Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/3/2001 10:38:59 AM EDT
GUN RIGHTS - If you are born a citizen, you get your rights (ALL 10 of them, not just those currently popular), until you prove yourself unsuitable to have them. PERIOD. This means you can have guns UNTIL you shoot up a 7-11. Applies to all other rights as well. You can believe any religion UNTIL you start wacking your kids cause they were possessed by SATAN. LEGAL SYSTEM - We do need lawyers, just not so many. We have two Senators for every state and I think an equal number of lawyers would be sufficient. What we need most are JUDGES. And these judges should not necessarily have been lawyers but ordinary, responsible, educated people. You take your case to the judge, tell BOTH sides in plain English and he makes the judgement. If he just can't figure it out, every state has 2 lawyers to consult with. HOMOSEXUALITY - Should NOT even be an issue I have to concern myself with. If your gay your gay and if not your not. This should ONLY be an issue for homosexuals and NOT the entire nation. My heterosexuality has little bearning on my paying taxes, feeding my family, etc. If homosexuals force non homosexuals to deal with THEIR issue we might just start listening to those guys who want to throw you in camps and be done with it. AND WHERE THE HELL IS "MY" PARADE DAMMIT! How come only YOU guys get a parade? IMMIGRATION - We all came from somewhere else, even the Native Americans probably were NOT indiginous. Plus we understand your desire to leave your shithole country. We'd get the hell out of Haiti too, you guys have really screwed those places up. However if you sneak in we will shoot you as a spy or infiltrator. Also, after you LEGALLY immigrate you are now an AMERICAN. Act like it. In adddition you deserve NO civil liberties at all, UNTIL you become a citizen. You will also be expected to work just a little harder and generally be held to a higher standard than those born here. If you DON'T like that, go back. RACE - One of the stupidest issues of all time. You are a different color. So what? Why does pigement or lack thereof entitle you to anything? Do you need special rights because you are not as capable of being a honest hard working citizen? If yes you just proved the argument of every racist in the world. If you were born here, you get the same rights as everyone else until YOU fuck it up for YOURSELF. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyway, it's a start.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 10:50:28 AM EDT
Well, I'm glad THATS solved. And to think of all the time I spent worrying about this stuff.........
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 10:53:03 AM EDT
Very good Aug. Garandman's Amendments - GUN RIGHTS - 7-11 customers who cap psychotic scumbags who would shoot up a 7-11 will receive a tax credit. 100% tax credit. And it will save the prisons about $50K a year in housing said scumbag POS. LEGAL SYSTEM - We need more judges. More specifically, we need more HANGING judges. Like Clint Eastwood's "Hang 'Em High" judge. And they can start by getting us down to Aug's preset limit of two lawyers per state. HOMOSEXUALITY - no amendments necessary IMMIGRATION - never has been said bettter. Aug gets my vote for INS Director. RACE - Yup. If you view yourself as not part of America BECAUSE you are black (see Al Sharpton's recent comments) then let's make it official. Get out. NOW. Overall, excellent work Auggie.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 10:57:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: GUN RIGHTS - 7-11 customers who cap psychotic scumbags who would shoot up a 7-11 will receive a tax credit. 100% tax credit.
View Quote
And I would want free Slurpees for life.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 10:57:22 AM EDT
**wipes single tear from left cheek** Proud to be an American....wish I could be a SteyrAug American... Couldnt agree with you more.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 11:30:56 AM EDT
Boyz, boyz, boyz, there is no reason to get sideways with lawyers. Lawyers and regular folks can peacefully coexist in this great country. Probably. Surely. Remember at the time that lawyers were putting the finishing touches on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the empowering acts that set it all in motion, physicians were busy killing George Washington by bleeding him to death! So all things in perpective, lads. Now, if you wish to do away with [b]personal[/b] injury lawyers, or [b]contingency[/b] fee contracts, then I'm all with you on that! And the failure rate among first year law students in ABA-accredited law schools is at 50%. So even the law schools are putting the breaks on new lawyers. Eric The(non-ABAMember)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 11:36:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Now, if you wish to do away with [b]personal[/b] injury lawyers, or [b]contingency[/b] fee contracts, then I'm all with you on that! Eric The(non-ABAMember)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Right on, now only the rich elitists and large corporations will be able to hire lawyers.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 11:47:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Remember at the time that lawyers were putting the finishing touches on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the empowering acts that set it all in motion, physicians were busy killing George Washington by bleeding him to death! :)]
View Quote
ETH - YOu of all people employing revisionist history. I am shocked [:D] Actually, I believe a majority of the Signers were businessmen, NOT lawyers. And NONE of them chased ambulances. [:D] And besides, in the 230+ years since then, at least the doctors have figgered out the blood needs to stay IN their clients. Comparatively, lawyers consinue to suck it out. [}:D] I know you are a lawyer. We'll fit you in as one of the two your state are allowed to have. If you got any good lawyer friends that are ALSO pro-gun, please submit their names to the Committee. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 11:51:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kikomax: Right on, now only the rich elitists and large corporations will be able to hire lawyers.
