Quote:
Originally Posted by The Demon
Yes, and that reason is that as we slowly moved away from 9/11, the threat became less and less grave, which makes the decision logical.
|
I disagree. There were court challenges to the patriot act from the day it was signed into law. It just took years to get through the court system before they were finally struck down. It had nothing to do with moving away from 9/11 and everything to do with a conservative court finding them to be illegal and/or unconstitutional.
Quote:
|
From skimming over the article, she was selling sex toys at parties, correct? I would agree with what they did if she was out on the front lawn advertising sex toys, because that would be disturbing. Free speech is NOT absolute and that's where I would draw the line.
|
Correct she was holding parties in her home or other's homes. It is kind of like Tupperware and Avon parties, only they sell dildos and sex gel
Quote:
|
Not necessarily, but I can say with reasonable certainty that that's what the founding fathers had in mind also. We don't need to go into a discussion on whether or not they would have ever approved same sex marriages, we know where that will end.
|
Correct, there is no reasonable way to discuss what the founding fathers would or would not have wanted or how they would react to today's world. We can only guess. I am almost always for not changing the constitution especially if it is to deny a certain group access to something.
Quote:
|
Historically though, what party was mostly responsible?
|
Both. Both parties increase spending pretty equally. If you look at that link I showed you earlier you can see that they all increase spending. It looks to me like no party is worse than the other. You can make the argument that Obama has trumped them all, but up until he took office, both parties spent money like a drunk Kennedy at a strip club.
Quote:
|
So we're in agreement that free speech isn't absolute Why would freedom of privacy be?
|
There is a difference. My freedom of speech can have an adverse effect on other people. My freedom of privacy doesn't.
Should they not be allowed to be psychotic if that is how the people that live there want it?
Quote:
|
I've mentioned many of them. Limited goverment, especially in economic affairs, while an expansion of the private sector. I'm a fiscal conservative as well. I was perfectly happy that Reagan really popularized supply side economics in this country, before the moronic Keynesians took over. Rich companies will breed corruption so they should be allowed to fail, and not be bailed out. I support the separation of church and state, while I'm a religious person. I hate unions and blame them largely for the United States increasing their outsourcing over the decades. Any more you'd like to hear?
|
Yet some of these things, as I have pointed out, are only ideals of the republican party. Their actions show that they are not really carrying out these ideals. If I was part of a group that said they were going to do something and they did just the opposite or they didn't do anything, I would most likely stop being a member of that group.
I guess you feel that you have enough in common with them that you want to affiliate yourself with them. I have the words of Johnny Rotten echoing in my head, " Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? Good night! "