Rapid Quiz for Sir Evil

[BRUTALITOPS]

Hey evil, sorry I gotta have fun with this, we don't get a lot of new people. I am just trying to get a snapshot of ya. If you wouldn't mind... perhaps you could give your opinions on the following?

1. Abortion
2. Immigration
3. Iraq War
4. Drug War
5. Death Penalty
6. Taxes (death tax, income tax)
7. Universal Health Care
8. Global Warming
9. Abu Gharib and using Torture
10. Gay Marriage

Thanks :)

[BRUTALITOPS]

And don't worry I am more extreme than you could ever be :p

[Sir Evil]

Hey evil, sorry I gotta have fun with this, we don't get a lot of new people. I am just trying to get a snapshot of ya. If you wouldn't mind... perhaps you could give your opinions on the following?

1. Abortion
2. Immigration
3. Iraq War
4. Drug War
5. Death Penalty
6. Taxes (death tax, income tax)
7. Universal Health Care
8. Global Warming
9. Abu Gharib and using Torture
10. Gay Marriage

Thanks :)

1 - Abortion: honestly this topic in my opinion is something of a moral issue, I don't see a place for it in politics but then I never will know the situations of facing this being of the male anatomy.

2 - Immigrations: shoot all bastards crossing the border illegally! they don't do it the right way then they don't belong!

3 - Iraq war: sooner or later it would of been something that had to be dealt with. 13 years was more than enough with the useless UN, watch and see what I mean with Iran, How long can excuses be made, defiances be tolerated, and appeasements be justified? after pink & the brain of the middle east TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

4 - Drug war: Hmmm, not too knowledgable on this front, seems to be another thing that will always exists but some form of policing must be there to keep it in check.

5 - Death Penalty: Mostly for it so long as all possible options have been exhausted convicting the perp, no need to put the wrong dog down.

6 - Taxes (death tax, income tax) I guess it's something of a mystery to me that there needs to be a death tax, but what the hell, if ya can tax me when I'm dead all the more power to ya! :p

7 - Universal Health Care: it sucks for the most part! this is something that needs to be addresses so I can afford to save my few remaining teeth!

8 - Global Warming: Another front I am not too strong on, but I am all for warmer weather! seriously though, I don't see it as bad as some claim but don't see it as something that can be ignored either.

9 - Abu Gharib and using Torture: Ok, so some of the things revealed there were not in the best of interest to the US, but it is certainly nothing that should be in the same topic as the tortures committed by the insurgents either, two different things all together. Some methodical torture to gain info seems to be widely used by all countries in time of war.

10 - Gay Marriage: :gives: so long as they can't shag in public I could care less what they do behind closed doors. Again I think this is something that is more of a moral issue but don't have to be something that we all should have to accept. If you wanna have the right to marry the same sex, then excpect many to have nasty opinions, it's just plain not the norm!

[BRUTALITOPS]

Actually I am going to do this too, sounds fun.

1. Abortion

Early term abortions I don't have a problem with. I would ban partial birth under all circumstances except life of mother. 2nd terms are kind of iffy but at the end of the day I can't be bothered to care anymore.. go ahead kill babies..

2. Immigration

Legal Immigration is always fine. But we should mine the borders, and possibly shoot to kill anyone crossing. 1 year vacating period should be offered to all current illegal residents, after that year they can be shot on sight.

3. Iraq War

Was for it initially when I believed that Iraq could present a threat. Never for nationbuilding. Should have left a lonnnng ass time ago. We are wasting our time over there for no good reason.

4. Drug War

End it.

5. Death Penalty

For it when it's clearly demonstrated that the killer committed the crime (video footage, etc) Won't cry though when other murderes are being put to death. Goodbye tookie, you wont be missed, scumbag.

6. Taxes (death tax, income tax)

Hate taxes. Ultimately, in a perfect world, there should be none at all. Rationally, I would at least like to see the income tax abolished, and replace that with a flat tax for the time being. Maybe even a negative income tax. No social programs, no subsidizes.

7. Universal Health Care

Can't afford healthcare? Too bad, have fun dying. Not my problem. You dont' have a right to my money.

8. Global Warming

Our children can figure it out along with flying cars. Overhyped hysteria that the left often claims the right fallls victim to with regards to terrorism. Ok, so some of florida's swampland goes under..... it's not going to happen over night, it's going to be gradual, people will be able to move. The earth constantly changes. With or without human intervention. Get over it.

9. Abu Gharib and using Torture

Torture is acceptable to be used on enemies of the united states if we believe there is a good reason for it.

That said, having dogs bark loudly, putting people on leashes, or getting a strip dance from a female soldier, is NOT TORTURE.

10. Gay Marriage

Get married. Massachusetts hasn't fallen into doom. Marriage isn't sacred anymore...our sacred sacrement has a 50% divorce rate, people get drunk and get married in vegas every weekend. Move on.

[maineman]

definitely different than Dixie.... we disagree on much, but have areas of agreement that are heartening.

[BRUTALITOPS]

sir evil. You are added to the grind point list upon next update. Welcome to the board.

[Sir Evil]

See, I do rock! :cof1:

[Damocles]

sir evil. You are added to the grind point list upon next update. Welcome to the board.
Wow. You really have arrived now... :D

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1. Abortion
Should be restricted to 'life of the mother' and 'incest/rape' cases only. There are enough options for birth control available today, that we shouldn't need to kill babies and call it a right.

2. Immigration
Streamline the process of legal immigration, close the borders, enforce the laws, build a fence, fine employers, arrange for those who are here, to stay only if they can complete requirements for citizenship and pay the penalty for breaking the law.

3. Iraq War
Central front in the War on Terror. Vital to neutralizing the ideology of hate which brought the radicalism behind 9/11. It's worth whatever cost we have to pay to win, because we can't afford to lose it.

4. Drug War
Education programs, rehab & treatment, severe penalties for minors and parents who let their minors get involved with drugs. Other than that, forget about 'declaring war' on drugs.

5. Death Penalty
Favor it under the most extreme cases, but the judicial procedure is a joke. Once found guilty, they should have a year to file an appeal and take care of their affairs, and that should be all there is to it.

6. Taxes (death tax, income tax)
Cut taxes, lower taxes, reduce taxes, restrict taxes, ban taxes, abolish taxes, render taxes obsolete, declare taxes unconstitutional, and hang people who advocate more taxes.

7. Universal Health Care
I think it's great to have universal health care, but it's not the government's job or function to provide that to us.

8. Global Warming
The globe warms and cools in cycles, depending on events beyond our control, solar flares and sunspots, as well as volcanic activities on earth. The idea that mankind can alter the climate of the planet trough our everyday routine activity, is absurd.

9. Abu Gharib and using Torture
Terrorists are not subject to Geneva Convention protections. That said, U.S. Military personnel, are expected to uphold a strict standard of conduct, and unprofessional actions harm our country and disgrace their uniform. I'm not interested in giving Terrorists lawyers and trying them in U.S. Courts, because they don't have Constitutional rights as U.S. Citizens.

