And just how does it do that? It says who can broadcast. Say there are 10 conservative talk radio shows and 1 liberal talk radio show. How are the 10 conservative talk radio shows hurting the 1 liberal show? If the same market was there for liberal talk radio that's there for conservative talk radio don't you think it would exist already? There have been a lot of efforts at liberal talk radio and they have all failed. None of them had enough listeners to make the money needed to stay on the air. Whose fault is that? Conservatives? Don't make me laugh.
Same with TV. It's the number of viewers who decide what the most popular talking head shows are. If the liberal news shows were the most popular then they would have the most viewers.
What's been shown over and over again is that the conservative talk radio shows and conservative news/opinion channels make the most money because they have the largest audience. The vast majority of people like them better.
How is the fairness doctrine going to change that? Run the conservative shows off the air because the liberal ones don't have a large enough audience? Try to force people to watch/listen-to shows they have no interest in? Yeah, like that's fair or will work. That's limiting political speech under the guise of "fairness". If the liberal/progressive viewpoint was actually the majority opinion progressive talk radio and tv talking-head shows would dominate the airwaves. They don't.
Making a law just to enforce your own political viewpoints to have "equal time", as in equal audience, is anti-American at best. We are free to choose to listen to what we want to. You limit the number of conservative shows and all that will happen is that the audience for the remaining shows will grow tremendously. Conservatives aren't going to listen to progressive political commentary. They disagree with it and aren't going to support it. That's their right as Americans. You might disagree with them and not like their political philosophy, but so what? They disagree with you and don't like your political philosophy. Seems fair enough to me.
I almost can't believe it. A voice of moderation and thoughtfulness amidst all the spin and haranguing.
One point you miss is that the current governments of Europe, and to a lesser, but only slightly lesser, extent here in the US, are Socialistic. That means the left is in power. The left is "the man". And, "the man" is wanting to raise taxes. No government can pay for all the cradle-to-grave entitlements without taxing their citizens into oblivion. There is no free lunch. Somebody always pays sometime, somewhere.
The "green" issues are nothing more than ways to raise taxes, to scam money out of both business and the citizenry to pay for what the government is "giving away". The "green" issues are also about personal enrichment for the few too. Cap and trade here in the US? It's not about stopping greenhouse gases for a company can produce as many of them as they want, they just have to buy certificates for what they produce. It's a tax in disguise, not a way to stop pollution or greenhouse gas creation.
It's also a personal enrichment scam as the "certificates" will be traded on something similar to a stock exchange, and it's the leftists now in power here in the US that funded and created the exchange. It's just not making them lots of money right now. It won't until Obama, who helped fund the exchange, passes his cap and trade bill. Then trading the certificates will be enforced by law and then they will get very, very, rich.
Sounds like familiar behavior from Obama. First he forces US citizens to buy insurance at the point of a gun while lying about how his plan will save money, and now he's wanting to force business and the citizenry to buy credits for invisible gas while all the time running up costs for everything related to energy.
Lastly, the "little guy", the common-man, Socialists seem to forget that Socialism has always been about total power. It's all about total government control of all aspects of society. It limits individual freedoms in a big way and is often racist. The entire history of the political left demonstrates this. Hitler, remember he was the head of the Nationalist Socialist Party, Stalin, and Mao were all left-wingers. They all subscribed to the left wing of the political spectrum, and they were all mass murderers, as well as being racist. The political left, East Germany and the Soviet Union, were Idi Amin's biggest supporters. They remained that way even after he was known to be a total psychopath.
Well, I can sell this to someone who is willing to wait until the opportune time to create the car and profit from it.
What you're talking about is a company with deep enough pockets to actually be able to produce your car that can afford to wait to develop it.
A patent troll would never actually create the car. They only own patents so they can sue orgs with deep pockets that actually do produce something. They do nothing but look at products with the idea of seeing if they can apply one of their patents to the product and then claim patent infringement and sue. They produce nothing, but siphon off vast sums of money for lawyer's pockets and sometimes some for themselves too when they win.
In your example if a patent troll bought your patent they would hold it until someone tried to build an electric car like you had designed, and then sue them. Your idea would never come to fruition. It would be used as a hammer with which to beat on other inventors.
LOL. Who's so afraid of losing karma that they won't post using their handles here? Not me.
