|
| Thread: Limited Rights or Limited Government? [religious opinions not banned from this thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted September 02, 2009 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Angelito:
Whether I'm wearing a seatbelt/helmet or not does not affect other people - so if I feel like increasing my own risk, I should be able to do so.
I'm not with you on this. Just imagine who will be affected when you DIE in an accident(family members....).
And secondly, think about the health care costs if you survive but have to stay in a wheel chair for example. Who will pay for that wheel chair? Who will pay for the person which takes care of you 24 hourse because you're either living alone, or your wife/mom isn't able to stay at home 24 hours.
It is not only about directly affections.
The problem is, people accept precautions when the risk is OBVIOUS.
For example:
- Who would blow-dry his hair while sitting in a bathtub?
- Who wouldn't secure his electricity sockets with a child saftey device when he got little kids?
- Who would play professional american football without a helmet?
But driving a Harley without helmet doesn't look dangerous at the first glance. But most motorbike accidents don't happen because of a bad bike driver, but due to an incautious car driver.
So the helmet and the seat belt is more needed because of OTHERS who could harm you, not because you could harm yourself.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 06:54 PM |
|
|
Just remembered one thing. Have you heared about death penalty in the China for drunk drivers? Is it a fight against overpopulation? Although I think there should be strict penalties but a capital punishment, that's realy too much.
____________
Your advertisement could be
here only for 100$ per day. 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 06:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just remembered one thing. Have you heared about death penalty in the China for drunk drivers? Is it a fight against overpopulation? Although I think there should be strict penalties but a capital punishment, that's realy too much.
May be harsh but it may ultimately be the only solution to stop drinking.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 08:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just remembered one thing. Have you heared about death penalty in the China for drunk drivers? Is it a fight against overpopulation?
I think its a combination of fighting overpopulation and capital punishment to get people to actually do not do stupid things.
____________
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 08:19 PM |
|
|
Mytical
Quote:
So everything somebody doesn't believe in is propaganda...oh I am so NOT touching that with a 10' pole. I again disagree where rights come from, but that is not important.
Actually under the definition. Everything period is propaganda. I'll proudly admit that everything linked by anybody in these discussions is a "communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position." Never just the things I disagree with =D
Mvass
Quote:
Whether I'm wearing a seatbelt/helmet or not does not affect other people - so if I feel like increasing my own risk, I should be able to do so.
Yes, a full grown adult may choose to die during any random sudden stop, but a child should never ever be allowed to.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 08:42 PM |
|
|
Angelito:
Quote:
I'm not with you on this. Just imagine who will be affected when you DIE in an accident(family members....).
By that logic, any risk-taking should be prohibited. Ban matches, because you might burn yourself to death. Ban electronic screens, because they might cause you to have a fatal seizure. Ban getting out of bed. Ban staying in bed. Etc.
Quote:
Who will pay for that wheel chair?
The person at fault for the accident.
Quote:
But driving a Harley without helmet doesn't look dangerous at the first glance.
Maybe I'm just a wimp, but it does to me.
Shyranis:
Obviously, we don't hold children to be capable of making such decisions for themselves, so they're a different subject.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Angelito:
Quote:
I'm not with you on this. Just imagine who will be affected when you DIE in an accident(family members....).
By that logic, any risk-taking should be prohibited. Ban matches, because you might burn yourself to death. Ban electronic screens, because they might cause you to have a fatal seizure. Ban getting out of bed. Ban staying in bed. Etc.
Come on mvass...you can do better than this.
How are the odds you burn yourself when you use matches, or an electronic screen? On the other hand, how are the odds you get involved in a car accident according to the amount of cars driving at the same time in your region when you're in your car?
And an accident with a car starts to get live threatening with only 30 mph, if you don't wear seat belts.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 11:14 PM |
|
|
I don't buy that argument, but let's approach this from a different angle. Suicide is more likely to kill you than a car accident. So should suicide be illegal?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Lumske_Beaver
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 11:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Introduction: Government Conrol In Our Lives
Recently I have observed that government seems to want more and more direct and indirect control of things in our lives. The pace of its expansion of power seems to be increasing.
Should we trust the government? How much government control of our lives should we allow? Is government the "benevolent father" who knows what is best for us or is it a threat to our liberties?
What sorts of choices should the government be allowed to make for you? For example, should the government be allowed to:
1) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
2) require you to buy health insurance?