View Quote
gee, how do I say this without it seeming like a flame...let's try this... Man, that sounds an awful lot like a quip from the "Gore for President" campaign trail. Unemployment sucks, don't it Kikomax. [}:D] Double layer nomex on. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 11:58:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: And besides, in the 230+ years since then, at least the doctors have figgered out the blood needs to stay IN their clients. Comparatively, lawyers consinue to suck it out. [}:D]
View Quote
[b][size=5]Oh![/size=5][/b] There's a shot over the bow! [;D] [:D] [;D] [:D] [;D] [:D] [;D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 12:01:43 PM EDT
All "ten" rights? The first amendment alone enumerates at least four, depending on how you count them: religion, speech, press & assembly. And let's not forget the Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 12:14:00 PM EDT
What about doing away with the IRS? I remember reading in National Review about some little ex-Soviet country (was it Lithuania?) that had a flat 10(?)% tax. You do your taxes on a post card, and mail it in. Their version of the IRS was a little house in the countryside with one secretary and two beaurocrats. The guy being interviewed said something like, "We saw your (American) IRS, and we didn't want that." No kiddin! We don't want that, either. "But we(the government) can't make it on 10%..." Well, tighten your belt man, and live within your means. That's what ALL the rest of us have to do. --------- "We want to be free to ride our machines without being hassled by The Man."
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 12:31:17 PM EDT
SteyrAug, could I add the MierinMd provision to Article II (Legal System)? Tort Reform - "Lawyers who fail to win frivilous lawsuit claims must pay all court costs and an appropriate punitive damage to the defendent"
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 12:43:23 PM EDT
Plus, all govt. surplus, anything from pencil sharpeners to mags, should go back to the people in some form or another. If auctioned, the proceeds should serve as a tax credit based on how much you pay in taxes. The govt. thinks they own everything, especially our income, and it's time we took some back. Ohh... I think I see a black Suburban with tinted windows pulling into the driveway...
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 12:43:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: IMMIGRATION - ...In adddition you deserve NO civil liberties at all, UNTIL you become a citizen.
View Quote
And this is because... ?
You will also be expected to work just a little harder and generally be held to a higher standard than those born here.
View Quote
And this is because... ? Ignorant minds want to know.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:10:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2001 1:07:29 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Originally Posted By ckapsl:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: IMMIGRATION - ...In adddition you deserve NO civil liberties at all, UNTIL you become a citizen.
View Quote
And this is because... ?
View Quote
Because they are not YET US citizens. When they BECOME US citizens they will earn the same rights and privledges OF a US citizen.
You will also be expected to work just a little harder and generally be held to a higher standard than those born here. And this is because... ? Ignorant minds want to know.
View Quote
Because we are "generally" mistrustful of new arrivals. But what is the problem? They get a job and act within the law, they eventually demonstrate that they deserve credit and as a result will get it. The above is just my way of saying don't show up looking to improve YOUR situation with OUR tax dollars. The majority of Americans work hard for their money. They hate to pay taxes even when it goes to something good like roads and programs beneficial to EVERYONE. When this money goes to special interests oe those who just got here, we get pissed.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:13:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By ckapsl:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: IMMIGRATION - ...In adddition you deserve NO civil liberties at all, UNTIL you become a citizen.
View Quote
And this is because... ?
View Quote
Because they are not YET US citizens. When they BECOME US citizens they will earn the same rights and privledges OF a US citizen. When I have guests over to my house, they DO NOT have any rights in my house. They are GUESTS, and guests only have PRIVILEDGES, which are at the whim of the homeowner. So, I am with Auggie here. Not a citizen? NO RIGHTS.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:14:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: Very good Aug. Garandman's Amendments - GUN RIGHTS - 7-11 customers who cap psychotic scumbags who would shoot up a 7-11 will receive a tax credit. 100% tax credit. And it will save the prisons about $50K a year in housing said scumbag POS.
View Quote
Well NOT 100% tax credit. US citizens who kill scumbags are performing "civic duty." They should be reimbursed for spent ammo and the store should "offer" 10% of the criminals take. They should also receive official recognition.
LEGAL SYSTEM - We need more judges. More specifically, we need more HANGING judges. Like Clint Eastwood's "Hang 'Em High" judge. And they can start by getting us down to Aug's preset limit of two lawyers per state.
View Quote
Only for "hangin'" offences.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:18:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By kikomax: Right on, now only the rich elitists and large corporations will be able to hire lawyers.
View Quote
gee, how do I say this without it seeming like a flame...let's try this... Man, that sounds an awful lot like a quip from the "Gore for President" campaign trail. Unemployment sucks, don't it Kikomax. [}:D] Double layer nomex on. [:D]
View Quote
No flame taken. It just irritates me when PI lawyers are bashed, especially by other lawyers. Frankly, I find it hypocritical. Kind of like saying only .38's and 10/22's are OK to own but not those FAL's and AR's. Now, where can I find this Ms. Unemployment? Does she suffer from TMJ? [:D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:20:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Norm_G: All "ten" rights? The first amendment alone enumerates at least four, depending on how you count them: religion, speech, press & assembly.
View Quote
All rights contained within the Bill of Rights or the first 10 ammendements of the Constitution. I took each amendment collectively.
And let's not forget the Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
View Quote
I didn't forget. The "people" that are citizens of THIS country enjoy all rights. The people of "other" countries do not UNTIL they become LEGAL citizens of this country.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:22:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kikomax: No flame taken. It just irritates me when PI lawyers are bashed, especially by other lawyers. Frankly, I find it hypocritical. Kind of like saying only .38's and 10/22's are OK to own but not those FAL's and AR's. Now, where can I find this Ms. Unemployment? Does she suffer from TMJ? [:D]
View Quote
There will ONLY be 2 lawyers of any kind per state. Personal injury cases can easily be solved without lawyers. The parties involved state what happened and a judge DECIDES.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:28:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: YOu of all people employing revisionist history. I am shocked [:D] Actually, I believe a majority of the Signers were businessmen, NOT lawyers. And NONE of them chased ambulances. [:D] And besides, in the 230+ years since then, at least the doctors have figgered out the blood needs to stay IN their clients. Comparatively, lawyers consinue to suck it out. [}:D] I know you are a lawyer. We'll fit you in as one of the two your state are allowed to have. If you got any good lawyer friends that are ALSO pro-gun, please submit their names to the Committee. [:D]
View Quote
I've got dibs on one of the CA lawyer slots. Southern CA, not San Fran. I will then re-educate the CA judiciary on the meaning of "shall not be infringed". Then I'll go hang out with the babes. One serious question...how exactly does the judge "decide"?
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:28:53 PM EDT
Right on. Purhaps less friction would result if a modification was made from "more expected from you" to "expect to be scrutinized more closely". Planerench out.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:32:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By garandman: Very good Aug. Garandman's Amendments - GUN RIGHTS - 7-11 customers who cap psychotic scumbags who would shoot up a 7-11 will receive a tax credit. 100% tax credit. And it will save the prisons about $50K a year in housing said scumbag POS.
View Quote
Well NOT 100% tax credit. US citizens who kill scumbags are performing "civic duty." They should be reimbursed for spent ammo and the store should "offer" 10% of the criminals take. They should also receive official recognition.
LEGAL SYSTEM - We need more judges. More specifically, we need more HANGING judges. Like Clint Eastwood's "Hang 'Em High" judge. And they can start by getting us down to Aug's preset limit of two lawyers per state.
View Quote
Only for "hangin'" offences.
View Quote
View Quote
i would like to add that if you perform your "civic duty" and neutralize a scumbag; then any weapons after a thourgh investigation be sold or auctioned with surplus at a cheap price. (this should'nt be to hard since most firearms used by criminals are cheap. ie-lorcins, Llama's, and RG's) you guys are in Raw form today. i dig it [:D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:35:24 PM EDT
I was just talking in the chat room last night about the topics lately being boring to read and then this happens... Thanks Steyr... [:D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:37:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2001 1:32:30 PM EDT by Libertoon]
Voting: you may not vote if you are not a US citizen or have been convictied of a Felony. only law-abiding US citizens may elect their representatives. in order to register to vote; you must show at least a comphrensive knoledge of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. if you do not understand your freedom and the "Law of the Land", then you should not be able to vote to affect it. voting lib ....also; if it is proved that a person purposefully voted more than once in a particular election, then all future voting rights are stripped. "lie" on a ballot; never on a ballot.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:44:38 PM EDT
I got it..... Citizens that cap a POS scumbag psycho killer at 7-11 will be awarded a full auto firearm of their choice. yeah, baby. [:D] make mine a 30-06 BAR. [}:D]
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 1:50:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By kikomax: No flame taken. It just irritates me when PI lawyers are bashed, especially by other lawyers. Frankly, I find it hypocritical. Kind of like saying only .38's and 10/22's are OK to own but not those FAL's and AR's. Now, where can I find this Ms. Unemployment? Does she suffer from TMJ? [:D]
View Quote
There will ONLY be 2 lawyers of any kind per state. Personal injury cases can easily be solved without lawyers. The parties involved state what happened and a judge DECIDES.