You lose, AC.
So, come on mods, mod me down. I'm taking an unpopular position so do the usual/. moderation tango and vote the unpopular position down. That's what's done here the vast majority of time. Curse, swear, and insult conservatives in a post here and you're normally modded as insightful on/.
Stand up for a conservative who got mad and fought back using the same language used against his position on an everyday basis before the jackasses were, in an unusual/. action, modded down and I'm a troll.
Then the AC's, who wouldn't publicly defend abusive behavior, because it is abusive behavior, but who privately endorse the abusive behavior attack me and mods of the same stripe pile on. Yeah, I'm quite the troll, if you endorse abusive behavior that is.
So, come on. Mod me down and show your real stripes. Prove who you are and what your side stands for. You do know the Nazis were Socialists don't you? So when you accuse conservatives as acting like Nazis you're only accusing them of acting like people of your own political persuasion. Like yourselves. You act like baby Nazis here on/. on a regular basis.
Compare WTO protestors in Seattle with Tea Party rallies. Who destroys property? Who fights with the cops? Who creates interruptions for everyone? Not the Tea Party people. It's the Socialists that do that. It's the Socialists who use violence. It's the Socialists who have used bigotry, violence, class warfare, and mass murder to gain power. Those are facts of history. We've fought world wars against Socialism because its so evil, and that's the agenda you guys choose to support.
I'm not trolling. I'm just no longer going to be quiet while I and my fellow citizens have our freedoms stolen by those practicing a deceptive agenda. It's my duty as an American with a sense of history, and a sense of justice, to speak up and I'll continue to do it. You can mod me to oblivion, but you can't shut me up. It's my right as an American to speak my mind, just like it is your right to speak yours. The difference between us is that I'll support your right to free speech, but you want to try to deny me mine.
You're ignoring the fact that the only relationship I have with the guy is based on me complaining about the service I am paying the company he works for provides. He knows me because I've complained so many times over the 10 years I've subscribed to their service. In the first year after they took over the cable system here I talked to him at least a dozen times. That's how bad their service was at first. I used to lose connection several times a week. I haven't had occasion to talk to him after they improved the reliability of my connection until now.
We've never seen, or talked with, each other outside of that context. It's not like we're friends. We're not. We're not enemies either. I doubt we even qualify as acquaintances. We've just had contact over the years. I may not even recognize him if he was away from work and not wearing his work uniform.
The point is that these guys are so afraid of losing karma, or having someone put them on their "foes" list, that they won't post with their username. That's cowardly by any definition I've ever seen. Do you think they're called AC's for no reason. I'm just re-stating what the AC moniker says in the first place.
Sure, I could post with "a" real name, as many do here, but that doesn't always mean that it is "their" real name. And, yeah, some well-known guys like Bruce Perens post here as themselves, but that's because their name lends weight to their side of the issues they weigh in on. Nobody would know me from Adam, even if I posted with my real name, so posting using an alias deducts nothing from whatever impact I have I have to say might have.
Get a grip. Don't demean the sacrifices made at Tiananmen Square with this far less serious bad behavior on the part of my ISP. The two situations aren't slightly close to be moral equivalents.
This guy is modded flamebait for being far less offensive than the idiots above him, and actually giving reasons for his positions. Just another example of moderator bias and hypocrisy on/. As if you mods that modded him down wouldn't respond with anger to being being slandered yourselves.
Well, actually I complained to the local head of their internet service department. I've known him for several years. I got to know him when his company first moved into this area and their service was very unreliable. Since I work from home I require a dependable service so he and I talked on a regular basis. We hadn't talked in years, but he still remembered me.
I don't know at this point. I haven't experienced it lately, but that doesn't mean they aren't still doing it.
A lot of people complain about my ISP but I've found them pretty reasonable. When they first moved into this area their service was really bad, and expensive. In the years since then though they've actually lowered their prices, increased their speeds and usage caps, and become very reliable. If I have a service interruption they are there that day, not a week later.
Who says I support "file sharing", as in taking copyrighted work without permission?
I have never downloaded a song or movie. I have always purchased all my music, and never buy movies as that doesn't interest me. I just don't buy any music any more. But, that's because of the actions of the RIAA. If they acted ethically I would most likely still be buying music that interests me.