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
I will say that the government should be allowed to do many of these things because it is things that have influence on the hole society. For instance I think it is okay that the government decides if you have to weae seat belts because if you get hurt thenŽit is the society which have to pay for that because I come from a country with very high taxes and free health care. I really can not accept that a single person can cause a hole society problems just because he do not want to wear a seat belt. I know the situation is a bit different in USA and other contries, but what i am trying to say is that I don't think that its okay when a single person cause problems for sevaral others.
About the three last, I definately can not see why the goverment should be allowed to make rules about such thing. Why should the government want to make such rules?? These to points dont affect as much people as the other. About the 4th the only thing which may sound logically is about cars, and here i'm thinking about the enviroment. I'll not say that they should decide for you which car to buy, but I think it would be a good thing if the government would make eco-friendly cars cheaper han polluting cars or support you economically if you buy a eco-friendly car.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 12:12 AM |
|
|
1) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
Nope, it's none of their damn business.
2) require you to buy health insurance?
Nope, if I don't want to buy health insurance then that's my choice, not theirs.
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
Maybe for some of the worst communicable diseases, otherwise it's none of their damn business.
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
Hmmm, maybe. This would be done on the manufacturing end anyway.
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
Nope. It would be too complicated anyway because one size doesn't fit all.
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
When the government starts trying to tell us how to raise our kids then it's time to break out the guns and overthrow them (overthrow the government, not the kids).
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 12:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't buy that argument, but let's approach this from a different angle. Suicide is more likely to kill you than a car accident. So should suicide be illegal?
That's not really an argument. Suicide is unenforceable due to the near 100% success rate.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 12:58 AM |
|
|
No, there isn't a 100% success rate. People are often prevented from doing so and imprisoned until they change their minds.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 04:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, there isn't a 100% success rate. People are often prevented from doing so and imprisoned until they change their minds.
I said near 100%. If a person truly means to kill themselves they go ahead and do something to cause their death. Sometimes they survive poison/jumping in front of a bus/gunshots/etc, but not often.
A lot of people that scream to people that they are going to kill themselves are really mentally disturbed but have no intention of actually killing themselves, as they would stop getting attention in that case. (I'm not saying all of them. Just many.)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 05:21 AM |
|
|
Regardless, the authorities try to stop and restrict the freedom of a suicidal person. Which is my point.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 02:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Should we trust the government?
Yes, after all it's our own invention.
Quote:
How much government control of our lives should we allow?
Enough to guarantee the security needed to maintain freedom. Everyone should have the freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't go against the freedom of others, that's the limits of freedom we can ever hope for, and that's what we need the government for.
Quote:
Is government the "benevolent father" who knows what is best for us or is it a threat to our liberties?
It's neither of those.
Quote:
For example, should the government be allowed to:
1) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
2) require you to buy health insurance?
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
1) No, but it may require that I don't do those things in a place where it'll limit the freedom of others, so in my own private quarters where only people who I invite can come in and where these people know what they'll meet (drinking and smoke) then there's no problem. However doing so in public, where loosing control of yourself (drinking too much), getting off unpleasent smells in a way that CAN be helped (drinking / smoking) or just being a hazard is not okay. I believe it's a faulty law that requires of you to wear a seat belt, it should be your own decision, the money risk factor should not be a factor at all, and it should be up to people to decide if they want to wear a seat belt or not. The same goes for helmet, and general when it's only yourself it's about. Again the same goes for exercise and internet use. Someone might notice that in some countries people get free medical care, and it's a burden on the country when people keep on eating too much, because then everyone has to pay, however we all know that eating too much is not something you do willingly, you're addicted and like most other addictions it's a disease, the same goes for smokers and people who sits too much on the internet, so it's not their own fault (maybe 30 years back they shouldn't have eaten that extra donout who knows), and with free health care any disease should be threated, also if it's a part psychic part physical that the public doesn't understand.
2)Again this should be peoples own business, of course it may seem unfair if someone happens to get in an accident and then have to work the debt off for many years, meanwhile a part of the government has to take care of the damages, and it can be a problem if health care isn't free and someone who hasn't got an insurance still needs treatment due to the doctors oath, however again it's a risk you should completely decide by yourself if you want to take, and then luckily even in the U.S there exist places where health care is free, though sadly it's not the best quality of health care like in other countries.
3) Again you're in complete charge of your body, so you decide by yourself, not the government. Only exception is when you become a hazard to others, an example could be if you get a new unknown disease, then you must accept being isolated, and it's up to the government to provide you with the same quality life in isolation as before.
4) Everything you can buy needs to go through careful examination to make certain it's safe, therefore if a car doesn't qualify (the brakes doesn't work) then you cannot just transport it from another country, or anything like that.
It goes along with you building something yourself, you may build as many cars you like, and there's no such things as copy right protection if you actually assemble something by yourself and uses it for yourself (copy rights only protects against you gaining a profit economically), however you may not use something you've assembled by yourself before it's gone through the same as what you buy, because what you've assembled may potentially be a risk for other people.
5) As long as the tempature keeps within your grounds and as long as you don't force anyone to have to endure it (except yourself) then it's all fine.
6) You may teach your children whatever you want (lie to them if you want, share what you believe is true if you want, teach them scientology if you want), however any public service, such as a school, is however limited to teach things there's a general agreement of being correct.
Quote:
Among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
All of these are freedoms, however liberty is quite a large margin and can very well have the right to life and pursuit of happiness within it.
Quote:
The founding fathers wrote that rights can only be taken away by due process of law, a criminal trial.
Which is not okay, however who can blame then, back then, and still today, punishment is the main idea of how to fix any problem that involves humans. However it should soon be realisted that punishment and the fear factor doesn't help, a punishment won't undo a crime, and often puts people into places where they'll meet other people who'll make them even worse, and the fear factor is something most people first realise when it's too late, when you meet that police officer that stops you because you don't have lights on your bike, or when you stand there over the guy lying of the floor bleading, realising after your rage what you've done, feeling very bad, somewhere wanting to report yourself to the police, but on the same time just want to run and keep on running.
No punishment isn't the answer, we need to make the crimes impossible to commit in the first place, we need better security.
Look at all the cameras there comes up now, all they ever can do is to help finding the criminal, however the percentage of criminals in any society seems to be pretty constant, likewise with mental ill people, and it doesn't seem like much of it is inharitence, thereby catching the criminal most likely won't help and using the DP most likely won't help as well, because in a matter of years, maybe just months, another person will be out there doing the same crazy criminal stuff.
Look from back in the stone age up till today, we humans may have evolved a little bit in our defense capabilities, we're a bit tougher, however look at the weapons, from clubs that certainly can kill today, but isn't nearly as dangerous still, to missiles that can eliminate everything in a 20 kilometers radius and poison the area for decades.
It should be clear that the offense have developed much faster than the defense and we need to change that, we need a high defense to be able to feel secure, but not something that limits our comfort, or our freedom in general, we need to make sure if someone pulls a gun and shoots, that the shot won't ever be able to hurt anyone.
With the amount of energy present in the universe (just look at the sun) it's unrealistic to believe that we'll ever evolve a defense that can make us completely immune for damage due to macroscopic events, we may eventually become immune to diseases and other microscopic events, however against macroscopic events it's more important than ever that we find out what exactly defines our existance, what defines our inner observer, and that we preserve that part, so our body will just be a shell that always can be regrown, however that our definition will always be saved and ready to get a new body.
One problem with this kind of immortality will of course be population size contra room in the universe, it's a bit short sigthed to think that we'd stay on Earth, though there's still plenty of space (animals bigger than us and 10 size of our population have plenty of space), we'll eventually have to leave the planet most likely, however that's not a problem, even if the universe isn't infinite it's not hard to think of a solution in the order like one body pr. existance, etc.
Even if there should exist more configuartion of existance than room in the universe (meaning reincarnations are practically impossible) then we already know of physics theories which encourage room in other "places" where there'll always be enough room.
Then there's the entire entropy problem, with the universe turning into one big cold place, however as it's with entropy it's all a question of likeliness, and given time is infitie a new universe will spawn, eventhough the chances are close to zero, anything none-zero for infinitie time will happen. What we need to do is to make certain that we'll respawn as well, as if we'd all been under attack by a macroscopic event.
Quote:
The US Constitution then is based on the power of the people, not the whims of officials who are placed in political office through elections.
We choose someone to lead, someone we believe (because they say so) stands for a change we wish, if no change were needed, we'd have no need for politicians, politicians mere exists so we can change the government into something better. Certainly it'd be outright better to simply vote for ideas in stead of people, I've no idea why it isn't so today, earlier in time it may have been to complicated, but not as of today.
Have the politician you voted for dissapointed you, not held what the person said would happen given this person was elected? Then use your power and do not vote on that person again, if we all did that democracy would work much better, and politicians would actually be "forced" to work for the common good and not for their own carrier and salery.
Quote:
The founding fathers were very suspicious of government. They knew that government is an inherent threat to liberty. They wrote the Constitution to limit the power of the government, to bind it so that it can't chain the people.
One of the main problems of today is that people are forced to be in whatever government that is in the place they decide to live, it should always be possible to declare your very own independence, this would however mean that any kind of supply that you'd need is something you'll have to either make yourself or have to buy for most likely higher prices, it'd likewise mean that the ground which isn't yours is a whole other country, a country where you're not a citizen anymore but a tourist.
Given such an opportunity that if the government turns into something you disagree with, and given everyone owns there own land, I mean truely owns their own land, and given that you can provide for yourself (though you should always have the freedom to starve yourself if you wish so, etc.) then there really should be no problems in this.
Though with the civil wars in America in mind I can imagine many will by automatic be against such an idea, for no other reason than the civil war, which means no reason at all, remember the civil war could be very well seen as a war for freedom for black as well as white, the very fact that it also demanded a united nation however shadowed it.
After all the government should represent the people, it should be the security of the freedom for the people. The government should only take care of health, protection, transport, teaching, and other types of security, and have nothing to do with stuff like culture, art, etc., not because that's not only a waste of our money (it's not productive) no because it does not lie within the definition of the government, and when the government was created a clear cut through definition that would have prevented these things should have been written.
Quote:
Does government have a right to regulate our behavior "for our own good?"
Quote:
"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776 Papers 1:546
No. The founding fathers rejected such a concept. The government has no authority to make me do things to keep from getting fat or damaging my brain cells or believing things that the government thinks are false. If I want to be a follower of Scientology even if the government thinks it is a false religion I have the right to follow it.
Agreed, whatever you do to yourself and whatever you think is your own business as long as you're not a direct danger to others without them forcing themselves upon you.
Quote:
The state of government today
Quote:
"It is true, we are as yet secured against [tyrannical laws] by the spirit of the times... But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224
It appears to me today that the fears of the founding fathers are being realized. The people have fallen asleep and the government has crept up on them and slipped the chains around their wrists. The government has been gathering more and more power to itself. It has been slowly shortening those chains so that the people are on an ever shortening leash.
The Tenth Amendment is no longer respected and the government proclaims its right to exercise power that has not been granted to it in the Constitution. The government has become more and more unresponsive to the people from whom it derives its power. The people say "No" to bail outs but the "representatives" say "Yes." The people say "secure our borders against illegal immigration" but Congress refuses.
But there is hope. The recent unrest shown in town hall meetings is a sign of that hope. Some people have begun to awaken and are objecting to the unjust intrusion of government into their lives. Perhaps the spirit of carelessness will be cast off and the times will return to the spirit of the founding fathers. The spirit that results in a jealous guarding of our liberties.
You don't provide example, nor evidence of truth of example, there's nothing to really comment, you may think it's so, but just writing it doesn't convince me at least, and most likely none.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 05:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Should we trust the government?
Yes, after all it's our own invention.
I don't remember inventing it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 06:52 PM |
|
|
@ Shyranis
New Report
The homeland security "report" was not based on any government studies. It was based on surfing the internet.
What I find interesting is the Obama administration refuses to call Islamic terrorists terrorists but did not hesitate to call vets potential terrorists.
Quote:
Doctors, etc should have no right to not work with gay people for the reason of gayness however if it's a matter of importance as they are not in the clerical industry
No one should be refused medical treatment because of sexuality. However doctors should be free to refuse invetro-fertilization to a person who is capable of becoming pregnant in the natural manner. In that case IV is not a treatment.
Quote:
It's really a toss-up for abortions. For one, some stupid people use it for birth control but on the other side some kids will suffer needlessly without ever having any parents in an orphanage until they grow up.
I don't see how saying a child might "suffer needlessly without ever having any parents in an orphanage" is justification for killing a child. I
Quote:
Drinking too much is a health hazard for those around the drunk if they choose to drive (which they are more likely to do the further intoxicated they are).
Not unless I get drunk and drive. If I get drunk every night in my home it is none of the government's business.
Quote:
I don't think many places even do that.
Obama wants it to be mandatory to purchase health insurance and there will be penalties if you don't purchase it if the current health care bill passes.
Quote:
Nobody ever forces Scientologists or Jehova's Witnesses to take any treatments they don't want (which would be all of them). They would get sued. That's probably the way it should be.