10. Gay Marriage
It's an oxymoron. Marriage is the religiously-based union, which so-happens to be sanctioned by the government, of a man and a woman. There is no "re-defining" this, it's like "re-defining" a banana to be Waldorf salad.

[Beefy]

Sir evil, are you the guy from Evil's Playhouse?

[Damocles]

He's the guy from Evil's Funhouse... Yup.

[Beefy]

He's the guy from Evil's Funhouse... Yup.
I thought so. No wonder his avatar has changed. His last one was huge.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

"10. Gay Marriage
It's an oxymoron. Marriage is the religiously-based union, which so-happens to be sanctioned by the government, of a man and a woman. There is no "re-defining" this, it's like "re-defining" a banana to be Waldorf salad."

If marriage is religiously based, then why do we need the government to redefine it for us so that it can only give out "Marriage"? And if it serves a secular purpose, why intertwine the secular and religious meanings whenever it'd just be so much simpler to do what's pragmatic, seperate them, and give out the secular meanings to whomever needs them without the loaded term "marriage"?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Marriage is a concept...

I can call myself married to this chair if I want. The government shouldn't have anything to do with that. There, everyone's happy. You go your way and I'll go mine, with my chair and all.

[BRUTALITOPS]

well technically watermark, when two parties are asking for recognition from the government, or special privledges, then the government begins to have a say.

[klaatu]

well technically watermark, when two parties are asking for recognition from the government, or special privledges, then the government begins to have a say.


yes.. but I do agree with WM ... Lets just call it Civil Union with all the Bells and Whistles and be done with .. we have too many fish to fry to preoccupy ourselves with this issue.

As Evil said .... :gives:

[LadyT]

1. Abortion
I fully support ownership over one's body 100% of the time. The presence of a fetus does not mean that the government should have the ability to temporarily take control of your body and inflict mob rule morality.

2. Immigration
I support legal immigration fully and would even encourage it. However you cannot say that you are serious about homeland security when you have a border as porous (sp?) as ours. We need to secure our borders (and ports) and make the immigration process more efficient and expedient. If people come here illegally I fully support sending them back at the drop of a hat.

3. Iraq War
Vehemently against it from the beginning. I suffer from issue fatigue on this one. My response to most of the cons sudden realizations of failure is a simple, "no $hit sherlock" at this stage. I support an immediate withdrawal.

4. Drug War
Eh........we've got bigger fish to fry

5. Death Penalty
Totally against it. The system is already set up to ideally convict only the guilty, but we've seen time and time again that this does not happen. Simply saying you support it, but only in extreme cases where we KNOW the killer is guilty is a niave at best. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that our system has sent many innocent people to death row. This must stop. We should abolish the death penalty at a federal level once and for all.

6. Taxes (death tax, income tax)
Necessary evil. I support cutting gov't fat particularly military contract fat. Too many allegedly conservative won't touch that beast.

7. Universal Health Care
Against universal health care, for public health insurance.

8. Global Warming
I don't claim to be an expert but I do believe its happening and we need to address it.

9. Abu Gharib and using Torture
Embarrassing and wrong on every level.

10. Gay Marriage
I fully support it and gay adoption

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Marriage is a concept...

I can call myself married to this chair if I want. The government shouldn't have anything to do with that. There, everyone's happy. You go your way and I'll go mine, with my chair and all.


Medicine is a concept as well. If I want to boil newt eyes and lizard tails, and call myself a doctor, I can! The government can't stop me from saying I am a doctor, or tell me that I am not practicing medicine. However, the government does licence doctors, and certain criteria have to be met to obtain that licence. It doesn't mater how much I want to be a doctor, or wish the world would see my voodoo techniques as legitimate medicine, there are rules and guidelines to follow, if I want a licence from the state. Sure, we can change the definition of "medical doctor" to include me, it doesn't change the relationship between you and your doctor, no one is forcing you to allow me to be your doctor, it's not harming you in any way. Still, the sanctioning by government carries responsibility to society, and parameters have been established in that regard.

[IHateGovernment]

1. Abortion - I'll save it for Watermark.

2. Immigration - Annual Immigration allowances should be increased. However illegal immigration should not be tolerated. As soon as it is discovered that a person is here illegally they must be deported. I am open to having an entirely open border if we cut back on entitlement programs they would be able to take advantage of.

3. Iraq War - We should begin preparing for withdrawal immediately. There is no excuse for the Iraqi army not to be ready yet. If they are not willing to fight for their country then they don't deserve it.

4. Drug War - All drugs should be legalized and carry heavy warning labels. A skull and cross bones as well as an indication that this is poison should be clearly visible.

5. Death Penalty - the death penalty should be abolished. Nothing you can do can guarantee with 100% effectiveness that an innocent person would not be executed.

6. Taxes (death tax, income tax) - Taxes should be lowered after a corresponding decrease in spending. We should also move to a progressive consumption tax on products. Such a shift would make estate tax or capital gains tax irrelevant.

7. Universal Health Care - Healthcare is a state issue. As far as the states I think what was done in Vermont is a good idea in which the state uses its collective bargaining power to get affordable insurance for its citizens. I do believe health care is a right of children though and I support healthcare vouchers for all children under the age of 18.

8. Global Warming - It doesn't matter if global warming is caused by humans or not. In order to maintain the level of life quality we enjoy it is crucial that the world temperature remains around where it is now. We will be sorry when cities like New York are under water and you'd have to navigage wall street via gondola. The world should cooperate in researching methods to keep the world temperature static.

9. Abu Gharib and using Torture - Torture is a vile thing and ineffective anyway. A civilized nation does not use torture regardless of what its enemies do. Some forms of coercion or humilation do not constitute torture in my opinion but even most of these methods are unsavory and inappropriate anyway.

10. Gay Marriage - Marriage is a contract like anyother. Government should get out of marriage all together and label all unions between two or more persons a union.

[LadyT]

2. Immigration - Annual Immigration allowances should be increased. However illegal immigration should not be tolerated. As soon as it is discovered that a person is here illegally they must be deported. I am open to having an entirely open border if we cut back on entitlement programs they would be able to take advantage of.


I'd be careful. i don't think it would be fair to deport people for administrative oversights. Our gov't workers are pretty inept and inefficient when it comes to processing immigrants. I think we should immediately deport those who COME here illegally. If you came through the proper channels and are in the process of doing it right, it's highly possible that paper work is just stuck in someone's desk and expiration dates come and go. Technically if a critical expiration date comes and goes, the gov't knows your "here" illegally. I'd put those people at the bottom of the list for deportation.

[Cypress]

However illegal immigration should not be tolerated. As soon as it is discovered that a person is here illegally they must be deported. I am open to having an entirely open border if we cut back on entitlement programs they would be able to take advantage of.

Just curious: what would you do with an illegal immigrant who has been here 20 years, and has children who are american citizens?

