It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

warning this can offend law abiding citizens - Which I'm not one of.

page: 49
113
<< 46  47  48    50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Dismantle that system? You have me confused with someone else. I've not said to dismantle it, I've said that if I have to educate my kids myself, then I should not be required to pay for that AND your kids. In other words, if I opt out of your system, I should be allowed to opt out of it, not just half way. See, your argument is that my rights end where yours begin, and I agree with that. The converse is also true, and your rights end where mine begin. Your rights then, do not include the right to insist that I pay for a system that I am forced not to participate in, at your insistence.


*sigh*

Everyone, including myself pays into that system. I also pay for other governmental services for your benefit as well, some that I may not want to pay for you to have, but still want to receive myself. You don't see me bitching over a measly few bucks taken out in taxes every week to provide a host of services for you.

Again, let's compile a list of services YOU don't want to pay for but still demand YOU personally receive by the government.




posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

*sigh*

Everyone, including myself pays into that system. I also pay for other governmental services for your benefit as well, some that I may not want to pay for you to have, but still want to receive myself. You don't see me bitching over a measly few bucks taken out in taxes every week to provide a host of services for you.


Which services do you pay that benefit me, but not yourself?



Again, let's compile a list of services YOU don't want to pay for but still demand YOU personally receive by the government.


I already have. Perhaps you missed it, so I'll list them again.

Here:



/end list



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by sirnex
 


You keep pretending that the state of California thinks they have a right to demand I obtain a license to home school my children, and they are so tyrannical about this, they threaten to use Social Services to take my child away from me. Frankly, I don't think you are nearly as stupid as you come across in this thread, I think you're just a troll who believes that all he has to do is keep posting in this thread, and sooner or later those who oppose tyranny will surrender. You couldn't be more wrong. There is not a soul that understands the importance of their inalienable rights, that doesn't see right through your game.



You have four options available to you in California. link

If you don't wish to sign an annual private school affidavit then you can hire someone to home school for you with your provided curriculum.

Again, you have options. You would rather bitch and whine on a web forum rather than pursuing those options. Your other option (if your truly that concerned about your childrens education as you claim to be, is to simply move to Mississippi where the state law is not as restrictive, where you don't need to sign a private school affidavit.

Don't bitch about oppression when options are available. You only oppress yourself when your too damn lazy to pursue available options.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by sirnex

Alright, let's go down the list of services provided by the government that you don't want to pay for others to receive through taxes but still want provided by the government for yourself.



I'm game, if you think you can manage it without resorting to unfounded name calling. I have my doubts about that, but we'll see.

Here's my list of what you specify above:


/end list

Now it's your turn.

You see, NOWHERE have I said that I want government services provided to me that I'm unwilling to pay for. My contention is that if I have to opt out of those services, I should not be required to keep them up for YOU. You should be capable of doing that on your own, or else not require me to opt out.


Public schools are funded by taxes. Say it's one specific tax, take away that tax, then they'll move to a different tax making that slightly higher to make up the difference. The only remedy is to take away all taxation, and I'm not sure that's a viable alternative so you can just "opt out".



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Public schools are funded by taxes. Say it's one specific tax, take away that tax, then they'll move to a different tax making that slightly higher to make up the difference. The only remedy is to take away all taxation, and I'm not sure that's a viable alternative so you can just "opt out".


That's true enough, as far as it goes. When I moved to NC, and went to register my car here, they tried to charge me a 'sales tax' for that car. I told them that I didn't buy the car here, and a sales tax was therefore unwarranted. They then immediately changed it to a 'road use tax', of precisely the same amount, which I then paid without complaint, as I intended to use the roads - else there was no need for the car in the first place.

Now I can't see why taxes can't be pro-rated based on stated use. If I then elected not to avail myself of the state education system, then my taxes could be cut by that amount, with the provision that I not be allowed to opt back IN to that system without a corresponding personal tax increase to cover it.

Some things, agreed, would not be subject to such a system. For example, I never avail myself of 'police protection', but can see the need for such, and don't complain about those taxes. The potential is there, whether I use it or not. That is, of course, my own choice, and I don't avail myself of a private police force that I have to pay out of pocket for, either. If I did, I might gripe somewhat about having to keep up two separate police forces as well.

