Cispa Passed The House Yesterday
-
I would disagree that it is not covered in the constitution. No one shall be deprived of life without due process would be my argument. But I also believe that an unborn child once conceived is a human being with human rights. Not everyone sees it that way
I don't think a clump of a two then 4 the 8 cells is a human being.
hmmm... Wonder how many times babies are aborted when they are only a clump of 8 cells, but again that is the argument... When does life begin. Ever heard of late term abortions? Look at what planned parenthood is advocating these days, might surprise youI don't think a clump of a two then 4 the 8 cells is a human being.
-
Is murder unconstitutional?
yes, I'm sure you have heard people call abortion murder. Should have picked a different question lol. Just interested in your different somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative viewsIs murder unconstitutional?
-
So, seriously, exactly what bad things do you think you could or would happen in our day to day lives because of this legislation?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
yes, I'm sure you have heard people call abortion murder. Should have picked a different question lol. Just interested in your different somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative viewsIs murder unconstitutional?
yes, I'm sure you have heard people call abortion murder. Should have picked a different question lol. Just interested in your different somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative views
The point I'm trying to make is neither abortion nor murder are touched on by the Constitution. You mentioned "life without due process" but that's in the amendment pertaining to the rights of those who are being tried for crimes.
-
So, seriously, exactly what bad things do you think you could or would happen in our day to day lives because of this legislation?
WSS
So, seriously, exactly what bad things do you think you could or would happen in our day to day lives because of this legislation?
WSS
I see where you are coming from and you are right, probably nothing.
But it's the principle, CISPA is an invasion of privacy. And who knows what it could snowball into, best to nip it in the bud.
-
So, seriously, exactly what bad things do you think you could or would happen in our day to day lives because of this legislation?
WSS
So, seriously, exactly what bad things do you think you could or would happen in our day to day lives because of this legislation?
WSS
Vague wording. The language of the bill allows ISPs to determine anyone's traffic is a risk to their network, and can hand your data to the government or put a hold on your account at will. CISPA isn't going to make it any tougher to be a cyber-criminal, it just adds risk to law abiding citizens. This bill makes your information obtainable to the government without a warrant. You might not have a problem with that, but I do.
-
maybe fan is inaccurate, but he's certainly not a foe of it
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
Well that's about as odd of a statement as I've ever heard. I'll assume that you believe the constitution is useless, which it will be sometime in my life if the Supreme Court has anything to do with it. I don't get what why you would relate it to the bible. The bible being useful depends completely on the reader. The constitution being useful depends on which judge is interpreting it. After typing that I'm starting to see your point in a weird way
Well that's about as odd of a statement as I've ever heard. I'll assume that you believe the constitution is useless, which it will be sometime in my life if the Supreme Court has anything to do with it. I don't get what why you would relate it to the bible. The bible being useful depends completely on the reader. The constitution being useful depends on which judge is interpreting it. After typing that I'm starting to see your point in a weird way
Not at all, not at all. I believe the Bible has a lot of merit, but to sit there and lean on it and call it the absolute doctrine of god that must be followed to the letter is just plain silly. Frankly the Constitution is much the same. It has undeniable merit, but to look to it 250 years later as an absolute is foolish.
By the way that's not that odd of a statement, especially around here. And don't worry, a lot of people don't know what the hell to make of a lot of things I say.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
hmmm... Wonder how many times babies are aborted when they are only a clump of 8 cells, but again that is the argument... When does life begin. Ever heard of late term abortions? Look at what planned parenthood is advocating these days, might surprise youI don't think a clump of a two then 4 the 8 cells is a human being.
hmmm... Wonder how many times babies are aborted when they are only a clump of 8 cells, but again that is the argument... When does life begin. Ever heard of late term abortions? Look at what planned parenthood is advocating these days, might surprise you
Except a lump of 8 cells isn't a baby...
-
Well that's about as odd of a statement as I've ever heard. I'll assume that you believe the constitution is useless, which it will be sometime in my life if the Supreme Court has anything to do with it. I don't get what why you would relate it to the bible. The bible being useful depends completely on the reader. The constitution being useful depends on which judge is interpreting it. After typing that I'm starting to see your point in a weird way
Not at all, not at all. I believe the Bible has a lot of merit, but to sit there and lean on it and call it the absolute doctrine of god that must be followed to the letter is just plain silly. Frankly the Constitution is much the same. It has undeniable merit, but to look to it 250 years later as an absolute is foolish.
By the way that's not that odd of a statement, especially around here. And don't worry, a lot of people don't know what the hell to make of a lot of things I say.
Not at all, not at all. I believe the Bible has a lot of merit, but to sit there and lean on it and call it the absolute doctrine of god that must be followed to the letter is just plain silly. Frankly the Constitution is much the same. It has undeniable merit, but to look to it 250 years later as an absolute is foolish.
By the way that's not that odd of a statement, especially around here. And don't worry, a lot of people don't know what the hell to make of a lot of things I say.
Yeah I pretty much agree with Cysko here. To look to a 250 year old document as the end all be all in policy and legislation is dumb. A lot has changed...
You want to look at the principles of the document, and the ideology, sure. But specifics? Idk...
Same with the Bible. Sure, there are a lot of good messages in there. But to take it all literally is foolish
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
maybe fan is inaccurate, but he's certainly not a foe of it
maybe fan is inaccurate, but he's certainly not a foe of it
It is inaccurate, but its what you say every time this debate comes up. You call the pro choice side "pro abortion" or "fans of abortion". That's not true at all. Your side calls themselves "pro life" as if the other is "anti-life" or something..
-
Not at all, not at all. I believe the Bible has a lot of merit, but to sit there and lean on it and call it the absolute doctrine of god that must be followed to the letter is just plain silly. Frankly the Constitution is much the same. It has undeniable merit, but to look to it 250 years later as an absolute is foolish.
By the way that's not that odd of a statement, especially around here. And don't worry, a lot of people don't know what the hell to make of a lot of things I say.
Yeah I pretty much agree with Cysko here. To look to a 250 year old document as the end all be all in policy and legislation is dumb. A lot has changed...
You want to look at the principles of the document, and the ideology, sure. But specifics? Idk...
Same with the Bible. Sure, there are a lot of good messages in there. But to take it all literally is foolish
Yeah I pretty much agree with Cysko here. To look to a 250 year old document as the end all be all in policy and legislation is dumb. A lot has changed...
You want to look at the principles of the document, and the ideology, sure. But specifics? Idk...
Same with the Bible. Sure, there are a lot of good messages in there. But to take it all literally is foolish
The Constitution is not simply a 250 year old document like the Bible is a 2000 year old document. We've been changing the Constitution for over 200 years, as needed, to keep up with the times. When the situation is dire enough, the Constitution bends to the will of its people.
-
I don't call people that, woody. But now that you mention it, damn you anti life guys to hell.
-
Yeah I pretty much agree with Cysko here. To look to a 250 year old document as the end all be all in policy and legislation is dumb. A lot has changed...
You want to look at the principles of the document, and the ideology, sure. But specifics? Idk...
Same with the Bible. Sure, there are a lot of good messages in there. But to take it all literally is foolish
The Constitution is not simply a 250 year old document like the Bible is a 2000 year old document. We've been changing the Constitution for over 200 years, as needed, to keep up with the times. When the situation is dire enough, the Constitution bends to the will of its people.
Yeah sure and it can again on guns and free speech and the like, and that's why I don't really care about it or its defense, and why I say you can't lean on it as any absolute doctrine. Also, for what its worth, the bible has almost surely been amended just as much.The Constitution is not simply a 250 year old document like the Bible is a 2000 year old document. We've been changing the Constitution for over 200 years, as needed, to keep up with the times. When the situation is dire enough, the Constitution bends to the will of its people.
-
Yeah sure and it can again on guns and free speech and the like, and that's why I don't really care about it or its defense, and why I say you can't lean on it as any absolute doctrine. Also, for what its worth, the bible has almost surely been amended just as much.The Constitution is not simply a 250 year old document like the Bible is a 2000 year old document. We've been changing the Constitution for over 200 years, as needed, to keep up with the times. When the situation is dire enough, the Constitution bends to the will of its people.
Yeah sure and it can again on guns and free speech and the like, and that's why I don't really care about it or its defense, and why I say you can't lean on it as any absolute doctrine. Also, for what its worth, the bible has almost surely been amended just as much.
Yeah but no one cares much for what was changed in the Bible and why, whereas the amendments are arguably the most important part of the Constitution. The book that Dante's Inferno is based off of didn't make the latest cut of the Bible yet the prodigal son (dumbest story I've ever read) still makes the cut. There's not really much transparency when it comes to changes in the Bible, you can't say the same about the Constitution.
-
All kinds of people care an awful lot about what's in the bible. I'm not one of them but that statement is just plain out wrong. Try taking something dumb like deuteronomy or leviticus or something out of the bible and there will be a shit storm of rage.
-
And is the prodigal son really dumber than jonah and the whale? Or god shitting all over Job to prove a point to Satan?
And frankly where the amendments of the constitution are concerned some of the ones under the most fire ,such as the second, are still 250 years old and thusly should looked at for updating to apply to todays world, which is vastly different than 1776. If the founding fathers time traveled to the present day there's a good chance they'd all immediately shit their pants out of abject terror. Technology has a way of changing old timey values don't you think?
-
And is the prodigal son really dumber than jonah and the whale? Or god shitting all over Job to prove a point to Satan?
And frankly where the amendments of the constitution are concerned some of the ones under the most fire ,such as the second, are still 250 years old and thusly should looked at for updating to apply to todays world, which is vastly different than 1776. If the founding fathers time traveled to the present day there's a good chance they'd all immediately shit their pants out of abject terror. Technology has a way of changing old timey values don't you think?
And is the prodigal son really dumber than jonah and the whale? Or god shitting all over Job to prove a point to Satan?
And frankly where the amendments of the constitution are concerned some of the ones under the most fire ,such as the second, are still 250 years old and thusly should looked at for updating to apply to todays world, which is vastly different than 1776. If the founding fathers time traveled to the present day there's a good chance they'd all immediately shit their pants out of abject terror. Technology has a way of changing old timey values don't you think?
lol, as far as message goes, yes. Jonah and the Whale was about a guy whose dedication to prayer was good enough for Yahweh to command the whale to spit him out. The moral of Job's story is that Yahweh the sociopath doesn't want to lose a bet to Satan, so he lets Satan brutalize his family, but Yahweh provides a new one as a reward for his unrelenting faith. As crazy/stupid as those stories are, they are consistent with the message of the Old Testament where Yahweh takes names and kicks ass, and you'd better be on His side or else.
The prodigal son, on the other hand... Someone please tell me what that story is all about. The moral, as far as I can tell, is that not only should you forgive people for wasting their lives, but reward them for it. Those who are loyal and economical get the shit end of the stick. In my opinion, it really doesn't fit in with much else in either testament.
-
CISPA won't even reach a floor vote in the Senate. Think the people in Washington are finally starting to get it? First shooting down anti-gun legislature and now CISPA. Some faith in humanity has been restored? I'd like to think so
-
This is for you, Vape. With my compliments:
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login