[Damocles]

However illegal immigration should not be tolerated. As soon as it is discovered that a person is here illegally they must be deported. I am open to having an entirely open border if we cut back on entitlement programs they would be able to take advantage of.

Just curious: what would you do with an illegal immigrant who has been here 20 years, and has children who are american citizens?
If you actually wish to build deterrence you cannot continue to cater to people because of their children. To be just in the decision to always deport would mean you would have to treat these people the same as you would those without children.

[IHateGovernment]

I'd be careful. i don't think it would be fair to deport people for administrative oversights. Our gov't workers are pretty inept and inefficient when it comes to processing immigrants. I think we should immediately deport those who COME here illegally. If you came through the proper channels and are in the process of doing it right, it's highly possible that paper work is just stuck in someone's desk and expiration dates come and go. Technically if a critical expiration date comes and goes, the gov't knows your "here" illegally. I'd put those people at the bottom of the list for deportation.

Oh I never meant that they should be immediately deported obviously there should be a hearing to determine their actual status.

[Cypress]

If you actually wish to build deterrence you cannot continue to cater to people because of their children. To be just in the decision to always deport would mean you would have to treat these people the same as you would those without children.


fair enough. I don't believe in black and white solutions. I think case-by-case situations need to exist in the laws.

[IHateGovernment]

Just curious: what would you do with an illegal immigrant who has been here 20 years, and has children who are american citizens?

If they have children who are American citizens they should be able to stay. However I will also say that a child born of a woman who snuck across the border a week ago should not be automatically a citizen. I propose a constitutional amendment that would require that any child born in the US has to have at least one parent who has been a legal resident for 9 months.

[Damocles]

fair enough. I don't believe in black and white solutions. I think case-by-case situations need to exist in the laws.
I believe that making laws difficult to understand and follow creates misunderstandings and discrimination... These people are more valuable because blah, blah... measuring the value of people is directly discriminatory. Either the law applies, or it does not. It should not be determined by arbitrary value placed on people for discriminatory reasons.

[Damocles]

Just curious: what would you do with an illegal immigrant who has been here 20 years, and has children who are american citizens?

If they have children who are American citizens they should be able to stay. However I will also say that a child born of a woman who snuck across the border a week ago should not be automatically a citizen. I propose a constitutional amendment that would require that any child born in the US has to have at least one parent who has been a legal resident for 9 months.
This just makes it so they would target fathers for their children differently. Why do they have more value because of their children?

[LadyT]

However illegal immigration should not be tolerated. As soon as it is discovered that a person is here illegally they must be deported. I am open to having an entirely open border if we cut back on entitlement programs they would be able to take advantage of.

Just curious: what would you do with an illegal immigrant who has been here 20 years, and has children who are american citizens?

Well, in my opinion they've had plenty of time to go through the process of becoming a legal. If we are going to decide that we will not tolerate illegal immigration then we shouldn't tolerate it. If the children are too young to care for themselves then I think the parents should have the option of leaving them here with a legal guardian or taking them back.

[Damocles]

Well, in my opinion they've had plenty of time to go through the process of becoming a legal. If we are going to decide that we will not tolerate illegal immigration then we shouldn't tolerate it. If the children are too young to care for themselves then I think the parents should have the option of leaving them here with a legal guardian or taking them back.
Exactly. LadyT. Giving them a pass because they squeezed out a kid is an abitrary means of determining legality that incentivizes illegitimate pregnancies in an already detrimental situation. This shouldn't be incentivized this way.

[IHateGovernment]

This just makes it so they would target fathers for their children differently. Why do they have more value because of their children?

No I don't favor having different laws for men. The same would apply. I do think though that if American kids are entrenched in America and are citizens they should not be deprived of their parents.

Is it fair to those who don't have children? No it isn't.

But it also isn't fair to the children who are now deprived of either a parent or their country because of a mistake of their parent.

And the second is a larger injustice than the first.

Let me further clarify that this would only apply to parents who have children under 18 years of age.

[LadyT]

I don't think its fair that people with children get a pass while others don't. That's discriminatory. I think hte child can stay if a legal guardian steps up to take care of them or the child should go with his or her parents.

I also think we need to do more to hold companies responsible for knowingly hiring people that do not have their papers.

[IHateGovernment]

I don't think its fair that people with children get a pass while others don't. That's discriminatory. I think hte child can stay if a legal guardian steps up to take care of them or the child should go with his or her parents.

Is that fair to the child?

[Damocles]

This just makes it so they would target fathers for their children differently. Why do they have more value because of their children?

No I don't favor having different laws for men. The same would apply. I do think though that if American kids are entrenched in America and are citizens they should not be deprived of their parents.

Is it fair to those who don't have children? No it isn't.

But it also isn't fair to the children who are now deprived of either a parent or their country because of a mistake of their parent.

And the second is a larger injustice than the first.

Let me further clarify that this would only apply to parents who have children under 18 years of age.
No, you don't understand. The Illegal female would seek out a father that had lived here for more than 9 months legally. It would be easily found as well. We all know men are dawgs and they could easily find fathers for their anchors...

It may not be fair to the children that are deprived of living in the US, but it certainly is not just to give incentive for illegitimate children in such a way. The poorest only get more poor when they have illegitimate children. It is not wise, it is not just and it cannot be something we incentivize through such laws.

[LadyT]

This just makes it so they would target fathers for their children differently. Why do they have more value because of their children?
Is it fair to those who don't have children? No it isn't.

But it also isn't fair to the children who are now deprived of either a parent or their country because of a mistake of their parent.

And the second is a larger injustice than the first.



Larger injustice? That's an abritrary opinion. I think laws that blatently discriminate against people without kids is the larger injustice. No one is saying that the parents couldn't eventually apply for citizenship the right way, but unless they are a political refugee who will be sentenced to death when they return to their home country, I think you're assement is a bit over-dramatized.

[Damocles]

I don't think its fair that people with children get a pass while others don't. That's discriminatory. I think hte child can stay if a legal guardian steps up to take care of them or the child should go with his or her parents.

Is that fair to the child?
Yes, just as my decisions will effect my child, so do theirs. This simply puts responsibility back where it belongs. We incentivize these births so that they may have an anchor to stay in this nation regardless of laws. This is not a fair application of law, and incentivizes negative behavior.

[LadyT]

I don't think its fair that people with children get a pass while others don't. That's discriminatory. I think hte child can stay if a legal guardian steps up to take care of them or the child should go with his or her parents.

Is that fair to the child?

Yes. They would be a citizen and enitled to stay. Or they can go back with their parents to their home country.

[IHateGovernment]

Let me give this example.

A woman sneaks over to the US from China in a container. She has a child two years after coming over. The child goes to our schools, makes friends here and speaks english perfectly while they don't speak a word of Mandarin. The mother cares for her child alone and quite well. The child performs well in school and shows great promise.

