"Upskirting" not illegal??

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

this is why we need to enact sensible laws and get rid of lawyers, as well as ban them from ever holding political office.

I couldn't agree more.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

AndyBoyd

Quote

this is why we need to enact sensible laws and get rid of lawyers, as well as ban them from ever holding political office.

I couldn't agree more.

I challenge both of you to write a sensible law covering an issue which has not yet been a problem.

[Andy9o8 0]

SkyDekker

***

Quote

this is why we need to enact sensible laws and get rid of lawyers, as well as ban them from ever holding political office.

I couldn't agree more.

I challenge both of you to write a sensible law covering an issue which has not yet been a problem.



For a reasonable fee, I will draft you a statute on requirements for the proper ingredients and preparation technique of s'mores.

[turtlespeed 212]

Andy9o8

******

Quote

this is why we need to enact sensible laws and get rid of lawyers, as well as ban them from ever holding political office.

I couldn't agree more.

I challenge both of you to write a sensible law covering an issue which has not yet been a problem.



For a reasonable fee, I will draft you a statute on requirements for the proper ingredients and preparation technique of s'mores.

What would the cost be for a statute on the requirement, rights, and responsibilities of people that know better than you do, how to teach your children?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

Hmm, depends. I'd have to do the research, of course. It would involve interviewing people on their first-hand experiences raising their own children. Let's start with you. What did you teach your own children, and how?

[turtlespeed 212]

Andy9o8

Hmm, depends. I'd have to do the research, of course. It would involve interviewing people on their first-hand experiences raising their own children. Let's start with you. What did you teach your own children, and how?

Respect, independence, tools and skills that allow her to not depend on the government for survive, critical thinking, and most important, how to surround herself with the right people with like ambitions.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

turtlespeed

***Hmm, depends. I'd have to do the research, of course. It would involve interviewing people on their first-hand experiences raising their own children. Let's start with you. What did you teach your own children, and how?

Respect, independence, tools and skills that allow her to not depend on the government for survive, critical thinking, and most important, how to surround herself with the right people with like ambitions.

Sounds to me like you'd support AP History. Seems like a pretty good start.

[turtlespeed 212]

Andy9o8

******Hmm, depends. I'd have to do the research, of course. It would involve interviewing people on their first-hand experiences raising their own children. Let's start with you. What did you teach your own children, and how?

Respect, independence, tools and skills that allow her to not depend on the government for survive, critical thinking, and most important, how to surround herself with the right people with like ambitions.

Sounds to me like you'd support AP History. Seems like a pretty good start.

I support the community's right to choose.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

>I support the community's right to choose.

So if a local US community decided to teach in their schools that condoms caused cancer and vaccinations caused autism - you'd be OK with that?

[AndyBoyd 0]

SkyDekker

***

Quote

this is why we need to enact sensible laws and get rid of lawyers, as well as ban them from ever holding political office.

I couldn't agree more.

I challenge both of you to write a sensible law covering an issue which has not yet been a problem.

Do you understand sarcasm? Why don't you check my profile.

[sfzombie13 307]

my ideas are fairly simple: if it does not interfere with anyone else, it is ok. covers just about everything. want to do drugs? sure. steal money to support habit? no good. and most of the federal laws would be rolled back and put into the states' hands as originally intended. regardless of what many seem to think, the constitution is a pretty good document. we need to follow it closely, with a few minor adjustments to fit the technology, such as doing away with the electoral system, implementing term limits on everyone, and implementing a database of the will of the people and make it mandatory for all politicians to follow this strictly when making a decision. then we know we are in a truly representative republic.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[DanG 1]

You had me until the 'database of the will of the people' part. There are some things that should never be done regardless of popularity.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>I support the community's right to choose.

So if a local US community decided to teach in their schools that condoms caused cancer and vaccinations caused autism - you'd be OK with that?

If that is what the people in that community want, who are you to decide for them?
Or are you so self important that you think you are the end all of society?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,648]

turtlespeed

***>I support the community's right to choose.

So if a local US community decided to teach in their schools that condoms caused cancer and vaccinations caused autism - you'd be OK with that?

If that is what the people in that community want, who are you to decide for them?
Or are you so self important that you think you are the end all of society?

So it's OK with you if people in a community want to exclude CCW holders from another state. Nice to know that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

turtlespeed

***>I support the community's right to choose.

So if a local US community decided to teach in their schools that condoms caused cancer and vaccinations caused autism - you'd be OK with that?

