as much bias and subjectivity as possible, IMO. The second part is right on the money. That's exactly the appropriate check to exercise. I called in to the local radio station here in KC and asked them why nobody was picketing their church, or their house. Again, that's based on the assumption a law was broken. And what law was broken? Saying mean things to someone and making them cry? That's an implication that I can't be mean to you, legally. The Patriot Guard, picketing their homes and church, community wide cooperation to refuse their business everywhere they go...be creative. You don't need to change the rule book to win the game. I agree they need to be convinced to do this, yes. And this is such a great lesson in tolerance. A great example of how freedom can be kind of "out of control" when you focus on the Phelps, when really it's comforting to see the the overwhelming decent folk taking a stand against these idiots.

What? Unless you're specifically referring to harassment, you think I don't have the right to offend you just because you're sad about something? I'm amazed at the degree of free speech censorship I'm inferring in this thread. Just because someone is broken down for a loss and we can ALL relate to the powerful feelings and emotions involved - so NOW we're going to let our emotions trump our logic? I don't know where to begin. I have no idea what in the world gave anyone the idea we don't have a right to be an ass to somebody - calculatively. I don't have to like you. I don't have to be nice to you. I don't have to give a crap what you've lost or what you're aching over - I can still protest on the sidewalk about it.. I can break your heart with words. I can say some amazingly cruel things - and NONE of it has to matter to you in the least. Harassment is the end of the line. A tragic family loss is the flimsiest piece of logic I've ever heard to punish or censor free speech. If that were the norm in the 1800's...we would have lost free speech by the 20th century. Freedom is tough. Freedom isn't free. And it's worth it. Put up with Phelps, and deal with him the right way and we preserve our rights - for one day, we may really, really need them. The way this country is going so far with intervention and terrorism - we don't need to help politicians gain more power and lose more of our own.

But you are free to not care about people. What right do you have to make me care about people?

I'm counting on you here; I can't depend on the 2 brain cells I've got left. One's lost and the other is out looking for it...

And iNow's prediction comes pathetically true... Fripro - a forum is for YOU to make arguments and for YOU to supply evidence. You are just a spammer when you provide links without engaging in discussion and debate - honest engagement. As if you don't already know this...

I don't know if this counts, since I didn't "interact" with them, but just weeks after my wife finding a home for a rescued miniature pinscher, it was killed while tied to a tree, by two pit bulls. I believe this took place in a rural area, where folks have a tendency to let their dogs roam. Other than that, I had a buddy that loved "bad ass dogs" and owned several pits through the years and I've since lost touch with him, but his dogs seemed nice enough, although I was quite weary of them. He had two kids and I never heard of an incident.

So what? That's like saying comparing two philosophy books is invalid because one has a red cover and the other has a blue one. It's not relevent to the point of the comparison. He's right. It is similar to the apathy experienced at that time. And it's based on the same old crap we've been debating about tens of threads in this forum. Some of us think the war is justified, some of us don't. I don't mean to offend, but this thread feels like another rehash of the same ole, same ole...

But what about not-so-apparent problems...like the country moving from a manufacturer to a consumer? If we lose our skills in manufacturing, doesn't that weaken our sovereignty? Theoretically, if we are merely consumers, then we depend on other nations like an umbilical cord, not just a matter of opportunity and mutual growth. Just throwing this out there, I'm kind of on the fence about globalization.

Yes I believe this is reasonable. You're not forcing the mother to carry, yet you're not killing the child, and I think that's more than decent. So, why isn't that the standard? Why are there any abortions? Well, I guess I lost my way... With that in mind, I can only offer a personal opinion based on logic and emotion - which is that killing that life is wrong and I could never go along with it.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. To me, that symbol is only recognizable in the way you describe if you believe it. Fact is, if the US participates in a UN action, you can plaster UN all over everything and today it's still interpreted as a US action. Which is ironic, since I believe it erases the face of a multi-nation supported action and replaces it with one face. In fact, one could argue that by doing that, it's not obvious which particular nations are actually involved in a given action - purposely blurring this distinction to make way for a one world order scenario. Not a conspiracy, just an incremental step toward that end. For reasons I listed before. It finds value in never choosing a side, never becoming imperialistic, never creating enemies regardless of "intent"...etc. These are big problems right now. The moral reason is that we don't allow ourselves to "judge" nations as a military, since right and wrong is subjective. In my mind, it's about objectivity. One man's idea of aggression is another man's idea of liberation. Country A invades country B and the popular concensus is that it's an act of aggression. While history may show that Country B imperialistically invaded country A in the past and took part of their country. The present "aggression" is taking this part back. Who's really right or wrong here? Not that I'm advocating past conflicts be relevent today, but to deny a country the right to regroup and respond - even over the course of decades - doesn't seem right either. That's why the only truly objective engagement, to me, is in response to a direct threat. The fact that congress is supposed to "declare war", implies "policing" is not an option. Albeit, that's an inferred position. I guess I'd have to go back and read it in it's entirety to be sure, but my impression has been that non-intervention was a strong theme in the constitution concerning international matters.

Did you read all that crap he did to that court reporter on the stand? I think he has issues with inflicting cruelty...

I am calling it a spade. It's a human life. And as long as that human life is inside another human life, it has no rights obviously not given by the host human life. Feelings are irrelevant here as we're talking about matters of law. My feelings matter when I'm faced with the situation personally, which I have been once, and I'm glad she didn't do it.

Hey, that's a hell of a point. That hadn't occurred to me. But, as it turns out, they've been doing this from the sidewalk. And this specific incident was on federal property. I was listening to the local AM news station on my way home and they had their "legal expert" reporter dude talking about this and he said that the Phelp's are quite intelligent about the law and have been dilligently cautious. Apparently the daughter is an attorney, though they didn't mention what kind. And Phelp's himself was disbarred in 1979 for bullying a court reporter. If you read about that incident, it's not too hard to believe this bit from the complaint: That was posted on one of the Phelps' websites, allegedly. There's more. He's really out there, and he's ridiculously cruel and flat out spiteful. Nevertheless, hopefully the judge will see the lack of a broken law and toss out the jury verdict. Juries establish facts, judges establish law. It ain't over yet.

Oh it's a life, no doubt. My position is about jurisdiction. That's why it seems quite black and white to me. If it's inside you, your personal rights trumps the child's rights. If it's not, it doesn't. Someone else doesn't have any more right to force you to maintain a life inside you, NOR do they have a right to force you to kill that life inside you, or kill it themselves.

There isn't "both" ways. It's one way. The mother grants rights to her unborn child - and only the mother can do that. That has been my opening position - that the state cannot afford rights to anyone by violating the rights of another. That the unborn child does not have any rights not granted by the mother. All I'm saying in the case of murder, is that the law should assume these rights have been granted without evidence to the contrary.

Hmm. What about the property rights of the owner of the funeral home, or wherever the the funeral takes place? Can't the owner demand them to leave? I guess I'm thinking of this like any publicly accessible business. If we're both in line at Wal-mart, you don't have any right to force me to leave or shut up while you grieve about the length of the line. However, Wal-mart can certainly run me off, as it's their property. So, I don't agree with the idea that someone at a cemetary can demand some sort of privacy, in terms of law, when they don't own the property or represent the owner of the property. They're just another patron in a publicly accessible business. But seriously, why can't the owner, or staff run these idiots off? To refuse to leave would be trespassing at that point. Surely the staff didn't just stand there with their thumbs up their rears...?