You make some huge assumptions with absolutely no evidence to back them up. You can search all my posts here and you will never find me supporting perceived theft as a way to combat out-of-control copyright laws. You will find me arguing against that kind of behavior.
Who knows? They have been quite responsive to complaints about services in the past. Even if I don't get an immediate response my voice was heard. They do know at least one of their customers was angry about their conduct. Should I just silently accept them screwing with me and not voice my concerns? That seems to me a guarantee that they won't change their ways.
From your post it seems that you think not standing up for yourself is the way to change things. Don't vote. Don't express your opinion. Be a martyr. How's that working for you? Effecting a lot of change in society are you?
Can an ISP just start re-directing search traffic at will?
Not in my book. My ISP started doing some redirection and they got an immediate complaint from me. In person, at their local office. If there was an alternative to their service I would have switched ISP's immediately.
Yawn, FDR's social justice policies had more to do with extending the Great Depression than any tariff. IOW's, massive increases in government size, spending and increased taxes hurt the economy more than anything else.
And, no, jobs don't decide to move. Organizations decide to move jobs based on greed, and the government makes it easy for them.
And, yes, our country is in fine economic shape. We only have approximately 1/5 of our workers without jobs. Ah, just a drop in the bucket. No big deal according to you.... Who needs an employed workforce? We'll just sell our products to those people who don't have any money....
I say that's a whole lot of people not buying anything other than what's needed to survive. The engine that makes the economy go is broken. Why? At least in part because greedy idiots thought they could make more money for themselves by sending the fuel for the US economy's engine out of country. Mortgage crisis? In part because the jobs to pay for those mortgages went to some other country.
Yup. Real great thinking. Let's cut off our nose to spite our face.
Oh, you mean the Socialists who ran Germany in the late 30's and 40's. You know, that political group who so often violated people's rights. The political party that murdered people by the millions.
How would they enforce this law legally? Well, your chances of being asked for your papers is greatly reduced if you don't go around committing a crime such as home invasion, murder, kidnapping, selling illegal drugs, etc.... You know, the crimes that are so rampant on the Arizona border that more 70% of the citizens of Arizona asked for this law.
If you don't break traffic laws you're not going to get pulled over just to check your papers. If you are you're going to have the chance to sue. If you do break a traffic law and get pulled over don't get paranoid. Don't run. Don't get involved in a high-speed chase. When you're asked for your drivers license hand it over politely rather than screaming at the officer. You know, act reasonably so you don't arouse reasonable suspicion.
You're worried about your rights, but what about the rights of the citizens of Arizona to live peaceably and without fear in their own homes? Where you live do you fear home invasion on a daily basis? Do you fear being kidnapped and held until you agree to pay someone else's drug debt, or the fees to pay a coyote to smuggle your kidnapper's buddies or family across the border? These things occur along the Arizona border on a daily basis. How long would you put up with that? How long would you put up with gangs of illegal immigrants doing that to your friends, family, neighbors, or yourself?
Do your rights trump the rights of the citizens of Arizona? If so, what makes you so special?
Google "home invasions Arizona" and see what shows up, and think about what it would be like to live where you live if that was happening every day where you live. Would you be asking for it to be stopped? Would you be saying get rid of these criminals, or would you be worrying that the cops might pull you over?
You're right it's not charity. It's not trade either, when the jobs used to be American jobs. It's stealing jobs from the citizens of the US and then giving them to the citizens of another country. It's enriching a citizen of another country at the expense of your own citizens. It's enriching another country at your own country's expense. Seems pretty self-defeating to me. Bankrupting yourself to "help" someone else is never a good thing. It's irresponsible at best.
That was the point of my post. What socialists see as "charity" isn't charity. Charity is the generosity that lives in the heart of the individual doing the giving. A third party taking money from your pocket, and/or mine, and giving it to someone else isn't charity. When it's the government doing it, it's theft at the point of a gun.
Well, you need to make me happy by giving me 25% of your wealth. I guess since you believe in the spread_the_wealth_around philosophy you won't have any problem with my request.
If you do, I'll petition Obama to make you give me your wealth. He likes taking wealth from one person and giving it to someone else. He calls that charity on the part of the person from whom he takes money. So, I want him to make you charitable, whether you like it or not.