Some things are necessary and proper functions of government, and some are not. It appears we differ mainly in what our interpretations of what those things may be.

[edit on 2010/6/1 by nenothtu]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Now I can't see why taxes can't be pro-rated based on stated use. If I then elected not to avail myself of the state education system, then my taxes could be cut by that amount, with the provision that I not be allowed to opt back IN to that system without a corresponding personal tax increase to cover it.


I would personally agree with that, but that's not how it is. What do we do now? I have an idea, we can vote and petition that our elected leader's change the policy rather than sitting on a web forum complaining.

But then you run into other problems. Now because you want to opt out, my taxes have gone up forcing me to pay more than I would have for my child's education. At this juncture, I would possibly try to home school as assuming so would others. This now poses another problem for those unfortunate few still in public schools. They now have to pay even more, creating an even greater financial burden, because you wanted to opt out.

Can you see how this could compound and get worse? I can. It would eventually lead to no funds for public schools, leading to it's demise as the funding simply isn't there. Now we are left with no government funded schools available to all children regardless of financial background.

Ah, but then either you or I lose our jobs, or get hurt and unable to transport to private schools. Now we have no means of ensuring a continuation of their education. Why? Simple, because you wanted to opt out of paying a really minuscule amount of money in your taxes. Was the couple of bucks really worth your childrens education? I argue that it's not and nor should we gamble on something so important for such a vain and pathetic excuse.

You talk about potential of future police protection and happily pay those taxes. How about future continuance of your child's education in case of unforeseen events? That isn't important to you either?

[edit]

Even if I did not have children myself, I would happily pay taxes to ensure YOUR children get an education, even if the school you sent them to was piss poor and you did not want to move to a better district. I value a child's education more than I value three bucks. You can't put a price on a child's education, there is no simple way around that. God forbid something unfortunate happens whilst you opted out, at least you would have ME paying MY taxes for YOUR children to still receive an education. That is the real difference between you and I. I'm not as vain and selfish as you over a crappy three bucks.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by sirnex]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Just so we are clear, property taxes are not a "few measely bucks". I would bet that my business will not be able to stay open next year after tax time. Revenue is down so much due to the economy, and my property tax burden on that will still be a little over 200k. They tried to adjust it up this year, too. I offered to just sign over the deed on the spot, and save them the trouble. They got the picture.

My home...that isn't so bad. About 4k annually. That would go a long way towards private schooling, if the money were available to make it worthwhile for someone to actually open a private school. But who can compete? Especially with a system that taxes business and landlords. As a renter, you can put 20 kids into school with no tax burden as you have no property.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



As a renter, you can put 20 kids into school with no tax burden as you have no property.


Then rent! If your childrens education REALLY IS THAT IMPORTANT then you would pursue every single damn available option in which to provide what you view is a proper education! You need a roof over your head, not your own home,. Does it really matter that much to you whether you have say over what the color of the house is or how many inches the grass is cut?

You don't value their education as much as you say you do and that much is obvious as you refuse to pursue the options available to you to provide what you view is a proper education. Don't BS me by being a hypocritical lying bigot.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Don't have a problem with people bowing their heads and praying as long as I could sit there and not participate in it. I'm sure some those people felt obligated to do so simply because the principle felt it was necessary to give a speech based off of hypocrisy. I'm sure a majority of those people would have booed if there was a Muslim man trying to give a prayer to allah for the well being of those football players. Religion and everything that associates itself with it including atheism is a black mark on human history.

Whatever happened of being a good person for the sake of being a good person?



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

I understand your arguement with neno, but regardless of any options made available to a parent, isnt it the parents decision on whats best for their child? Im a father of two, and I speak from experience, the public school system where Im at rates #2 for the highest failure rate. Isnt it my choice to do whats best for my child, even though there is public school made available? Regardless of what you or anyone says, for every action is a reaction. Thus suggesting the whole taxation issue on public schools or the lack there of.
You both bring valid points to the table, and I commend you both, but in the end, its the persons right to make a decision regardless of topic that best suits them~



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SurefireII
reply to post by sirnex
 

I understand your arguement with neno, but regardless of any options made available to a parent, isnt it the parents decision on whats best for their child? Im a father of two, and I speak from experience, the public school system where Im at rates #2 for the highest failure rate. Isnt it my choice to do whats best for my child, even though there is public school made available? Regardless of what you or anyone says, for every action is a reaction. Thus suggesting the whole taxation issue on public schools or the lack there of.
You both bring valid points to the table, and I commend you both, but in the end, its the persons right to make a decision regardless of topic that best suits them~


Yes, it is your choice and your more than free to exercise your choice, the government is not stopping anyone from doing so as these folk are attempting to imply and argue. If your district ranks low, you can do as I did and move to a better district. You can get on a committee and personally have a say in the curriculum. You can home school or hire someone and use your own curriculum. You can send your children to a private school that has a curriculum you approve of, etc.

Their argument is that the government forces you to go to public school and/or enforces a certain standardized curriculum, which is no where near what really is occurring here. All they're doing is using this thread to air their grievances of their own faults because they oppress themselves by their own laziness and own choosing to not pursue available options while BS-ing me that they 'oh so value' their childrens education. Point of fact is, if they actually truly did value their childrens education as much as they are BS-ing me, they wouldn't be on a web forum BS-ing me and would instead be pursuing every available option that does indeed exist regardless of their hatreds towards government.

In closing, yes you do have a choice and yes you are really actually free to make that choice. At the end of the day however, taxes are taxes and our taxes are not itemized in a way where we can simply opt out of what we don't want to pay for. This is the government and system the American people voted for and if someone doesn't like that, they can petition and vote for a change rather than spending their time on ATS crying like little girls about their own ineptitude.

[edit]

I'm sorry; I forgot to add this when I hit reply. These folk talk about self accountability and responsibility whilst hypocritically placing such blame on the government by pretending it forces them to use public schools and has taken away all other options from them. It is simply sad to see someone go to such lengths as they have to take the blame off themselves and place it upon someone else. They have no lick of understanding as to what self accountability and responsibility truly is with that course of action and I find it disgusting that they have to stoop so low to make themselves feel better for their own failings and personal oppressions.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by sirnex]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Chad_Thomas89
 



Whatever happened of being a good person for the sake of being a good person?


Unfortunately, we don't live in a society where American's show concern for community. Most American's are all about the instant gratification and the 'put it in my hand' mentality. The day's of self-sufficiency, self accountability and self worth are long gone and now we're living in the age of "it's every one else fault but my own."



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Yes, it is your choice and your more than free to exercise your choice, the government is not stopping anyone from doing so as these folk are attempting to imply and argue. If your district ranks low, you can do as I did and move to a better district. You can get on a committee and personally have a say in the curriculum. You can home school or hire someone and use your own curriculum. You can send your children to a private school that has a curriculum you approve of, etc.


Yes, the choice is ours - assuming we can afford the costs imposed by the government on that choice. If we can't then the choice is indeed the government's, and no longer in our hands.



Their argument is that the government forces you to go to public school and/or enforces a certain standardized curriculum, which is no where near what really is occurring here.


The notion of an enforced standard curriculum comes from my wife's attempts to home school the kids, which I had to veto out of, among other things, economic considerations. Not sure where she got that from, but she insisted it was the case. She died a couple of years ago, and so can't tell me where she got it from, and in all honesty, it's not worth all the digging to find out just to win an argument. She insisted it was so, and I can't really imagine teaching anything without teaching anything, so I never really questioned the veracity of that.

Another reason I vetoed the notion is that it lacked a sufficient socialization component. I think it's a GOOD thing for kids to learn early on how to deal with fools and adversity, both of which are found in abundance in the public school system. I saw no reason that I couldn't add actual education on top of that myself, and not have to worry about meeting the curricula requirements.

In short, I can teach them what they need to know without having to go to the expense of setting up a state approved home school AND paying to keep up the state supported public school, by sending them to the public school for their hard knocks education, and teaching them what they need to know myself, without having the state nanny supervise it.



