Tweet
okay Floyd, stop your silly threadjack... create a thread about "Local Dry Laws" and we'll debate it in there. 
-
To us, it is the BEAST. -
"gross violation of liberty"???Originally posted by David Floyd
skywalker,
Banning the consumption of alcohol is a gross violation of liberty, and would violate due process. Not to mention it is certainly outside of the powers of the federal government, and the 14th Amendment made it outside of the powers of any other government.
ummmmm...Comment
-
Sava,
You brought it up.okay Floyd, stop your silly threadjack... create a thread about "Local Dry Laws" and we'll debate it in there.
skywalker,
Anytime the government tells me I can't do a non-coercive action - in this case, drinking - then it is a gross violation of liberty."gross violation of liberty"???Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
uhh no... you first mentioned local dry laws in reference to "FREEDOM"...You brought it up.
To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
By that same argument, having sex is also a privilege the government gives you, right? I mean, there's no "right" to have sex, is there?
The only reason such 'right' exists is because the Supreme Court says so.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
You can be outraged by it then, while the rest of us ignore it in apathy.
Frankly, I find you concentrating on it MUCH more annoying (admittedly, I am a minor, and I don't drink
).
EDIT: re FloydComment
-
Convenient semantic nonsense to justify legalized murder.Originally posted by GePap
The porblem is that "murder" is defined as illegal killing. By definition that excludes capital punishment. And this is clear in the bible, given what the punishements for various acts are, many of which lead to death.
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.Comment
-
to be fair... even if they didn't say so... my M16 would say so.The only reason such 'right' exists is because the Supreme Court says so.
To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
Sava,
No I didn't. Berzerker diduhh no... you first mentioned local dry laws in reference to "FREEDOM"...
Imran,
So if the Supreme Court said there was no right to have sex, and then Congress banned sex, then it would be OK for you to be arrested for having sex?The only reason such 'right' exists is because the Supreme Court says so.
skywalker,
Well there it is.admittedly, I am a minor, and I don't drinkFollow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
Convenient semantic nonsense to justify legalized murder.
Um... there is no such thing as 'legalized' murder. It's not semantic nonsense, it's called DEFINITIONS.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Sure, and murder is more of a moral concept then a legal one, otherwise, Stalin didn't commit murder when he forced millions in the Ukraine to starve to death. And the Nazis in charge of death camps weren't murderers either. Neither was Pol Pot, because what he did was perfectly legal.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
Ok -- it's great that we're telling people that it's wrong to kill people by killing people as example.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Convenient semantic nonsense to justify legalized murder.
Um... there is no such thing as 'legalized' murder. It's not semantic nonsense, it's called DEFINITIONS.
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.Comment
-
So. He still didn't, and you said he did.Originally posted by David Floyd
Sava,
No I didn't. Berzerker did
HE may not think that it's ok personally, but the majority would, so sucks for him.Imran,
So if the Supreme Court said there was no right to have sex, and then Congress banned sex, then it would be OK for you to be arrested for having sex?
You don't get it. We (judging from the comments of people in this thread) couldn't care less about our right to drink alcohol in some tiny, out-of-the-way town.skywalker,
Well there it is.Comment
-
Ok -- it's great that we're telling people that it's wrong to kill people by killing people as example.
No, we are telling people that it is wrong to MURDER people. DUH!
After all, we don't put people that kill in self-defense in jail.
So if the Supreme Court said there was no right to have sex, and then Congress banned sex, then it would be OK for you to be arrested for having sex?
You are forgetting the Commerce Clause. What power does Congress have to ban sex?
A BETTER example is if a State Legislature banned sex, after such a ruling. Then yea, it's ok. Wouldn't like it, but it's still ok.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
No, we're telling them it's wrong to MURDER people.Originally posted by MrFun
Ok -- it's great that we're telling people that it's wrong to kill people by killing people as example.
EDIT: damn, imram beat me to it
Comment
Comment