View Quote
I take it this Judge Judy will receive all her campaign contributions from either insurance or business interests. You want to solve problems? Start with campaign finance reform and then move on to eliminate lobbyists and then go after pork barrel giveaways. BTW Do you know where this Ms. Unemployment is? If G'man recommends her she must be something!
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 2:24:50 PM EDT
In adddition you deserve NO civil liberties at all, UNTIL you become a citizen... When they BECOME US citizens they will earn the same rights and privledges OF a US citizen.
View Quote
While I wholeheartedly agree with SteyrAUG's overall sentiment, I have a little problem the above. Non-citizens should have [i]no[/i] civil liberties until they are a citizen? Non-citizens have to [i]earn[/i] rights? While I believe we should be fairly strict on who we allow to pass through our borders, I don't believe the Founding Fathers ever intended for there to be two classes of people (race not withstanding). As the Declaration of Independence clearly states, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It doesn't say all citizens. It says all men. Our country was founded on the principle that everyone has rights that are unalienable. In other words, the rights can not be separated or taken away. It's OK to disagree with the Founding Fathers, The Constitution, and the ideals that this country were founded-up, but I think you should think twice before doing so.z
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 2:26:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Because they are not YET US citizens. When they BECOME US citizens they will earn the same rights and privledges OF a US citizen.
View Quote
When I have guests over to my house, they DO NOT have any rights in my house. They are GUESTS, and guests only have PRIVILEDGES, which are at the whim of the homeowner. So, I am with Auggie here. Not a citizen? NO RIGHTS.
View Quote
Cool, does this mean that I can go down to my neighbor's yard, and find his part-time lawn mowing guy (who I happen to know is not a US citizen) and beat him to a pulp? Or is it OK for the feds to do it? I mean, he is a non-citizens and has no rights, correct? But if it's not right for me to do that, why is that? Could that be because he is still a human being and still has those inconvenient inalienable god-given rights that the Declaration of Independence talks about? Persons much better than I came up with this scribbling about 130 years ago: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are [b][u]citizens[/u][/b] of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of [b][u]citizens[/u][/b] of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any [b][u]person[/u][/b] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any [b][u]person[/u][/b] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The above is Amendment 14 to the US Constitution, passed after the Civil War. Note the distinction between [u][b]citizen[/u][/b] and [u][b]person[/u][/b] and the explicit mention of the rights of mere persons. Of course, this is only the Constitution, and we can ignore the parts we don't like.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 2:37:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: The above is just my way of saying don't show up looking to improve YOUR situation with OUR tax dollars. The majority of Americans work hard for their money. They hate to pay taxes even when it goes to something good like roads and programs beneficial to EVERYONE. When this money goes to special interests or those who just got here, we get pissed.
View Quote
I fall into the category of "just got here", although I have been here for many many years. Knowing the tax burden on the average citizen, I know that I have paid more taxes into the system than 99% of the people on this board, and far more than I will ever get back in any way, shape or form. (This is not a statement of pride or superiority, just a simple statement of fact). The brush you paint with is rather broad, Steyr.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 2:40:32 PM EDT
Not bad AUG but, The BIg Issue IS............ The Interstate Commerce Clause!!!! More evil has been perpetrated on the American people because of this one little snippet of the constitution than anything else in our history. I'm sure it's not what the founders intended. I for one would like to know how this clause got perverted into the present state its in. Any comments?
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 2:48:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheHappyBlaster: The Interstate Commerce Clause!!!! More evil has been perpetrated on the American people because of this one little snippet of the constitution than anything else in our history. I'm sure it's not what the founders intended. I for one would like to know how this clause got perverted into the present state its in. Any comments?
View Quote
I agree. The history of this goes something like: FDR starting enacting his New Deal legislation in the early 1930s. The Supreme Court started striking down his New Deal legislation one by one, on the grounds that none of the legislation fell under one of the enumerated powers of the Federal government. FDR then publicly threatened to increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court, and pack the court with judges that he nominated and that the Democratic Senate would approve. Faced with this possibility (which would likely have fizzled out, actually), the Supreme Court backpedalled, and found, in the Commerce Clause, a face-saving method. They said that Congress could: Regulate interstate commerce, and, Regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, such as trains, airlines, etc, and, Regulate purely intrastate commerce that had a "substantial" effect on interstate commerce. And who is to say what substantial is? Why, Congress, of course! This is why almost every law passed by Congress now includes a finding, that the activity being regulated has a "substantial" effect on interstate commerce.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 3:01:54 PM EDT
SteyrAug, you forgot some meaningful election reforms. Individuals may only contribute to the campaigns in the district that represents them. (known as the "no more Hollywood money for Hillary" rule) No corporate/organization contributions allowed at all. That makes local elections just that - local. Government ID is required at the polling place to vote. You cannot be receiving a government handout if you want to vote. That represents a conflict of interest. Social Security excluded until SteyrAug repeals it and gives us our money back.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 3:23:12 PM EDT
[b]VERY[/b] well put SA. Maybe my favorite post of yours, of all time. Tyler
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 3:59:33 PM EDT
Yes it's thoughtful and intellectual posts like this that keep me coming back to the board. (ok....it's really the soft-core porn, but what the hell I'm here anyway, I may as well participate) I know lawyer-bashing is a popular pastime, but it's funny how everybody wants one around when they get busted for something stupid or are otherwise in need. (No I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even know any personally. Everything I know I learned from watching human behaviour) Anyway, I hate to piss on the campfire but statements like this
You cannot be receiving a government handout if you want to vote. That represents a conflict of interest. Social Security excluded until SteyrAug repeals it and gives us our money back.
View Quote
really make me giggle like a schoolgirl. I know all about the evil of those gub'mint handouts...you know, the little things like rocket motor plants and super-conducting super-colliders, and phat-ass navy shipbuilding contracts, and those wackt 'star wars' laser beamin' thaad missile research deals dey gots goin' on. How do I gets me some o' dat?! Oh yeah, and going hand-in-hand are all those bazillion little mom and pop machine shops and furniture stores and construction companies that get dey cool G's when the pork is larded around in dey area. I don't think any of the folks working for any of these firms should be able to vote either, do you? I mean, it represents a conflict of interest right?
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 4:20:36 PM EDT
SteyrAUG FOR PRESIDENT!!!! At least I know I have something in common with you guys!
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 4:46:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ckapsl:
Originally Posted By TheHappyBlaster: The Interstate Commerce Clause!!!! More evil has been perpetrated on the American people because of this one little snippet of the constitution than anything else in our history. I'm sure it's not what the founders intended. I for one would like to know how this clause got perverted into the present state its in. Any comments?
View Quote
I agree. The history of this goes something like: FDR starting enacting his New Deal legislation in the early 1930s. The Supreme Court started striking down his New Deal legislation one by one, on the grounds that none of the legislation fell under one of the enumerated powers of the Federal government. FDR then publicly threatened to increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court, and pack the court with judges that he nominated and that the Democratic Senate would approve. Faced with this possibility (which would likely have fizzled out, actually), the Supreme Court backpedalled, and found, in the Commerce Clause, a face-saving method. They said that Congress could: Regulate interstate commerce, and, Regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, such as trains, airlines, etc, and, Regulate purely intrastate commerce that had a "substantial" effect on interstate commerce. And who is to say what substantial is? Why, Congress, of course! This is why almost every law passed by Congress now includes a finding, that the activity being regulated has a "substantial" effect on interstate commerce.
View Quote
ckapsl, thanx for the low-down. It surprises me not a whit that FDR was behind the whole damn mess. ( I don't even want to get into all the other stuff he screwed up). Never ceases to amaze me what you can learn here.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 5:42:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2001 5:47:37 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Originally Posted By dbrowne1: One serious question...how exactly does the judge "decide"?
View Quote
The judge will decide based upon the few laws that we leave remaining on the books and a general sense of what is right, wrong and fair. This is why lawyers will be mostly unsuitable for these positions.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 5:43:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Planerench: Right on. Purhaps less friction would result if a modification was made from "more expected from you" to "expect to be scrutinized more closely". Planerench out.
View Quote
Noted. Please substitute "term of indentured servitude" and "under goddamn surveilence."
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 5:50:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: While I wholeheartedly agree with SteyrAUG's overall sentiment, I have a little problem the above. Non-citizens should have [i]no[/i] civil liberties until they are a citizen? Non-citizens have to [i]earn[/i] rights? While I believe we should be fairly strict on who we allow to pass through our borders, I don't believe the Founding Fathers ever intended for there to be two classes of people (race not withstanding). As the Declaration of Independence clearly states, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It doesn't say all citizens. It says all men. Our country was founded on the principle that everyone has rights that are unalienable. In other words, the rights can not be separated or taken away. It's OK to disagree with the Founding Fathers, The Constitution, and the ideals that this country were founded-up, but I think you should think twice before doing so.z
View Quote
Waited for this. True all men are created equal. Does that mean a person in Bejing may just start exercising his personal liberty? Wanna know why? He is a subject and citizen of China. And he will continue to be UNTIL he becomes a US citizen. I don't advocate closing the boarders. Anyone may become a US citizen assuming there is nothing to prevent that from being done lawfully. But until that time, they ARE NOT US citizens and should not enjoy the rights of citizens. They should not vote, benefit from tax dollars directly, serve in the US military or public office or even own a gun. They SHOULD immediately apply for citizenship. Obtain gainful employment. And begin living a far better quality of life than what they left behind.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 5:55:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ckapsl: I fall into the category of "just got here", although I have been here for many many years. Knowing the tax burden on the average citizen, I know that I have paid more taxes into the system than 99% of the people on this board, and far more than I will ever get back in any way, shape or form. (This is not a statement of pride or superiority, just a simple statement of fact). The brush you paint with is rather broad, Steyr.
View Quote
What specifically do you object to? To answer your question posed to Garandman, new arrivals who are not yet citizens do have "human rights." They just do not yet have, or deserve "citizen rights." This is why you take the effort to become a citizen.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 6:13:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2001 6:20:06 PM EDT by ckapsl]
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By ckapsl: I fall into the category of "just got here", although I have been here for many many years. Knowing the tax burden on the average citizen, I know that I have paid more taxes into the system than 99% of the people on this board, and far more than I will ever get back in any way, shape or form. (This is not a statement of pride or superiority, just a simple statement of fact). The brush you paint with is rather broad, Steyr.
View Quote
What specifically do you object to?
View Quote
I specifically object to the self-righteousness of your assumption that all immigrants are dangerous free loaders. I would hazard a guess that through your many years of service in the DEA, 90% of the foreigners that you have met are violent drug runners. The vast majority of immigrants are not like that - they are decent and hard working people who are not asking for any favors and get weary of being lumped in the same groups as the criminals. Kinda sorta like gun owners.
To answer your question posed to Garandman, new arrivals who are not yet citizens do have "human rights." They just do not yet have, or deserve "citizen rights."
View Quote
"Citizen rights" are already quite well defined and established in the law of the land, if you would read through it. The following rights are, and always have been reserved to citizens: The right to vote. The right to run for public office. The right to serve on a jury. The right to receive such public benefits as the government may decide to dole out (although I personally believe that the government has no power to do so). Incidentally, you refer to military service as a citizen right. Again, if you read through the law of the land, it would tell you that all permanent resident aliens are part of the militia of the United States and have to register for the draft like any citizen. The rights of all persons, not just citizens include: The right to life, liberty and property The rights to freedom of religion and speech The right to own and use a gun lawfully, including for defense of self, family and home. The Second Amendment refers to the right of the "people", not the right of the "citizens"
This is why you take the effort to become a citizen.
View Quote
Agreed. Although I wonder if you know what that entails. A waiting period of five years is a start.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 6:23:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2001 6:17:43 PM EDT by ckapsl]
My personal belief on the subject of immigration is that the United States has the absolute sovereign right to control its borders, and to limit immigration to ZERO if it so desires. The present system attempts to identify "desirable" people and allow them to immigrate, but it is far from perfect and can and should be reformed. But once immigrants have been lawfully admitted, and as long as they maintain good behavior (and staying off public benefits is considered part of the good behavior, per [u]existing[/u] immigration law), they cannot be treated as a second class of persons, to be dumped on upon the government's whim. As a nation, we have tried this "second class" business before, and it didn't work very well.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:28:06 PM EDT
Might this unworthy venture forth a few ideas...? Gun Rights - The RKBA is NO LONGER infringed - you can have what you want, how you want, and we will only come after you in the event you use it. Do it wrong, get the axe. Do it right, we go away. Legal System - two lawyers per state could result in burnout. Apportion as we do Electoral College votes - one per Federal representative, and one for the government "just in case." Total - 538. Plenty. Legal specialisations are voided, you must be a generalist. Congress and Senate MUST spend AT LEAST HALF of EACH session reviewing laws for removal or annullment. I have a principle I am working on to do just this. ALL laws are to be written or rewritten in plain English as used by ninth grade students. This allows the text to be as detailed as required, but easy enough to read for all. All laws and official documents/communications/procedures are to be carried out in American English ONLY, and those who do not understand the language are responsible to provide their own interpreters or to secure their own language education. Any laws enacted shall be published prominently, and made available to all residents for no or minimal cost. Such cost shall cover ONLY the cost of printing, copying, and distribution. Example - in most states, the Vehicle Code can be had for a nominal fee - usually three to five dollars. If ignorance is no excuse, let us make that phrase REALLY mean something. Lawsuits - In an effort to curb frivolous lawsuits, the party who loses shall be liable for ALL costs incurred by both sides as DIRECTLY related to the matter before the court. Chanrges and fees percieved as tangential to the case shall be subject to review. Law Enforcement Actions - No LEO shall be able to hide behind the Nuremburg Defence - Lon Horiuchi take note! If it can be shown that the LEO was acting upon information or procedures in good faith, no fault. However, mistaken identities and the like shall be investigated thoroly, and parties truly wronged shall be compensated in some manner. Individuals meeting their demise thru a terminal case of stupidity shall be left to rot. In NO case shall a lawyer become a judge, as they have a vested interest in the system. Judges are best lay people who are truly seperate form the matter at hand, and may be punished severely for failing to recuse themselves if a conflict of interest is discovered. Jury Selection - Jury panels shall be selected from the populace at large. An example of such selection shall be the notification of a group of people, handled in a manner similar to this: Selected for the week - 1000. Five day calendar week. Monday 0900 - 001-100 report for selection. Monday 1300 - 101-200 report for selection, those not chosen from prior pool dismissed from service Tuesday 0900 - 201-300 report for selection Tuesday 1300 - 301-400 report, as Monday. The rest of the week in like manner. Simply put - you have a definite time to report in. You do not have to put your life and affairs on hold for a full week, you can PLAN on losing a half-day (and likely no more.) If you are not selected when you report, YOU ARE DONE.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:28:38 PM EDT
(PART 2) Homosexuality - That's not MY problem, I'm not interested. And, as stated elsewhere (and paraphrased,) if I don't get a parade, neither do you. Besides, it has only gotten in my way while trying to work... Immigration - If you havfe something to contribute, you may come in. You may NOT, however, bring two or three dozen of your relatives with you. Coming to America is not a one-way ticket - we will allow you to leave for vacations and suchlike - and return. Of course, if you relations have something THEY can offer seperately, they are welcome... Race - Your colour entitles you to NOTHING. Affirmative action has become the vermiform appendix of American Jurisprudence, and should be excised as such. Hate Crimes - I have never heard of someone being murdered because they were liked. Duh. Murderers need to be put to the chair, period. No "enhancements" (you can only kill a person dead.) No nonsense. No bother. FFZ
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 7:41:38 PM EDT
You need to run for president.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:09:47 PM EDT
FreeFireZone, nice post.
[the law] made available to all residents for no or minimal cost.
View Quote
Agreed! I had to remove quotes on a web page from South Carolina state law, because the state claims ownership of the law and control of all methods of distribution. Reminds me of the middle ages where the law was a secret, but the peons still had to obey it.
ALL laws are to be written or rewritten in plain English
View Quote
I violently agree. The problem is that English isn't a very exact language. A computer program/math equation would be more exact. For example: barrel_length = distance(chamber, muzzle); IF ((barrel_length > 16") AND (overall_length > 26") THEN rifle_legal = TRUE; You can't argue with math. Something of that sort would be a barrier to learning the law, but once the methods were learned, they could be used elsewhere. Legislators are trying to create very exact sets of rules with text. There is a reason we don't use English when programming.
Lawsuits - In an effort to curb frivolous lawsuits, the party who loses shall be liable for ALL costs incurred by both sides as DIRECTLY related to the matter before the court.
View Quote
As I understand it, this is the way it is in England. It doesn't work as well as you would think. An average individual usually won't sue a large corporation, because they can't afford to take a chance on having to pay the company's large legal bills. Also, many lawsuits end in something near the statis quo. The judge would have to make a decision on which party would have to bear the burden. I like the idea on face-value, but I don't think it's as good of an idea as it first appears.
In NO case shall a lawyer become a judge, as they have a vested interest in the system.
View Quote
They know the most about the law, so they are, unfortunately, the natural choise. In South Carolina, most state magistrates know very little about the law and have very little experience with the law before becoming a magistrate. I've heard many stories where the magistrate has made the wrong decision due to lack of knowledge. The two magistrates that I know are former greeters at a mortuary. So, you either can get lawyers or people who don't know the law. It's not a great situation either way.
Coming to America is not a one-way ticket - we will allow you to leave for vacations and suchlike - and return.
View Quote
That is one [b]major[/b] problem with the current system. In order to become a citizen, you have to spend 5 years in the country with no trips longer than 6 months outside of the country. That's the law, but as I understand it, time out of the country is always held against you. I worked with an H1-B visa holder that couldn't go home for Christmas, because according to the terms of her visa, if she left the country, she couldn't return. That sounds too much like being under house-arrest. Also, a good friend of mine couldn't take his new wife to visit his home town or his parents in England, because he had to stay in the country. Officially, he could leave for up to six months over the first three years of marriage, but according to the INS agent handling his case and his lawyer, he shouldn't leave for any reason because his application for citizenship would be denied. It was denied anyway later, because, against his lawyer's advise, he kept his lake house.z
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:20:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ckapsl: I specifically object to the self-righteousness of your assumption that all immigrants are dangerous free loaders. I would hazard a guess that through your many years of service in the DEA, 90% of the foreigners that you have met are violent drug runners. The vast majority of immigrants are not like that - they are decent and hard working people who are not asking for any favors and get weary of being lumped in the same groups as the criminals. Kinda sorta like gun owners.
View Quote
I did NOT make that assumption. I only addressed the percentage of those who fit the criteria. Did you happen to notice the very first part where I stated we are ALL originally from somewhere? Somehow you have read "I hate immigrants" into my statement. I never said that. I also never suggested they be denied the protection of laws, etc. Again, you read that into my statement. All I did was state how I would address those SPECIFIC immigrants who come here to simply take advantage. Some are freeloaders and others are dangerous.
"Citizen rights" are already quite well defined and established in the law of the land, if you would read through it. The following rights are, and always have been reserved to citizens: The right to vote. The right to run for public office. The right to serve on a jury. The right to receive such public benefits as the government may decide to dole out (although I personally believe that the government has no power to do so).
View Quote
I simply restated as much.
Incidentally, you refer to military service as a citizen right. Again, if you read through the law of the land, it would tell you that all permanent resident aliens are part of the militia of the United States and have to register for the draft like any citizen.
View Quote
There are a LOT of laws I don't agree with, this being one. I don't feel foreign nationals have a militia obligation and should NOT be eligible for military service UNTIL they are a US citizen. Crazy huh?
hts of all persons, not just citizens include: The right to life, liberty and property The rights to freedom of religion and speech The right to own and use a gun lawfully, including for defense of self, family and home. The Second Amendment refers to the right of the "people", not the right of the "citizens"
View Quote
NOT TRUE. I know as a FFL I can only sell to US citizens. As for the rest, did you really get the idea that I would deprive "The right to life, liberty and property or The rights to freedom of religion and speech" from recent immigrants?
Agreed. Although I wonder if you know what that entails. A waiting period of five years is a start.
View Quote
Actually I do know. Surprisingly I know several "recent" Americans. And part of the problem that process is so long is we give them citizen rights BEFORE citizenship. If we were able to weed out unsuitable candidates for citizenship at the beginning stage the rest of them would move through ALOT faster. 5 years is a disgrace.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 8:24:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ckapsl: As a nation, we have tried this "second class" business before, and it didn't work very well.
View Quote
Trust me when I tell you my Great Grandfather was definitely treated as SECOND CLASS and had to prove himself continuously. This is far preferrable to Cuban rafters attacking the Coast Guard as it attempts to control our borders. Everyone knows what is considered the RIGHT WAY to do things, and I'm sure you know what that is as well. My only problem is with those who don't know or choose not to.
Link Posted: 12/3/2001 9:54:50 PM EDT
Yeah, and instead of prisons, we will have a place called HATEBREED island. This island will belong to and be run by me and for my great service I will be exempt from all taxes and laws. The island will be the state of hawaii and I will be the sole owner. People who mess up will be sent to my island until I decide they have been rehabilitated. On the island there will be enough work for everyone. Each resident of my island shall be permitted 2 hours each day to foridge for nuts and berries. My men and I will own many weapons while other residents caught carrying any weapon more deadly than a stick will be remanded to the place known as the pit. The pit is a giant trench 300 feet deep and 300 feet wide. This pit will also serve as a latrine for all "citizens" of the island. Relieving urine or excrement in places other than the pit will result in a lifetime stay in the pit. (Average lifespan of pit members is 3-5 days)If you have a dispute you may bring it to the attention of the court. The court will consist of one judge (me) who will resolve all disputes fairly. If you are found to be the guilty party in a dispute the innocent party will be allowed to have temporary use of a sharp object with which he is required to butcher you and eat your spleen. Failure to consume the entire spleen will result in said innocent party being fed to the sharks. Exemption from your crimes and extradition from HATEBREED island is attainable before I determine rather you have been rehabbed. The process requires a series of only 15 deathmatches, 2 semi finals and one final. Winner of the grand death match wins a steak dinner and his freedom. Deathmatches will be fought bare handed in a pit lined in barbwire with two giant skewed stakes, one in each "corner". The object is to snuff your adversaries and win your freedom. You may also win extradition from HATEBREED island by drinking a full quart of draino and surviving. This is known as the Draino test. Entry into death matches and the Draino test are fully voluntary unless I enter you on your behalf. Here at HATEBREED island we do have special exceptions for our "honored guests". "Honored Guests" consist of rapists and child molesters who will enjoy a much briefer stay at the HATEBREED HOTEL. Guests of the HATEBREED HOTEL will enjoy sodomization by a wild boar. They will then be taken to "the galley" where they will be beaten to death (or as close as we feel like getting you) with a ball peen hammer, butchered and served to residents of "the pit". We feel the rules here at HATEBREED island are very fair and quite easy to follow once you adjust. Failure to comply with all rules of HATEBREED island will result in public hanging.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top