Thanks for the kind words ajlisows. I re-read my post and the number of typos and just plain bad grammar in places tell me it's far less than eloquent. It did come from my heart though. So did your post, and I appreciate your candor and thoughtfulness.
You say your friend's outcome was good, and that's a good thing. I'm happy for her. I do wonder, though, what she thinks about when she lies awake in bed late at night, or in her most introspective moments. Does she look back and regret that abortion during those times? I wouldn't want to ask her, as that would be opening a really bad memory for her and very unkind on my part, but I still wonder. My bet is that she does.
Living with ending a life is not an easy thing to do, and it stays with most people for rest of their life. Yes, they may be able to get on with their lives even with that regret, but it's still there below the surface. A friend of mine killed two of his buddies in an accident. He ground them to hamburger when he ran over them with a fully loaded semi. A third driver's idiocy knocked their motorcycle down 10 feet in front of his truck while all three vehicles where traveling at highway speeds. It was a gruesome accident and it took a couple of hours to get all the hair, skin, meat, and blood out of the wheels and off the undercarriage of the truck. The accident wasn't his fault in the least, but that doesn't keep it from bothering him 30+ years later, and it isn't because of the gruesomeness of the accident. It's the fact that he killed two of his buddies. They were waving to him one second, and under his wheels the next.
He didn't choose to kill his buddies and it will still haunt him till the day he dies. The level of regret for choosing to kill your own child must be intense. That's one regret I wouldn't wish on anyone, and wouldn't want to experience myself. I pity anyone who has to live with it.
The point is that choosing to not end a life is still the preferable choice. It's a far more moral choice, and one that leads to far fewer regrets. Doing the honorable thing, the right thing, isn't always easy, but it always leads to increased self respect. That holds true for all the moral choices we're faced with in life.
That said, you have a good day. I appreciate your attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
And just how does it do that? It says who can broadcast. Say there are 10 conservative talk radio shows and 1 liberal talk radio show. How are the 10 conservative talk radio shows hurting the 1 liberal show? If the same market was there for liberal talk radio that's there for conservative talk radio don't you think it would exist already? There have been a lot of efforts at liberal talk radio and they have all failed. None of them had enough listeners to make the money needed to stay on the air. Whose fault is that? Conservatives? Don't make me laugh.
Same with TV. It's the number of viewers who decide what the most popular talking head shows are. If the liberal news shows were the most popular then they would have the most viewers.
What's been shown over and over again is that the conservative talk radio shows and conservative news/opinion channels make the most money because they have the largest audience. The vast majority of people like them better.
How is the fairness doctrine going to change that? Run the conservative shows off the air because the liberal ones don't have a large enough audience? Try to force people to watch/listen-to shows they have no interest in? Yeah, like that's fair or will work. That's limiting political speech under the guise of "fairness". If the liberal/progressive viewpoint was actually the majority opinion progressive talk radio and tv talking-head shows would dominate the airwaves. They don't.
Making a law just to enforce your own political viewpoints to have "equal time", as in equal audience, is anti-American at best. We are free to choose to listen to what we want to. You limit the number of conservative shows and all that will happen is that the audience for the remaining shows will grow tremendously. Conservatives aren't going to listen to progressive political commentary. They disagree with it and aren't going to support it. That's their right as Americans. You might disagree with them and not like their political philosophy, but so what? They disagree with you and don't like your political philosophy. Seems fair enough to me.
I almost can't believe it. A voice of moderation and thoughtfulness amidst all the spin and haranguing.
One point you miss is that the current governments of Europe, and to a lesser, but only slightly lesser, extent here in the US, are Socialistic. That means the left is in power. The left is "the man". And, "the man" is wanting to raise taxes. No government can pay for all the cradle-to-grave entitlements without taxing their citizens into oblivion. There is no free lunch. Somebody always pays sometime, somewhere.
The "green" issues are nothing more than ways to raise taxes, to scam money out of both business and the citizenry to pay for what the government is "giving away". The "green" issues are also about personal enrichment for the few too. Cap and trade here in the US? It's not about stopping greenhouse gases for a company can produce as many of them as they want, they just have to buy certificates for what they produce. It's a tax in disguise, not a way to stop pollution or greenhouse gas creation.