If that is what the people in that community want, who are you to decide for them?
Or are you so self important that you think you are the end all of society?

I seem to recall that the "will of the people" was ignored in the south in the sixties.

The federal government even sent soldiers in to enforce their "overruling of the will of the people."

Wrong is wrong, despite how popular it is.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 0]

DanG

You had me until the 'database of the will of the people' part. There are some things that should never be done regardless of popularity.

"Don't be a slave to fashion."

[billvon 2,434]

>If that is what the people in that community want, who are you to decide for them?

A member of a society that has a stake in educating our future leaders.

>Or are you so self important that you think you are the end all of society?

No - I think kids are that important, though. And as such they deserve to be taught facts rather than political propaganda.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

******>I support the community's right to choose.

So if a local US community decided to teach in their schools that condoms caused cancer and vaccinations caused autism - you'd be OK with that?

If that is what the people in that community want, who are you to decide for them?
Or are you so self important that you think you are the end all of society?

So it's OK with you if people in a community want to exclude CCW holders from another state. Nice to know that.

I would agree with you on that, if you can show me in the constitution where that would be lawful.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>If that is what the people in that community want, who are you to decide for them?

A member of a society that has a stake in educating our future leaders.

>Or are you so self important that you think you are the end all of society?

No - I think kids are that important, though. And as such they deserve to be taught facts rather than political propaganda.

Ah, so you agree that climate change alarmist views should not be taught.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

>Ah, so you agree that climate change alarmist views should not be taught.

Correct. Nor should climate change denier views be taught. Teach the science as understood from the IPCC, and leave the alarmists and deniers out of the classroom.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Ah, so you agree that climate change alarmist views should not be taught.

Correct. Nor should climate change denier views be taught. Teach the science as understood from the IPCC, and leave the alarmists and deniers out of the classroom.

As soon as you can prove that there is absolutely no agenda in the scientific community, besides raw truth, then we will agree.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

>As soon as you can prove that there is absolutely no agenda in the scientific
>community, besides raw truth, then we will agree.

You said that extremist political positions (like alarmism or denialism) should not be taught. I agreed. Are you now saying you disagree?

[kallend 1,648]

turtlespeed

*********>I support the community's right to choose.

So if a local US community decided to teach in their schools that condoms caused cancer and vaccinations caused autism - you'd be OK with that?

If that is what the people in that community want, who are you to decide for them?
Or are you so self important that you think you are the end all of society?

So it's OK with you if people in a community want to exclude CCW holders from another state. Nice to know that.

I would agree with you on that, if you can show me in the constitution where that would be lawful.

Are you telling us that you don't believe in states' rights?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sfzombie13 307]

i hadn't thought of it like that. it would still work, as long as everyone was represented. the point i am trying to make with the database is that politicians are elected to represent the people. they should be required to represent the people, not the lobbyists. do you agree with that? if not, why not? and if so, do you have any other ideas how to ensure the people are truly represented? that is all i am trying to do.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

sfzombie13

i hadn't thought of it like that. it would still work, as long as everyone was represented. the point i am trying to make with the database is that politicians are elected to represent the people. they should be required to represent the people, not the lobbyists. do you agree with that? if not, why not? and if so, do you have any other ideas how to ensure the people are truly represented? that is all i am trying to do.

I agree that they should represent the people. And should tailor their votes on issues to accurately represent the will of the people that elected them.

I agree with DanG that having a government database has too much potential for abuse (Big Brother and all that).

I don't completely agree that "lobbyists" are automatically bad. It's one way that the people communicate their will to the representatives. There are a couple groups that I belong to that "lobby the government on my behalf." That's part of what I pay my membership dues for.
I'm not trying to be snarky, but aren't you in the process of building a group that will try to get your local politicians to keep the big corporations from putting your local water supply at risk for contamination?
Isn't that a "lobbying group"?

And last, the "will of the people" is subject to the rules of the constitution. There are any number of situations, past and present where the "will of the majority of the people" was to deny the minority a variety of civil rights.
That's pretty much a direct violation of the principles the country was founded on. And shouldn't happen.

The specific incident I'm referring to in my post was Wallace's "stand in the door" to try and keep racial segregation in place. A political position that did accurately represent the will of a majority of the people in that state at that time, but wrongly denied black people civil rights that they should have had.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo