Let me help you to dispel that notion:
So 5% would be an accurate assessment unless the population of the state or the number of DUIs has suddenly increased. And as you can see most people don't ever do it again, so draconian measures at the first arrest as you suggested would not be productive. It sounds like you want revenge much more than justice.
Wait, what? I think this is a matter of federal level, not states.
So...you want to solve illegal immigration by...enslaving them. Ok.
Democratic opinions on immigration are as differed as every other issue. The democratic party is a very diversified tent encompassing several different political opinions. As always, support what you're saying with evidence, and don't let the opinions of 1 or 2 democrats give you false impressions of every member of the party.
And yet California banne
LAWd gay marriage.... Most of California is actually very conservative. It's just the fact that the Bay Area, and the LA Area, which are themselves extremely liberal have such a large population compared to the rest of the state that they override the conservative bits.
What about abortion in the cases of rape or when the life of the mother is threatened?
How on earth could you hate your country so much? GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY YOU UNAMERICAN JERK!!
No. They were a bunch of treacherous rebels, much like ourselves when we first started the Revolutionary War. Unlike the South, however, we won.
)1. OK, let's say I killed someone because it makes me happy. Does "Pursit of happiness" apply to me.First off, please let me know which points you are responding to with your numbers. Its common curtousy.
7.I would consider them a nation as well.
They were also rebels I agree, but they were a nation.
No "We believe" there. People are endowed with the inalienable right to life and pursuit of happiness. How is shooting someone who is trying to gain for themselves a happier life, believing in the self-evident truths? I agree with you illegal immegration in illegal, and why I don't advocate for complete amnesty. Because, well, they aren't supposed to be here. However, disregarding the constitution and instituting the Arizona Law allowing people to be harrassed based solely on suspicion is not how a civilized society functions.
No jail now? but you said jail them here:
We fine them, but they don't have any real money.
Forcing them to work for several years, we still have to feed, cloth, and shelter them for those years.
Aaaand wrong.
Hmmm. Nope. Nowhere does it say in the passage or entire article that dems want to let them enter freely. I doubt you can find any serious politician that says borders should completly be dismantled. I'm into geo-political unity and I quite firmly beleive that at this stage tearing down borders is a very bad idea.
We are a liberal nation? When did that happen? Basicaly all of the Europeans and most of the American here say that we are right leaning centrists at best. We are not a left leaning nation. As for California, only the densly populated areas are liberal. Back in the seventies there was this one californian politician who was so Anti-Gay that anti-gay people now look like moderates. Plus I think the Birther Queen Orly Taitz is from california. Plus they do have a conservative governor.
Okay, what if one of the unchangeable rule was one that you disagreed with, say it was giving gays full rights and forcing Christian churches to marry gays. Would you still support the unchangeable nature of said rules?
Okay, no communism, but what about Socialism, or so forth? Any time the government taxes you they are taking your property. However, where in the Constitution or BoR does it give you absolute rights to property?
If there is the right to life, no death penalties either. Unless of course you believe that they can be applied differently to individual cases, they property would no longer be an absolute. Right to life=No abortion or death penalty.
Further question: would the rules stay unchangeable even if there was a 99.9% majority asking for them to be changed? If you still belive they shouldn't be changed, then we no longer have a government by the people and for the people. Hence, Locke says we can revolt.
No one is asking you to like the president. I highly disliked Bush and I would point out to my friends where he was wrong and overstepping his authority, but I never once said a secession would be good or make up baseless lies about him. (Especialy lies that cannot occur, a communist dictator for example. There is no government in a communist society.)
If you cannot respect the holder, then you do not respect the office. Simple as that.
Where did you get the idea that it wasn't a rebellion? The revolting states decided they would leave the Union and form their own government. In the process they attacked Union territory. How is that not a rebellion? Whether or not the CSA was a formal nation is another matter entirely.
What does that have to do with the UN? The UN exists to promote freedom and equality across the world and to prevent war? Do you disagree with that?
Source? Since when has the government prevented you from going into a store?
Errrrrrr. The government has the rights outlined in the Constitution. Among which is the ability to tax as per Section 8.
You are aware that a libertarian society expects people to be rational. No offense, not understanding basic concepts about our government and spouting inaccurate and offensive crap doesn't sound very rational. Please try to emulate the poster Ayn Rand in your posts a bit more. I disagree vehemently with his opinions but at least he knows what he is talking about.
EDIT: Slightly random, but are you aware traditionaly the meaning of Conservative is wanting a large central government that exerts force over people to make them conform? Just letting you know. Look up Klemens von Metternich and the Karlsbad Decrees and learn the origins of your movement.
And it would be easily findable even if it were old news.