All they're doing is using this thread to air their grievances of their own faults because they oppress themselves by their own laziness and own choosing to not pursue available options while BS-ing me that they 'oh so value' their childrens education. Point of fact is, if they actually truly did value their childrens education as much as they are BS-ing me, they wouldn't be on a web forum BS-ing me and would instead be pursuing every available option that does indeed exist regardless of their hatreds towards government.


This and all of the rest of your post is accusatory histrionics and bluster, unworthy of reply, so I'll leave you to it.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Chad_Thomas89
 


Because most religions, including Christianity, the major religion in the U.S., think they all have the monopoly on morality. They think we are inherently born with "sin" so we have to be redeemed. I believe the opposite. We are inherently born with morality and "sin" is something that is learned. We don't need religion to be a moral person. Granted, we are born with an ego, which can lead to greed, but with out our ego we could not survive. Besides, show me where there is not greed in religion. I could argue that religion is more about ego than anything.


This ego based idea that these religions have is exactly why it is important that religion stays out of government. Government does their part by staying out of religion, but religious organizations are never satisfied until their religion is in the government. Just another example of the ego driven greed of religions.

Now, all that being said, in the case of the op, if it had been a private event, you would have not been protected from separation of church and state. At a private event, you would have to make the choice to either not attend or sit uncomfortably through the prayer. However, this was not the case. It is a public school sponsored event and the Supreme Court ruled that, like the classroom, their can not be a public prayer over the public address system.



[edit on 2-6-2010 by Reflection]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Yes, the choice is ours - assuming we can afford the costs imposed by the government on that choice. If we can't then the choice is indeed the government's, and no longer in our hands.


Again, this brings up the whole taxation issue. The American tax system is not set up to be itemized so you can "opt out" of specific government provided services. Again, in this case YOU DO HAVE OPTIONS. You can participate in government processes in attempt to make a change through various methods. Saying you have no options is complete BS.

JPZ also made mention that we have the choice to be as rich as we want to be. If finances are a hindrance and excuse to not send your kids to private schools, then YOU can make more money if YOU want to. The government does not set the costs for a private endeavor. You and I do depending on whether you or I utilize that service, product, etc. It's supply and demand, welcome to American economics.

The government does not force you to *not make enough* money to send your kids to private school or to hire someone to home school for you. You are accountable for your own wealth and for the services/products you wish to have based on their cost's.


The notion of an enforced standard curriculum comes from my wife's attempts to home school the kids, which I had to veto out of, among other things, economic considerations. Not sure where she got that from, but she insisted it was the case. She died a couple of years ago, and so can't tell me where she got it from, and in all honesty, it's not worth all the digging to find out just to win an argument. She insisted it was so, and I can't really imagine teaching anything without teaching anything, so I never really questioned the veracity of that.


I'm sorry to hear about your loss. After a quick search on the web and as I provided links to, there is no enforced curriculum. The only thing that is enforced are certain subjects, but this varies from state to state. Arguing against enforced subjects is just ridiculous as these subjects are thing's like reading and math. My state however enforces a broader range of subjects for children to be more well rounded, I don't argue against these subjects because if I were personally teaching them, I would be teaching those subjects anyways, it's just pointless to fight against.


Another reason I vetoed the notion is that it lacked a sufficient socialization component. I think it's a GOOD thing for kids to learn early on how to deal with fools and adversity, both of which are found in abundance in the public school system. I saw no reason that I couldn't add actual education on top of that myself, and not have to worry about meeting the curricula requirements.


Great, and I couldn't agree more! However, I fail to see your incessant need to bitch about a service that you utilize for such a very reason. It appears you are just bitching for the sake of bitching. Reminds me of my grandfather right before he passed on, the damn guy bitched just for the sake of bitching, it get's pretty nauseating awfully quick.


In short, I can teach them what they need to know without having to go to the expense of setting up a state approved home school AND paying to keep up the state supported public school, by sending them to the public school for their hard knocks education, and teaching them what they need to know myself, without having the state nanny supervise it.


You're using the public schools, so hence you have to pay for them like it or not. If you send your kids to private school, which you've already stated that you refuse to for a couple of reasons, then you still have to pay for public schools as our tax system is NOT ITEMIZED.

Nor is the curriculum you choose by homeschooling under "state nanny supervision". So long as you are teaching what subjects your state requires, which again are subjects you most likely would be teaching anyways (reading, math) then you should not have any issues. If you send your kids to public school, they choose the curriculum, if you send your kids to private school, they may have a different curriculum, if you home school, you would have your own, but in all cases the kids are learning the SAME SUBJECTS. A subject is not a series of lessons, which is what a curriculum is and that is not enforced by any means. The curriculum of my kid's last school was utterly different than the one at their current school now, and this new school is MUCH better. If you have issues with the curriculum, do as I did and move rather than whine like a little girl about how you refuse to pursue all options.


This and all of the rest of your post is accusatory histrionics and bluster, unworthy of reply, so I'll leave you to it.


You claim to value your kids education and yet you refuse to pursue options available. You figure it out, doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand where the math is wrong in that equation. The fault does not lay with the government, the fault lay's with you. You control how your life goes and if you refuse options, then you are your personal oppressor. How's that for self accountability and responsibility?

You're seriously going to cry tyranny when you have already admitted that YOU refuse to pursue options that are available to you?

[edit on 2-6-2010 by sirnex]



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by SurefireII
reply to post by sirnex
 

I understand your arguement with neno, but regardless of any options made available to a parent, isnt it the parents decision on whats best for their child? Im a father of two, and I speak from experience, the public school system where Im at rates #2 for the highest failure rate. Isnt it my choice to do whats best for my child, even though there is public school made available? Regardless of what you or anyone says, for every action is a reaction. Thus suggesting the whole taxation issue on public schools or the lack there of.
You both bring valid points to the table, and I commend you both, but in the end, its the persons right to make a decision regardless of topic that best suits them~


Yes, it is your choice and your more than free to exercise your choice, the government is not stopping anyone from doing so as these folk are attempting to imply and argue. If your district ranks low, you can do as I did and move to a better district. You can get on a committee and personally have a say in the curriculum. You can home school or hire someone and use your own curriculum. You can send your children to a private school that has a curriculum you approve of, etc.

Their argument is that the government forces you to go to public school and/or enforces a certain standardized curriculum, which is no where near what really is occurring here. All they're doing is using this thread to air their grievances of their own faults because they oppress themselves by their own laziness and own choosing to not pursue available options while BS-ing me that they 'oh so value' their childrens education. Point of fact is, if they actually truly did value their childrens education as much as they are BS-ing me, they wouldn't be on a web forum BS-ing me and would instead be pursuing every available option that does indeed exist regardless of their hatreds towards government.

In closing, yes you do have a choice and yes you are really actually free to make that choice. At the end of the day however, taxes are taxes and our taxes are not itemized in a way where we can simply opt out of what we don't want to pay for. This is the government and system the American people voted for and if someone doesn't like that, they can petition and vote for a change rather than spending their time on ATS crying like little girls about their own ineptitude.

[edit]

I'm sorry; I forgot to add this when I hit reply. These folk talk about self accountability and responsibility whilst hypocritically placing such blame on the government by pretending it forces them to use public schools and has taken away all other options from them. It is simply sad to see someone go to such lengths as they have to take the blame off themselves and place it upon someone else. They have no lick of understanding as to what self accountability and responsibility truly is with that course of action and I find it disgusting that they have to stoop so low to make themselves feel better for their own failings and personal oppressions.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by sirnex]


I see your point, and I have to agree with you in the respect that we should as americans be able to opt out if we should choose to. ie..social security ( which probably wont be around when you or i need it) taxes in general that dont support my needs etc. Thanks for clarifying, absolutely spot on!



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SurefireII
 



I see your point, and I have to agree with you in the respect that we should as americans be able to opt out if we should choose to. ie..social security ( which probably wont be around when you or i need it) taxes in general that dont support my needs etc. Thanks for clarifying, absolutely spot on!


Correct, we *should* be able to if taxes were itemized by services provided. Unfortunately this is not the case and we have to deal with the tax system as it is now as we Americans allowed it to exist as it is now. Voting and electing leaders to represent us in government is our own doing and we can no more call them tyrants than we can ourselves as we voted these people into office to represent our needs, wants and desires.