13 years after her arrival she is discovered to be an illegal and is subject to deportation. The 11 year old child is faced with going to a land she knows nothing about and doesn't speak the language. Not to mention that it is an oppressive country that would be totally alien to her American freedom sensibilities. Or she can live in a foster home with parents who may or may not love her or even care for her very well. To the child her mother is the only one who could love her and America is the only land that could have her.

Why do this to an innocent child just because her mother made a mistake. I think this bears weight in consideration.

[Cypress]

I believe that making laws difficult to understand and follow creates misunderstandings and discrimination... These people are more valuable because blah, blah... measuring the value of people is directly discriminatory. Either the law applies, or it does not. It should not be determined by arbitrary value placed on people for discriminatory reasons.

OK. I can't see the world in a black and white way. I believe our laws require flexibiliy.

To me, if an illegal immigrant served in the marines, got a silver star, and got his leg blown off serving in iraq, I'd give that mofo citizenship.

Under your black and white version of the law, he would be deported.

[IHateGovernment]

I agree with Cypress as long as these exceptions are codified. Although ideally a person who tried to sign up for the military would be immediately discovered to be an illegal and deported.

[Cypress]

I agree with Cypress as long as these exceptions are codified. Although ideally a person who tried to sign up for the military would be immediately discovered to be an illegal and deported.

welcome to progressive thinking. Laws can't always be black and white. ;)


I can think of waivers and exceptions I'd grant to illegal immigrants.

[Damocles]

Let me give this example.

A woman sneaks over to the US from China in a container. She has a child two years after coming over. The child goes to our schools, makes friends here and speaks english perfectly while they don't speak a word of Mandarin. The mother cares for her child alone and quite well. The child performs well in school and shows great promise.

13 years after her arrival she is discovered to be an illegal and is subject to deportation. The 11 year old child is faced with going to a land she knows nothing about and doesn't speak the language. Not to mention that it is an oppressive country that would be totally alien to her American freedom sensibilities. Or she can live in a foster home with parents who may or may not love her or even care for her very well. To the child her mother is the only one who could love her and America is the only land that could have her.

Why do this to an innocent child just because her mother made a mistake. I think this bears weight in consideration.
First of all, had she actually requested amnesty should would get it...

Second of all, the mother should have understood that her actions can effect her children, just as all other parents understand.

If we make it so that it does not, why do we allow children to be raised by other than perfect people? Why should a child ever face the consequences of a Parent's decision? We should protect them all by taking them from the parents and having our government provide for them!

[Cypress]

Yes. They would be a citizen and enitled to stay. Or they can go back with their parents to their home country.

You'd make (for example) a ten year old US citizen, choose between her parents, and her country?

[Damocles]

You'd make (for example) a ten year old US citizen, choose between her parents, and her country?
Her parents would have made her make that choice... Why is it you want to make me responsible for the choices of her parents?

[LadyT]

OK. I can't see the world in a black and white way. I believe our laws require flexibiliy.

To me, if an illegal immigrant served in the marines, got a silver star, and got his leg blown off serving in iraq, I'd give that mofo citizenship.

Under your black and white version of the law, he would be deported.

All Icould focus in on that anecdote was the fact that our military would be letting people in without doing proper background checks and if that's the case, we've got bigger problems.

[IHateGovernment]

First of all, had she actually requested amnesty should would get it...

Second of all, the mother should have understood that her actions can effect her children, just as all other parents understand.

If we make it so that it does not, why do we allow children to be raised by other than perfect people? Why should a child ever face the consequences of a Parent's decision? We should protect them all by taking them from the parents and having our government provide for them!

Well if amnesty is available I might feel differently. However I oppose general amnesty. Perhaps is she sought a special amnesty because of her situation I might be open to that.

Life is obviously not fair and some are born into better families than others. However as a society we have always given children special consideration. Why do we have universal education. Why not have all schooling be directly paid for. Because as a society we have concluded that a parents poverty and inability to afford school should not be the reason a child is denied an education. Why if a woman is a crackhead are her children taken from her. This is because we see it as a childs right to have at least some minimum level of care from a parent.

Do I suggest the state protect children completely from parent's bad decisions. Definitely not for we could never effectively do so or afford to do so. However I also wouldn't say the state has no responsibility to look out for the rights of children.

This is especially so because the state denies certain rights to children that are extended to adults and rightfully so. However because of this it also becomes the responsibility of the state to protect children to some degree.

You can be for full protection, no protection or some protection. Obviously we are both for some protection. So the demarcation where the state should intervene is a matter of taste between us not a fundamental principal.

[LadyT]

You'd make (for example) a ten year old US citizen, choose between her parents, and her country?

It would be up to her parents to decide. I'm saying that option would be available.

[OrnotBitwise]

First of all, had she actually requested amnesty should would get it...

Second of all, the mother should have understood that her actions can effect her children, just as all other parents understand.

If we make it so that it does not, why do we allow children to be raised by other than perfect people? Why should a child ever face the consequences of a Parent's decision? We should protect them all by taking them from the parents and having our government provide for them!
Oh, cut the drama. It's not black and white, as per usual.

The cited example is both practical -- she quite likely wouldn't have been granted amnesty, BTW -- and fairly convincing. The social need -- read: emotional desire on the part of many -- to make the parents suffer the consequences of their choices is outweighed, in this instance, by what would be a clear cut wrong. Deporting that hypothetical child would be wrong.

Yet we do this sort of nonsense every day.

[LadyT]

Why are you guys acting like going back to their home country would be some kind of death sentence (if it was, then of course the parents and child should stay)? People move across the globe all the time. The only gray area in my mind would be if their lives would be in danger for going back or if the country is in the middle of a war.

[Damocles]

First of all, had she actually requested amnesty should would get it...

Second of all, the mother should have understood that her actions can effect her children, just as all other parents understand.

If we make it so that it does not, why do we allow children to be raised by other than perfect people? Why should a child ever face the consequences of a Parent's decision? We should protect them all by taking them from the parents and having our government provide for them!

Well if amnesty is available I might feel differently. However I oppose general amnesty. Perhaps is she sought a special amnesty because of her situation I might be open to that.

Life is obviously not fair and some are born into better families than others. However as a society we have always given children special consideration. Why do we have universal education. Why not have all schooling be directly paid for. Because as a society we have concluded that a parents poverty and inability to afford school should not be the reason a child is denied an education. Why if a woman is a crackhead are her children taken from her. This is because we see it as a childs right to have at least some minimum level of care from a parent.

Do I suggest the state protect children completely from parent's bad decisions. Definitely not for we could never effectively do so or afford to do so. However I also wouldn't say the state has no responsibility to look out for the rights of children.

This is especially so because the state denies certain rights to children that are extended to adults and rightfully so. However because of this it also becomes the responsibility of the state to protect children to some degree.

You can be for full protection, no protection or some protection. Obviously we are both for some protection. So the demarcation where the state should intervene is a matter of taste between us not a fundamental principal.
Some hard realities exist in life for children. In this case you create a scenario that might be considered so. I would prefer the parent and child be deported. The child can return at 18... they are a citizen. Or the Parent can choose a Guardian for their child until they can return legally. Often children have to pay for the misdeeds of their parents. Why should we make it so a child goes into foster care when their parents break drug trafficking laws, but in this case just let them continue breaking the law?

Plus, in your scenario one of the parents had been legally here for 9 months, otherwise the child would not be a citizen, so where are they?

Children need larger protection than from the need to learn Mandarin.

[IHateGovernment]

Why are you guys acting like going back to their home country would be some kind of death sentence (if it was, then of course the parents and child should stay)? People move across the globe all the time. The only gray area in my mind would be if their lives would be in danger for going back or if the country is in the middle of a war.
Reply With Quote

How anxious would you be to live in China after being born in raised in the United States?

[IHateGovernment]

Why should we make it so a child goes into foster care when their parents break drug trafficking laws, but in this case just let them continue breaking the law?

Obviously harm has to be considered. Society has a need to incarcerate criminals for the protection of the public. Illegal aliens are not a threat to public safety.

Plus, in your scenario one of the parents had been legally here for 9 months, otherwise the child would not be a citizen, so where are they?

Maybe they are dead.

[Damocles]

Oh, cut the drama. It's not black and white, as per usual.

The cited example is both practical -- she quite likely wouldn't have been granted amnesty, BTW -- and fairly convincing. The social need -- read: emotional desire on the part of many -- to make the parents suffer the consequences of their choices is outweighed, in this instance, by what would be a clear cut wrong. Deporting that hypothetical child would be wrong.

Yet we do this sort of nonsense every day.
Oh please! You are creating the drama here. Either we make people responsible for their actions or we take the responsibility. I prefer to make others responsible for their own actions. Saying, "It would be wrong to deport the child"... IMO means, "It was wrong of her parents to put her in such a position!" not "We are bad people because we made her parents responsible to their actions!"

The more responsibility we give to the government, the less we gain for ourselves.

[Damocles]

Why should we make it so a child goes into foster care when their parents break drug trafficking laws, but in this case just let them continue breaking the law?

Obviously harm has to be considered. Society has a need to incarcerate criminals for the protection of the public. Illegal aliens are not a threat to public safety.

Plus, in your scenario one of the parents had been legally here for 9 months, otherwise the child would not be a citizen, so where are they?

Maybe they are dead.
Illegal aliens are a threat to a society at war with people willing to commit crimes of terror. Giving them an out one way or another simply gives a means for those types to exploit...

[IHateGovernment]

they are potentially terrorists. Until their is evidence showing that they may be they should not be treated as such.

There is not a sense of urgency upon discovering they are illegal alone.

[IHateGovernment]

Would you feel as strongly if simply those already born were grandfathered in and those who were born after todays date were not eligible for such protections.

[LadyT]

How anxious would you be to live in China after being born in raised in the United States?

Not very. Which is something their parents should have thought of. Having said that I do want to reiterate that I thikn the process of becoming a citizen should be streamlined and made more efficient. I just don't think turning a blind simply because someone has had a child is a fair means to operate.

[Damocles]

they are potentially terrorists. Until their is evidence showing that they may be they should not be treated as such.

There is not a sense of urgency upon discovering they are illegal alone.
There is enough of one...

The reality is the current law has simply made it worthless to even have a border. They stream accross the borders nightly with little regard or fear of deportation. They squirt out a kid then are guaranteed to have not just them, but their extended family come over and stay.... At the same time the vast majority of them are never even "caught" at all. We don't know who they are, their nationality, whether they were healthy, if they are terrorists or not, what they were carrying... We simply have people here we know absolutely nothing about.

I do know for a fact that if we do nothing now, and we allow these laws to stand, and give outs and special treatment to some and not others, soon it would degenrate back to what we have as the courts would begin trashing laws because of "equal treatment". Either we enforce them, or we don't, in between leaves us vulnerable.

[IHateGovernment]

Not very. Which is something their parents should have thought of. Having said that I do want to reiterate that I thikn the process of becoming a citizen should be streamlined and made more efficient. I just don't think turning a blind simply because someone has had a child is a fair means to operate.

It isn't fair I admit. But I think its a greater injustice to haul a kid off to China for a decision that was made that they played no part of. The difference between me and you and Damo is that you think the reverse is a greater injustice. I don't know if we will be able to convince the other otherwise.

[LadyT]

Hypothetical:

Two people are accused of laundering $1M from a pension fund. Person A has two kids and person B has none. Assuming they both have similar criminal backgrounds, should person A be given a different sentence for said crime based on the fact that they have kids?

[IHateGovernment]

The reality is the current law has simply made it worthless to even have a border. They stream accross the borders nightly with little regard or fear of deportation. They squirt out a kid then are guaranteed to have not just them, but their extended family come over and stay.... At the same time the vast majority of them are never even "caught" at all. We don't know who they are, their nationality, whether they were healthy, if they are terrorists or not, what they were carrying... We simply have people here we know absolutely nothing about.

I agree this is a problem. I fully support reform, just slightly less than you do.

I do know for a fact that if we do nothing now, and we allow these laws to stand, and give outs and special treatment to some and not others, soon it would degenrate back to what we have as the courts would begin trashing laws because of "equal treatment". Either we enforce them, or we don't, in between leaves us vulnerable.

I think you are overreacting a bit with an all or nothing solution. We can screen more for potential terrorists, keep illegals out, and secure our borders and still allow some leeway with the exception I provided. I'm not even suggesting making it extremely simple or even allowing them to get off scott free. Fines are acceptable in my opinion. However I do not believe for a second that granting this consideration will negate all the other positive effects of the reform aspects that we agree upon.

[Damocles]

I think you are overreacting a bit with an all or nothing solution. We can screen more for potential terrorists, keep illegals out, and secure our borders and still allow some leeway with the exception I provided. I'm not even suggesting making it extremely simple or even allowing them to get off scott free. Fines are acceptable in my opinion. However I do not believe for a second that granting this consideration will negate all the other positive effects of the reform aspects that we agree upon.

I think you are denying the reality of the situation. Letting this one consideration would lead to others as "fair treatment" was applied by the courts, the laws would be unenforceable and we would end up being in exactly the same situation as before. It's like erosion... It starts with such a tiny little crack...

[IHateGovernment]

Two people are accused of laundering $1M from a pension fund. Person A has two kids and person B has none. Assuming they both have similar criminal backgrounds, should person A be given a different sentence for said crime based on the fact that they have kids?

No because this person has already shown themselves to be a thief and therefore is a threat to the property of other American citizens.

As for illegal immigration. Yes I think it should be illegal but I don't think its that bad a thing. I see it more as breaking a rule. We obvioulsy have to have laws about immigration for without them we would be overwhelmed and our social services would require huge sums of money.

Why I am against illegal immigrants is only because they broke the law not because of something bad or harm they have caused. I don't even consider it a wrong act it simply is a necessity that we have immigration law and thus there will be people who break it.

[IHateGovernment]

I think you are denying the reality of the situation. Letting this one consideration would lead to others as "fair treatment" was applied by the courts, the laws would be unenforceable and we would end up being in exactly the same situation as before. It's like erosion... It starts with such a tiny little crack...

Not the slippery slope!!! This is kind of like Dano's argument against my suggestion for the use of supermax prisons instead of execution. He says that liberals will say they are inhumane and will eventually let them out. Therefore we should execute them before the liberals get a chance to undo what we have done.

I always reply that we have to rely on doing the right thing in each instance. We can't choose to do something wrong in the short term to avert something more wrong in the future.

It is always best to choose the right decison at the moment and hope the right one will be made in the future. This isn't totatlly pragmatic I admit but neither are liberty or freedom.

Let's decide to make the one exception and use the logic outlined to deny other exceptions. I reject commiting a wrong act as a defense against more wrong acts.

[LadyT]

It isn't fair I admit. But I think its a greater injustice to haul a kid off to China for a decision that was made that they played no part of. The difference between me and you and Damo is that you think the reverse is a greater injustice. I don't know if we will be able to convince the other otherwise.

Does your anectdote have the potential to be a sad situation? Yes. Is it necessarily? No. I for one don't buy into the "America's best country in world and any movement outside would be absolutely horrible" bit. But the big picture is border and homeland security issues and our safety. I'm not willing to sacrifice my safety and the safety of my loved ones for some potentially sad kid. We have to establish a fast and effective protocols for processing immigrants which include proper background checks for everyone. Who knows what kinds of gangs or terror affiliations people have before they come the US. The greater injustice is selling out the American people by having no border controls or proper protocols in place to filter out potential enemies.

[IHateGovernment]

I'm not willing to sacrifice my safety and the safety of my loved ones for some potentially sad kid.

Whoa thats some reaching. The border will not become a sieve just because we give some consideration of effects of deportaiton on children. It is rediculous to think without universal deportation that we will have no security. Border security is important and should be done as a matter of course. However I don't think for one second that even if we implemented your plans that we would stop terrorists. They will find a way.


We have to establish a fast and effective protocols for processing immigrants which include proper background checks for everyone. Who knows what kinds of gangs or terror affiliations people have before they come the US. The greater injustice is selling out the American people by having no border controls or proper protocols in place to filter out potential enemies.

Where have I said I am against any of these things. Between you two and myself we only differ in one major point. Background checks for terror and gangs are important. This considertion is irrelevant to the difference between us though.

[LadyT]

[i]
I think you are overreacting a bit with an all or nothing solution. We can screen more for potential terrorists, keep illegals out, and secure our borders and still allow some leeway with the exception I provided. I'm not even suggesting making it extremely simple or even allowing them to get off scott free. Fines are acceptable in my opinion. However I do not believe for a second that granting this consideration will negate all the other positive effects of the reform aspects that we agree upon.

That sounds reasonable, but we only have a X amount of resources for screening people, do you think its fair that we allow them to stay here at the expense of backing up the courts and system for those that have been trying to do it legally from the start? Jake has a child so we'll expedite his case ahead of everyone else that has been doing it correctly from the start? I don't think so. I've seen people go through hell trying to get visa's, green cards and trying to become citizens. It takes years. A coworker of mine came to work in tears over the administrative hurdles, should she and her kids be put on the back burner for this person that knowingly broke the law? I say no.

[IHateGovernment]

Nothing says that you have to fasttrack these illegals. I'm just saying don't deport them if they have american children. I don't suggest making others wait in line for them. It isn't an either or situation in this case.

[Damocles]

I think you are denying the reality of the situation. Letting this one consideration would lead to others as "fair treatment" was applied by the courts, the laws would be unenforceable and we would end up being in exactly the same situation as before. It's like erosion... It starts with such a tiny little crack...

Not the slippery slope!!! This is kind of like Dano's argument against my suggestion for the use of supermax prisons instead of execution. He says that liberals will say they are inhumane and will eventually let them out. Therefore we should execute them before the liberals get a chance to undo what we have done.

I always reply that we have to rely on doing the right thing in each instance. We can't choose to do something wrong in the short term to avert something more wrong in the future.

It is always best to choose the right decison at the moment and hope the right one will be made in the future. This isn't totatlly pragmatic I admit but neither are liberty or freedom.

Let's decide to make the one exception and use the logic outlined to deny other exceptions. I reject commiting a wrong act as a defense against more wrong acts.
I don't think that it is a wrong act to show a child that their parents are responsible for their own illegal activity. I reject the idea that giving people more responsibility over the consequences of their actions rather than giving the government repsonsibility is a wrong action.

[Damocles]

Nothing says that you have to fasttrack these illegals. I'm just saying don't deport them if they have american children. I don't suggest making others wait in line for them. It isn't an either or situation in this case.
Would you deport them when their child had reached their majority?

[LadyT]

Whoa thats some reaching. The border will not become a sieve just because we give some consideration of effects of deportaiton on children.


From my view, it already is because we do.



It is rediculous to think without universal deportation that we will have no security. Border security is important and should be done as a matter of course. However I don't think for one second that even if we implemented your plans that we would stop terrorists. They will find a way.

Perhaps. But lets get a paper trail going so it will be easier to discover them.




Where have I said I am against any of these things. Between you two and myself we only differ in one major point. Background checks for terror and gangs are important. This considertion is irrelevant to the difference between us though.

Which is why I think every one should under go them before given citizenship or even temporary residence. Once its discovered you haven't undergone one, its to the back of hte line you go.

[IHateGovernment]

I don't think that it is a wrong act to show a child that their parents are responsible for their own illegal activity. I reject the idea that giving people more responsibility over their actions rather than giving the government repsonsibility is a wrong action.

Damo I know that this is not an absolute for you though. You're not an Anarcho capitalist. Would you support a child not being able to attend school because there parent's can't afford it.

I don't think this is a fundamental issue. This is a matter of to what degree are we willing to tolerate lack of responsbility. I have a little more tolerance than you. But this is not a fundamental difference.

[IHateGovernment]

Would you deport them when their child had reached their majority?

Sure. No victim in that case.

[IHateGovernment]

From my view, it already is because we do.

What we do now is a far cry from what I recommend. We barely have an illegal immigration process. Hell right now we just do catch and release which is a joke.

Perhaps. But lets get a paper trail going so it will be easier to discover them.

Agreed

Which is why I think every one should under go them before given citizenship or even temporary residence. Once its discovered you haven't undergone one, its to the back of hte line you go.

Agree so long as we agree that back of the line doesn't automatically mean deportation.

[Damocles]

Damo I know that this is not an absolute for you though. You're not an Anarcho capitalist. Would you support a child not being able to attend school because there parent's can't afford it.


Of course not. This, however, has little to do with your scenario. The worst that is happening to the child is they are going to live someplace where they will need to learn a new language.



I don't think this is a fundamental issue. This is a matter of to what degree are we willing to tolerate lack of responsbility. I have a little more tolerance than you. But this is not a fundamental difference.
Actually, I don't think you CAN lack responsibility. It simply moves. If the parent will not be held responsible then society takes on that responsibility. There is not an option where nobody is responsible.

I believe fundamentally in keeping the responsibility on the individual rather than the state and only in need should we render unto the state the responsibility that otherwise would be that of the individual.

In this case we are protecting a child from learning a language and from entering a new culture... I don't think that we have reached the level of necessity where we should take on the responsibility...

[IHateGovernment]

Of course not. This, however, has little to do with your scenario. The worst that is happening to the child is they are going to live someplace where they will need to learn a new language.

Ok lets save the responsibility talk then and just talk about level of harm. Because of course as you know someone could just as easily lay down the same kind of rhetoric for saying why education should not be publically funded.

As for harm though I disagree it is limited to learning a new language. There are more consequences than that for being deported to a country like China, Myanmar or North Korea.

[Damocles]

Of course not. This, however, has little to do with your scenario. The worst that is happening to the child is they are going to live someplace where they will need to learn a new language.

Ok lets save the responsibility talk then and just talk about level of harm. Because of course as you know someone could just as easily lay down the same kind of rhetoric for saying why education should not be publically funded.

As for harm though I disagree it is limited to learning a new language. There are more consequences than that for being deported to a country like China, Myanmar or North Korea.
You cannot necessarily say that the child WILL be harmed because of it, though. Just as you cannot say that they will not learn an important lesson if their parents were given that responsibility. We know the level of harm for children with no access to education, we cannot prove harm to a child just for living in China.

[IHateGovernment]

There are things we know will happen if they don't get education. There are things we also don't know will happen. We can't even say that a child will not learn to read or multiply because they didn't get an education. What we can say with certainty is that it will be harder for them to achieve such things.

The same is true for being sent to a repressive country or a poor country even. For one thing many countries don't have universal education so one consequence could be that they don't get to go to school and thus it is harder for them to learn to read or multiply.

Thus we are left with the same scenario just is a different location.

Not being able to go to school in the US.
Not being able to go to school in Myanmar.

[IHateGovernment]

There is way more at stake than just language.

[Damocles]

There are things we know will happen if they don't get education. There are things we also don't know will happen. We can't even say that a child will not learn to read or multiply because they didn't get an education. What we can say with certainty is that it will be harder for them to achieve such things.

The same is true for being sent to a repressive country or a poor country even. For one thing many countries don't have universal education so one consequence could be that they don't get to go to school and thus it is harder for them to learn to read or multiply.

Thus we are left with the same scenario just is a different location.

Not being able to go to school in the US.
Not being able to go to school in Myanmar.
You just assume that the parent would choose to deport the child along with them, that they would be poor when they got there, that the repression would be used specifically on them, and many other things...

While my decision assumes nothing. Given proof that the parent was illegal they get deported and put back at the end of the line. That's all...

I do believe that with Communist countries one is allowed to get amnesty immediately upon making it here, much like Cuba I believe that many Chinese are afforded the ability to stay legally if they report their arrival... (Of course, I am not sure here...) If not then the law would have to apply...

[IHateGovernment]

You just assume that the parent would choose to deport the child along with them, that they would be poor when they got there, that the repression would be used specifically on them, and many other things...

That is because the law is not written to be tailored for specific instances. However it should be ready for the worst of contingencies. The law should address a poor person arriving with their child in a repressive land.

While my decision assumes nothing. Given proof that the parent was illegal they get deported and put back at the end of the line. That's all...

It does assume something though. It assumes that the detriment of allowing the illegal to remain in the country outweighs the detriment of deporting the American child or putting them in foster care. This is actually more often the opposite.

I do believe that with Communist countries one is allowed to get amnesty immediately upon making it here, much like Cuba I believe that many Chinese are afforded the ability to stay legally if they report their arrival... (Of course, I am not sure here...) If not then the law would have to apply...

Problem is this doesn't make allowances for countries that become repressive. This happens all the time Iran, Myanmar, Cuba, Pakistan.

[IHateGovernment]

Fairness and a lack of harm produced by law is more important than a lack of assumption in the consequences of the enforcement of law.

[Damocles]

Fairness and a lack of harm produced by law is more important than a lack of assumption in the consequences of the enforcement of law.
Your argument has been to ignore the law rather than to rewrite the law in accordance to your view. Making it a law where specific instances could merit consideration would be fine with me. Ignoring the law without rewriting it to benefit a point of view is what I object to. Either the law applies or it does not, if it does not do what you want you should not ignore the law, you should rewrite it.

[IHateGovernment]

Your argument has been to ignore the law rather than to rewrite the law in accordance to your view.

Nope. Its been to broaden the considerations of the law.

Ignoring the law without rewriting it to benefit a point of view is what I object to. Either the law applies or it does not, if it does not do what you want you should not ignore the law, you should rewrite it.

Almost all the arguments I make require the change of law. This one isn't any different.

[Damocles]

You should mention it then.

What I am against is Judges applying the law as they see fit. Or saying things like, "Awww poor kid is going to have to move!" so we should just ignore it in just this one case...


Judges are not Legislators. Just as I am against an Executive stating that they will not enforce a law Legislators wrote... It isn't their decision to choose which of the contractual social agreements we have to enforce or not to enforce unless it is a Constitutional issue where the law conflicts with the Constitution.

[IHateGovernment]

I did. In one of the responses to Tiana I said that I wanted to be sure that these exceptions were codified. I also suggested a constittutional amendment about becoming a citizen.

[Damocles]

I did. In one of the responses to Tiana I said that I wanted to be sure that these exceptions were codified. I also suggested a constittutional amendment about becoming a citizen.
I understood and considered your argument about changes in the Constitution on citizenship and stated my objection to such a change. I don't believe it would solve even a bit of the problematic nature of anchor babies. It would just change the method of searching for sperm.

[IHateGovernment]

It wouldn't be completely effective however it would at least assuage concerns about pregnant mothers crossing the desert in search of a meal ticket.

No solution is without its detriments but this along with the my other suggestions covers every angle I can think of.

[IHateGovernment]

What do you think of Ron Paul's proposed amendment about citizenship?

[IHateGovernment]

Gotta go now. Have a great weekend.

:clink:

[Damocles]

Do you have a link to it? I haven't read it.

[Cypress]

All Icould focus in on that anecdote was the fact that our military would be letting people in without doing proper background checks and if that's the case, we've got bigger problems.

the fact is, some illegals can get fake documentation, and do serve in the military.

Would you deport a maimed iraq war vet, because they came here illegaly? You never did answer that question...........

[Damocles]

the fact is, some illegals can get fake documentation, and do serve in the military.

Would you deport a maimed iraq war vet, because they came here illegaly? You never did answer that question...........
This is actually one of the legal paths to citizenship. Many Philipino and Hispanic people take advantage of this.

[Cypress]

This is actually one of the legal paths to citizenship. Many Philipino and Hispanic people take advantage of this.