That is assuming that the records are actually for only the past 7 years. They certainly kept other records much longer than that:
Sure, most of them are agricultural workers. But the ones who live in Maricopa County and are being deliberately harassed by what is likely the most bigoted sheriff in the entire US probably mow lawns or clean toilets instead. You aren't going to find many farms in Phoenix.
Actually, that was long before I posted here. I currently don't have a maid, but I could certainly use one.Too busy posting on CFC OT to clean up after yourself?
I've certainly driven when I shouldn't have on numerous occasions. I'm sure that is likely the case with most people who have ever gone to bars or drink alchohol with their meals. And you want to put them all in prison!
I have an idea. Why don't we hire a lot more cops and build 10 times as many prisons as we currently have. After all, we are already the laughing stock of most of the world in this regard already.
Immegration is a federal issue. They chose how they want to handle it.
I'm willing to bet you also enjoy using a computer and lightswitches and a warm meal on Saturday and you wear clothes with two types of thread. Bible says that is bad. If you wear basicaly any modern clothing it will probably contain more than two types of thread.
Isn't that the same thing as putting them in jail and having them do community service? They are still being supported at taxpayer expense.
I'm a democrat and I am against illegal immegration. But however I do support an immegration reform that deals fairly with illegals who have lived here a long time and have children born here. Children shouldn't be ripped from their parents when the parent hasn't abused them, but we can't deport the children. The restrictions on legal immegration need to be reduced.
First off, California voted down gay marriage and they have a conservative Governor. Not the bastion of liberalism. Second, a few cities don't run the US. Cities don't have a role in government. Senators and representatives do. They are elected by the people and if the people want liberals, so be it.4. The rest of California should form a new state then. What right do those two cities have to run all California? (The same reason liberals in a few cities have the right to run the United States
For the first few weeks (or days) the fetus is little more than a group of cells with the potential to become life. I support first term abortion with strictly regulated second and third term. Third term abortion should only be done in cases of threat to mothers life or if the baby has severe mental damage or physical issues that would make life outside the womb a short and painful process.
By second term it is a life, but it is part of the mothers body and she has the right to determine what happens to it if doctors deem action nescesary.
Why should your views be imposed upon others? I disagree with tenents of the Baptist religion (namely the speaking in tounges thing) but I won't make them stop.
Would you still be against abortion if the mother was a rape victim? Why should she be forced to carry a child from a horrific incedent?
Source for the quote or it was never said. Remember, Christians have Torqemada and the Crusades on their conciousness.
Source? Obamas not corrupt. Sure backroom deal occur, but its like that with all politics. Its like Bismarck said "Laws are like sausuges. Its best not to know how they are made."
Dems have decieved nobody. I made a concious choice. Too many dems are spineless and unable to pass any real legislation. Its just the dems are the closest to were my political views lie. My views tend to mesh well, while yours, no offense, tend to be a jumble of misconstrued libertarianism, neo-cons, and a fair bit of adolescent idealism. At times you raise good points, its just these points lack credibilty due to you calling Obama a communist when he isn't, your at times mysignostic views (remember back in the overrated presidents thread when you said women shouldn't be allowed to vote? You have come some distance since then), and deifing Glenn Beck despite him going postal at callers. You have some promise, work on it.
Nope, as you killed a person. Thats why I oppose the death penalty. The illegal coming over here is trying to fulfil one of the rights while not directly harming anybody.
You still flip-flopped on your decision. Don't deride politicians for doing the same things you do. However, your two solutions seem to be either:
The founders weren't gods. They were a bunch of half-drunk white guys trying to do something that had never been done before. Thats why they included the elastic clause. (The half-drunk thing is true. It was so hot in Philadelphia that 'lunch break' lasted from role call to closing. All the reps went to the various taverns to drink while Madison (he didn't drink) went around and collected all of the ideas.)
So wait, how is abortion a punishment for a rapist? Wouldn't a more fitting punishment be, I don't know, emasculation? Do you believe that first term abortions when the baby could not survive externaly for rape victims is justified?
4. The rest of California should form a new state then. What right do those two cities have to run all California? (The same reason liberals in a few cities have the right to run the United States
Now why would Republicans possibly object to this group ever becoming voters? People they have openly advocated persecuting for so long while showing complete disregard for their plight. Disenfrachising those who are the victims of their draconian policies has always been a hallmark of the conservatives, especially in the South. Just look at the enmity directed towards ACORN for merely trying to register more poor blacks to vote.
They were acquired by us primarily through commercial transactions with tribal warlords, so I don't see why not.
You mean the vast majority who were competely innocent, but we tortured and even killed them anyway? Those "people" at Gitmo? No, I doubt the ones who are still alive are very likely to vote Republican either. Good analogy.