It's also a personal enrichment scam as the "certificates" will be traded on something similar to a stock exchange, and it's the leftists now in power here in the US that funded and created the exchange. It's just not making them lots of money right now. It won't until Obama, who helped fund the exchange, passes his cap and trade bill. Then trading the certificates will be enforced by law and then they will get very, very, rich.
Sounds like familiar behavior from Obama. First he forces US citizens to buy insurance at the point of a gun while lying about how his plan will save money, and now he's wanting to force business and the citizenry to buy credits for invisible gas while all the time running up costs for everything related to energy.
Lastly, the "little guy", the common-man, Socialists seem to forget that Socialism has always been about total power. It's all about total government control of all aspects of society. It limits individual freedoms in a big way and is often racist. The entire history of the political left demonstrates this. Hitler, remember he was the head of the Nationalist Socialist Party, Stalin, and Mao were all left-wingers. They all subscribed to the left wing of the political spectrum, and they were all mass murderers, as well as being racist. The political left, East Germany and the Soviet Union, were Idi Amin's biggest supporters. They remained that way even after he was known to be a total psychopath.
Well, I can sell this to someone who is willing to wait until the opportune time to create the car and profit from it.
What you're talking about is a company with deep enough pockets to actually be able to produce your car that can afford to wait to develop it.
A patent troll would never actually create the car. They only own patents so they can sue orgs with deep pockets that actually do produce something. They do nothing but look at products with the idea of seeing if they can apply one of their patents to the product and then claim patent infringement and sue. They produce nothing, but siphon off vast sums of money for lawyer's pockets and sometimes some for themselves too when they win.
In your example if a patent troll bought your patent they would hold it until someone tried to build an electric car like you had designed, and then sue them. Your idea would never come to fruition. It would be used as a hammer with which to beat on other inventors.
That was funny.
BTW, I really like your signature. Most of what people want to claim to want as freedom today is actually license for licentiousness.
LOL. Who's so afraid of losing karma that they won't post using their handles here? Not me.
You lose, AC.
So, come on mods, mod me down. I'm taking an unpopular position so do the usual /. moderation tango and vote the unpopular position down. That's what's done here the vast majority of time. Curse, swear, and insult conservatives in a post here and you're normally modded as insightful on /.
Stand up for a conservative who got mad and fought back using the same language used against his position on an everyday basis before the jackasses were, in an unusual /. action, modded down and I'm a troll.
Then the AC's, who wouldn't publicly defend abusive behavior, because it is abusive behavior, but who privately endorse the abusive behavior attack me and mods of the same stripe pile on. Yeah, I'm quite the troll, if you endorse abusive behavior that is.
So, come on. Mod me down and show your real stripes. Prove who you are and what your side stands for. You do know the Nazis were Socialists don't you? So when you accuse conservatives as acting like Nazis you're only accusing them of acting like people of your own political persuasion. Like yourselves. You act like baby Nazis here on /. on a regular basis.
Compare WTO protestors in Seattle with Tea Party rallies. Who destroys property? Who fights with the cops? Who creates interruptions for everyone? Not the Tea Party people. It's the Socialists that do that. It's the Socialists who use violence. It's the Socialists who have used bigotry, violence, class warfare, and mass murder to gain power. Those are facts of history. We've fought world wars against Socialism because its so evil, and that's the agenda you guys choose to support.
I'm not trolling. I'm just no longer going to be quiet while I and my fellow citizens have our freedoms stolen by those practicing a deceptive agenda. It's my duty as an American with a sense of history, and a sense of justice, to speak up and I'll continue to do it. You can mod me to oblivion, but you can't shut me up. It's my right as an American to speak my mind, just like it is your right to speak yours. The difference between us is that I'll support your right to free speech, but you want to try to deny me mine.
You're ignoring the fact that the only relationship I have with the guy is based on me complaining about the service I am paying the company he works for provides. He knows me because I've complained so many times over the 10 years I've subscribed to their service. In the first year after they took over the cable system here I talked to him at least a dozen times. That's how bad their service was at first. I used to lose connection several times a week. I haven't had occasion to talk to him after they improved the reliability of my connection until now.
We've never seen, or talked with, each other outside of that context. It's not like we're friends. We're not. We're not enemies either. I doubt we even qualify as acquaintances. We've just had contact over the years. I may not even recognize him if he was away from work and not wearing his work uniform.
LOL. Another anonymous coward calling me coward. Oooohhhhh. I'm intimidated. What's the matter? Can't risk your karma?
The point is that these guys are so afraid of losing karma, or having someone put them on their "foes" list, that they won't post with their username. That's cowardly by any definition I've ever seen. Do you think they're called AC's for no reason. I'm just re-stating what the AC moniker says in the first place.
Sure, I could post with "a" real name, as many do here, but that doesn't always mean that it is "their" real name. And, yeah, some well-known guys like Bruce Perens post here as themselves, but that's because their name lends weight to their side of the issues they weigh in on. Nobody would know me from Adam, even if I posted with my real name, so posting using an alias deducts nothing from whatever impact I have I have to say might have.
I see both you AC's don't have enough courage to come out into the open and post as yourselves.
Until you man_up, or woman_up, whichever the case may be, and post publicly I refuse give your comments any meaningful response.
Cowards.
Get a grip. Don't demean the sacrifices made at Tiananmen Square with this far less serious bad behavior on the part of my ISP. The two situations aren't slightly close to be moral equivalents.
Here we go again.
This guy is modded flamebait for being far less offensive than the idiots above him, and actually giving reasons for his positions. Just another example of moderator bias and hypocrisy on /. As if you mods that modded him down wouldn't respond with anger to being being slandered yourselves.
Come on mods. This is funny. It's great satire. Mod this guy up.
Well, actually I complained to the local head of their internet service department. I've known him for several years. I got to know him when his company first moved into this area and their service was very unreliable. Since I work from home I require a dependable service so he and I talked on a regular basis. We hadn't talked in years, but he still remembered me.
I don't know at this point. I haven't experienced it lately, but that doesn't mean they aren't still doing it.
A lot of people complain about my ISP but I've found them pretty reasonable. When they first moved into this area their service was really bad, and expensive. In the years since then though they've actually lowered their prices, increased their speeds and usage caps, and become very reliable. If I have a service interruption they are there that day, not a week later.
Who says I support "file sharing", as in taking copyrighted work without permission?
I have never downloaded a song or movie. I have always purchased all my music, and never buy movies as that doesn't interest me. I just don't buy any music any more. But, that's because of the actions of the RIAA. If they acted ethically I would most likely still be buying music that interests me.
You make some huge assumptions with absolutely no evidence to back them up. You can search all my posts here and you will never find me supporting perceived theft as a way to combat out-of-control copyright laws. You will find me arguing against that kind of behavior.
Who knows? They have been quite responsive to complaints about services in the past. Even if I don't get an immediate response my voice was heard. They do know at least one of their customers was angry about their conduct. Should I just silently accept them screwing with me and not voice my concerns? That seems to me a guarantee that they won't change their ways.
From your post it seems that you think not standing up for yourself is the way to change things. Don't vote. Don't express your opinion. Be a martyr. How's that working for you? Effecting a lot of change in society are you?
Can an ISP just start re-directing search traffic at will?
Not in my book. My ISP started doing some redirection and they got an immediate complaint from me. In person, at their local office. If there was an alternative to their service I would have switched ISP's immediately.
Yawn, FDR's social justice policies had more to do with extending the Great Depression than any tariff. IOW's, massive increases in government size, spending and increased taxes hurt the economy more than anything else.
And, no, jobs don't decide to move. Organizations decide to move jobs based on greed, and the government makes it easy for them.
And, yes, our country is in fine economic shape. We only have approximately 1/5 of our workers without jobs. Ah, just a drop in the bucket. No big deal according to you.... Who needs an employed workforce? We'll just sell our products to those people who don't have any money....
I say that's a whole lot of people not buying anything other than what's needed to survive. The engine that makes the economy go is broken. Why? At least in part because greedy idiots thought they could make more money for themselves by sending the fuel for the US economy's engine out of country. Mortgage crisis? In part because the jobs to pay for those mortgages went to some other country.
Yup. Real great thinking. Let's cut off our nose to spite our face.
This papers please attitude was one of the things most decried about the Socialists back in the early 1940's.
FTFY
Oh, you mean the Socialists who ran Germany in the late 30's and 40's. You know, that political group who so often violated people's rights. The political party that murdered people by the millions.