Good. So its not a black and white issue. They "all" shouldn't simply be deported ad hoc. There has to be flexibility and grey areas in the law.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Would you deport a maimed iraq war vet, because they came here illegaly?

Who informed you that illegals can join the military? I can assure you, this doesn't happen.

[Cypress]

Would you deport a maimed iraq war vet, because they came here illegaly?

Who informed you that illegals can join the military? I can assure you, this doesn't happen.

Never said the could join legally.

They can't cross the border legally either. but they do.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Never said the could join legally.

They can't cross the border legally either. but they do.

I would surmise, the extensive criminal background checks and routine verification for anyone joining the armed forces, would eliminate any such recruit, if it doesn't, we need to look at how we vett our soldiers. You are construcing a red herring, and anyone with half a brain, can figure that out. Unfortunately, there are a number of people in America, with only 49.9% of their brain functioning properly these days.

[IHateGovernment]

Here you go Damo.

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgradescategory.php3?District=TX14&Category=3&Status=Career&VIPID=787

This is one of the few things I disagree with Paul on. I understand his position though.

[BRUTALITOPS]

However illegal immigration should not be tolerated. As soon as it is discovered that a person is here illegally they must be deported. I am open to having an entirely open border if we cut back on entitlement programs they would be able to take advantage of.

Just curious: what would you do with an illegal immigrant who has been here 20 years, and has children who are american citizens?

Kick him out.

[BRUTALITOPS]

tiana gets +10, so does damo.

[LadyT]

the fact is, some illegals can get fake documentation, and do serve in the military.

Would you deport a maimed iraq war vet, because they came here illegaly? You never did answer that question...........

If they knowingly decieved the gov't yes. If they didn't know because perhaps their parents gave them fake documents that they always thought were theirs no. I do think there are some grey areas, but I wouldn't leave it open to people that knowingly decieve.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Even an iraq war vet that is illegal must be kicked out of this country.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Medicine is a concept as well. If I want to boil newt eyes and lizard tails, and call myself a doctor, I can! The government can't stop me from saying I am a doctor, or tell me that I am not practicing medicine. However, the government does licence doctors, and certain criteria have to be met to obtain that licence. It doesn't mater how much I want to be a doctor, or wish the world would see my voodoo techniques as legitimate medicine, there are rules and guidelines to follow, if I want a licence from the state. Sure, we can change the definition of "medical doctor" to include me, it doesn't change the relationship between you and your doctor, no one is forcing you to allow me to be your doctor, it's not harming you in any way. Still, the sanctioning by government carries responsibility to society, and parameters have been established in that regard.


Recucto ad absurdum...

Being a doctor has absolutely nothing with marriage, and equating the two is ridiculous. Of course, I know you aren't going to listen to anything as pussy as REASON, but I think I should at least make my voice known.

[evince]

Actually I am going to do this too, sounds fun.

1. Abortion

Early term abortions I don't have a problem with. I would ban partial birth under all circumstances except life of mother. 2nd terms are kind of iffy but at the end of the day I can't be bothered to care anymore.. go ahead kill babies..

2. Immigration

Legal Immigration is always fine. But we should mine the borders, and possibly shoot to kill anyone crossing. 1 year vacating period should be offered to all current illegal residents, after that year they can be shot on sight.

3. Iraq War

Was for it initially when I believed that Iraq could present a threat. Never for nationbuilding. Should have left a lonnnng ass time ago. We are wasting our time over there for no good reason.

4. Drug War

End it.

5. Death Penalty

For it when it's clearly demonstrated that the killer committed the crime (video footage, etc) Won't cry though when other murderes are being put to death. Goodbye tookie, you wont be missed, scumbag.

6. Taxes (death tax, income tax)

Hate taxes. Ultimately, in a perfect world, there should be none at all. Rationally, I would at least like to see the income tax abolished, and replace that with a flat tax for the time being. Maybe even a negative income tax. No social programs, no subsidizes.

7. Universal Health Care

Can't afford healthcare? Too bad, have fun dying. Not my problem. You dont' have a right to my money.

8. Global Warming

Our children can figure it out along with flying cars. Overhyped hysteria that the left often claims the right fallls victim to with regards to terrorism. Ok, so some of florida's swampland goes under..... it's not going to happen over night, it's going to be gradual, people will be able to move. The earth constantly changes. With or without human intervention. Get over it.

9. Abu Gharib and using Torture

Torture is acceptable to be used on enemies of the united states if we believe there is a good reason for it.

That said, having dogs bark loudly, putting people on leashes, or getting a strip dance from a female soldier, is NOT TORTURE.

10. Gay Marriage

Get married. Massachusetts hasn't fallen into doom. Marriage isn't sacred anymore...our sacred sacrement has a 50% divorce rate, people get drunk and get married in vegas every weekend. Move on.



you don't remember what you have said do you

[evince]

yeah to try and keep people from proving what he has said in the past huh

[Minister of Truth]

7.5 years later and Desh is still a douche.

[BRUTALITOPS]

you don't remember what you have said do you

what do you mean I don't remember? I still say the vast majority of the above on a daily basis. I've changed my view on parts of 2, 8, and prob 9 now as well. But 70% of the shit I said up there is the stuff I still say to this day. You are SO DUMB desh.

[evince]

Yeah you guys hate it when you have to face what you said in the past.


grind makes it as hard as he can for people to go find his old posts for the same reason super duper posts very little these days

[BRUTALITOPS]

i don't hate it at all.

it's not hard to find my posts. you've been spamming them all day. all you have to do is type in my current username you dolt.

[canceled.2021.1]

Hey evil, sorry I gotta have fun with this, we don't get a lot of new people. I am just trying to get a snapshot of ya. If you wouldn't mind... perhaps you could give your opinions on the following?

1. Abortion

should be illegal on all counts

2. Immigration

legal only, end all benefits to illegal aliens, imprison ANY employer who hires an illegal alien and fine them $100,000 per illegal alien. Problem solved. They will flood back to where they came from

3. Iraq War

was initially for it, have had a change of opinion

4. Drug War

Drug war is stupid. Don't have a problem with drugs being illegal

5. Death Penalty

For it in all circumstances

6. Taxes (death tax, income tax)

any tax on income is immoral, I support excise taxes and consumption taxes. They are the fairest of all.

7. Universal Health Care

The term is a misnomer, but if you mean the liberal version of socialized medicine then I oppose it with every fiber of my being. That does not mean I think people should not have healthcare.

8. Global Warming

man made global warming is one of the biggest shams ever perpetrated on man kind. It is a hoax and should be treated as such

9. Abu Gharib and using Torture

I oppose torture. What happened at Abu Ghraib was not torture. Water boarding is not torture. I don't care what McShamnesty says

10. Gay Marriage

Marriage is between a man and a woman. You can't just arbitrarily change the definitions of words to suit some pet cause. it is like saying a tree is now a street. Call it Garriage.

Thanks :)

You are welcome