If we no longer like our tax system or government, then we can and should be making changes, not sitting on web forums calling the people WE elected, tyrants. The American populace are the true tyrants of themselves. When options are available, and options most certainly are available in every facet of American society, if you choose to not pursue those options, you are the real oppressor, not the person you elected to represent you in office.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Responded to the wrong post.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Ok, we will cover this one time. I do not have patience for someone who feigns stupidity as a debate tactic.


Like someone that pretends to not know what "love life" means? Yeah, I hate that too.


This whole debate is a first amendment debate. Since we established that the intention of the writers of the first amendment was not what the supreme court interpreted, based on their own writings, then the constitutional matter was put to rest.


Was it? I am sure you feel it has been put to rest but your opinion does not make it so.


The only other matter left to dispute, then, would be states laws.


You mean after we just decide to assume you are right in that the first amendment issue is completely settled. Right, so this thread must have ended a while back or became all about state law and I missed that for 40+ pages?


That is how the system works. So we further established that Tennessee state law does not forbid it. In fact, it does the opposite.


MMMMMMMMMM....no. You have failed to establish that he has the right to say those things at that place according to anything written anywhere. We have been able to find where he is actually not permitted to say such things. Your case is completely built on your assumption that your opinion is wrong. You do know the world does not work that way, right?



I do not want to be forced to reiterate pieces of conversation that you participated in.


Let me put my gun down then.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It was YOUR hypothetical. I never claimed to understand anything about it.


And yet you had an opinion on it? Why would you have an opinion of something you did not understand?


I gave you a sarcastic response, for the most part.


Guess I missed the sarcasm font in part of your post.


You missed that.


Yup. Sarcasm in print works well and jokes you need to explain are the funniest.


I then told you that it was a sarcastic response, due to being silly enough to warrant such, and you STILL don't get it?


I get it. You are playing dumb, just like you hate when people do. You know what I said and you understood it. If not, please put your helmet on and have your caretaker get you away from the computer.

That man can not stand there at that PA and discuss his love life. He cannot disseminate private details of his personal sexual dalliances. There are things you can NOT say. He does not have the right to say ANYTHING he wants. Your entire premise is that he is protected under both federal and state laws protecting free speech. I am simply pointing out to you one simple example of why that is not true.

How do you not understand?


It got an answer worthy of the question: half hearted and off the cuff.


That is my favorite. 'I did not care about your post and your question was stupid - so I took the time to write a lengthy reply to it.'
Keep telling yourself that.

]quote]Tell you what, you tell me specifically what you want my opinion on, exactly what they are hypothetically saying, and i will give you my opinion on that grouping of words. What i will not do is link such exercises to this topic, as it is not related nor fruitful (as you are not comparing apples to apples), and i will not entertain vague questions meant to distract from the topic.

If you do not see how it is related but insist on mentioning state law in defense of the constitution then you are in need of serious help.

You said this is a free speech issue.
You said this is a first amendment issue.

Then...

You said the first amendment is settled so it is a state law issue and not a first amendment issue.

Obviously you are confused but at least you seem to be concentrating on free speech. I am simply pointing out that free speech does not actually mean you have to right to say anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere you want.

When you figure out if it is a federal or state issue, maybe you can try and figure out why my talking about free speech is completely related.



I will not rehash what has been rehashed.


Then stop trying to bring up old things other posters have said. Stand up like a big boy and speak for yourself. I have no interest in what other people have to say in defense of things you are trying to prove.


Persistance of insistance is not proving anything. I would say you jabs at sexual performance betray the tenuous position you find yourself in.


If you are going to try to sound clever, SPELL CORRECTLY. Maybe you can find a quote at my jab at sexual performance/. Not only did that not happen but you trying to make a 50 cent word filled statement about it that is spelled so poorly is just funny. Use things I actually said to try and deride me for things you think I have said.


Here is your real answer: that has nothing to do with the topic. It is comparing apples and bumper brackets. Quit trying to use logical fallacies. I am not that stupid.


Ah, so you can not back up your claim that free speech gives him the right to say anything he wants then? You get cowardly when cornered. Stop trying to tell me that free speech issues are off topic and deal with the fact that you are wrong. Free speech does not give you the right to say ANYTHING ANYWHERE ANYTIME.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 46  47  48    50 >>

log in

join