How would they enforce this law legally? Well, your chances of being asked for your papers is greatly reduced if you don't go around committing a crime such as home invasion, murder, kidnapping, selling illegal drugs, etc.... You know, the crimes that are so rampant on the Arizona border that more 70% of the citizens of Arizona asked for this law.
If you don't break traffic laws you're not going to get pulled over just to check your papers. If you are you're going to have the chance to sue. If you do break a traffic law and get pulled over don't get paranoid. Don't run. Don't get involved in a high-speed chase. When you're asked for your drivers license hand it over politely rather than screaming at the officer. You know, act reasonably so you don't arouse reasonable suspicion.
You're worried about your rights, but what about the rights of the citizens of Arizona to live peaceably and without fear in their own homes? Where you live do you fear home invasion on a daily basis? Do you fear being kidnapped and held until you agree to pay someone else's drug debt, or the fees to pay a coyote to smuggle your kidnapper's buddies or family across the border? These things occur along the Arizona border on a daily basis. How long would you put up with that? How long would you put up with gangs of illegal immigrants doing that to your friends, family, neighbors, or yourself?
Do your rights trump the rights of the citizens of Arizona? If so, what makes you so special?
Google "home invasions Arizona" and see what shows up, and think about what it would be like to live where you live if that was happening every day where you live. Would you be asking for it to be stopped? Would you be saying get rid of these criminals, or would you be worrying that the cops might pull you over?
You're right it's not charity. It's not trade either, when the jobs used to be American jobs. It's stealing jobs from the citizens of the US and then giving them to the citizens of another country. It's enriching a citizen of another country at the expense of your own citizens. It's enriching another country at your own country's expense. Seems pretty self-defeating to me. Bankrupting yourself to "help" someone else is never a good thing. It's irresponsible at best.
That was the point of my post. What socialists see as "charity" isn't charity. Charity is the generosity that lives in the heart of the individual doing the giving. A third party taking money from your pocket, and/or mine, and giving it to someone else isn't charity. When it's the government doing it, it's theft at the point of a gun.
Well, you need to make me happy by giving me 25% of your wealth. I guess since you believe in the spread_the_wealth_around philosophy you won't have any problem with my request.
If you do, I'll petition Obama to make you give me your wealth. He likes taking wealth from one person and giving it to someone else. He calls that charity on the part of the person from whom he takes money. So, I want him to make you charitable, whether you like it or not.
eah thats right that bitch should have made the rapist put on a condom if she didn't want to have a kid
That's quite a spectacular fail as a troll.
Thanks for the kind words ajlisows. I re-read my post and the number of typos and just plain bad grammar in places tell me it's far less than eloquent. It did come from my heart though. So did your post, and I appreciate your candor and thoughtfulness.
You say your friend's outcome was good, and that's a good thing. I'm happy for her. I do wonder, though, what she thinks about when she lies awake in bed late at night, or in her most introspective moments. Does she look back and regret that abortion during those times? I wouldn't want to ask her, as that would be opening a really bad memory for her and very unkind on my part, but I still wonder. My bet is that she does.
Living with ending a life is not an easy thing to do, and it stays with most people for rest of their life. Yes, they may be able to get on with their lives even with that regret, but it's still there below the surface. A friend of mine killed two of his buddies in an accident. He ground them to hamburger when he ran over them with a fully loaded semi. A third driver's idiocy knocked their motorcycle down 10 feet in front of his truck while all three vehicles where traveling at highway speeds. It was a gruesome accident and it took a couple of hours to get all the hair, skin, meat, and blood out of the wheels and off the undercarriage of the truck. The accident wasn't his fault in the least, but that doesn't keep it from bothering him 30+ years later, and it isn't because of the gruesomeness of the accident. It's the fact that he killed two of his buddies. They were waving to him one second, and under his wheels the next.
He didn't choose to kill his buddies and it will still haunt him till the day he dies. The level of regret for choosing to kill your own child must be intense. That's one regret I wouldn't wish on anyone, and wouldn't want to experience myself. I pity anyone who has to live with it.
The point is that choosing to not end a life is still the preferable choice. It's a far more moral choice, and one that leads to far fewer regrets. Doing the honorable thing, the right thing, isn't always easy, but it always leads to increased self respect. That holds true for all the moral choices we're faced with in life.
That said, you have a good day. I appreciate your attitude.