In the US there is a 12 year old boy that is being forced to undergo chemotherapy in violation of his religious beliefs in the state of Michagan. In another case two parents were put in jail when they did not seek medical treatment for their child that goes against their beliefs.
Quote:
Saving gas saves money in the long term =D
Not if the car costs 45,000 and you were planning on buying a car that costs 13,000. You will not make up the difference in gas savings.
Quote:
Actually they wrote it ambiguously as "their creator", which can mean their parents, forefathers, ancestors, etc as well.
No, it really can't be interpreted other than as God. The words "in the year of our Lord" clearly refer to Jesus Christ. If you read their writings it is quite clear they were refering to God.
Quote:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Quote:
And Fox and its subsidiaries (also part of the Mainstream media actually), is in the tank for the Republicans. It can't be any more obvious that it's massively profitable to divide the country like this.
Actually, I've seen FOX criticise Republicans. But even if that were the case The democrats have ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS and PBS.
Quote:
Either ACORN is actually non-partisan or the two parties are playing people for fools.
ACORN was registering voters for Obama. And committed a lot of voter farud! They are being prosecuted in some states.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2009 02:23 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 14:35, 04 Sep 2009.
|
Still doesn't change the fact that the DHS report was released while Bush was in power by a Bush appointee.
So far I've seen the Obama administration refuse to call anybody a terrorist, period. This report calls people extremists however, which is borderline but that same word is used all the time to describe many of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Quote:
No one should be refused medical treatment because of sexuality. However doctors should be free to refuse invetro-fertilization to a person who is capable of becoming pregnant in the natural manner. In that case IV is not a treatment.
So in this case we agree except perhaps in the case where somebody's husband died... or would that be considered treatment in that case?
Quote:
Not unless I get drunk and drive. If I get drunk every night in my home it is none of the government's business.
I was referring to in public. What a person does if they are shut into their home is their own business (unless they are physically abusing people of course).
Quote:
In the US there is a 12 year old boy that is being forced to undergo chemotherapy in violation of his religious beliefs in the state of Michagan. In another case two parents were put in jail when they did not seek medical treatment for their child that goes against their beliefs.
So the state of Michigan is stepping over the line huh?
Quote:
Actually, I've seen FOX criticise Republicans. But even if that were the case The democrats have ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS and PBS.
And other stations have criticized Democrats. They do what is profitable. Still doesn't change that they still find themselves influenced heavily by whatever administration is in power (essentially the ultimatum of sucking up and censoring or being shut out of key information. It's a long tradition.)
Quote:
ACORN was registering voters for Obama. And committed a lot of voter farud! They are being prosecuted in some states.
Who alerted everybody about workers from ACORN submitting lots of false registrations? ACORN did. ACORN alerted everybody to the fact that it was paying people to register people voters for them regardless of party, but lots of lazy workers abused the system and just ticked off Democrat and collected lots of money fraudulently from ACORN that could have gone to improving communities instead. But in the long term, how does registering one to vote as Democrat change a person's actual vote? How do all of the fake registrations for people that don't actually exist change the election? The "voter fraud" has been debunked as a HOAX for almost a year now.
Did you know there's a group that actually registered real people instead of Mickey Mouse and changed who they were registered to? And that that group wasn't even licensed to do so in California? Young Political Majors was the name. Again. Registering doesn't even do anything in the long run because a person votes how they want, not how they're registered. So the Democrats don't prattle on and on about how evil YPM is, because they didn't lose the election, otherwise they probably would be. You've been duped, I'm sorry to say.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 04, 2009 07:30 PM |
|
|
@Shyranis
No, it was not ACORN that alerted officials to its fraud. It was one of the radio talk shows I think Beck or Hannity if I recall.
The mainstream media (except for FOX) would not even report on it for a long time until it became such widespread knowledge that they couldn't deny it.
And ACORN IS being prosecuted in some states. And Obama DID work for ACORN and DID pay for them to register voters AND ACORN IS getting stimulus funds.
Wall Street Jorunal
Quote:
Democrats are split on how to deal with Acorn, the liberal "community organizing" group that deployed thousands of get-out-the-vote workers last election. State and city Democratic officials -- who've been contending with its many scandals -- are moving against it. Washington Democrats are still sweeping Acorn abuses under a rug.
On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year. Larry Lomax, the registrar of voters in Las Vegas, says he believes 48% of Acorn's forms "are clearly fraudulent." On Thursday, prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year's general election.
Elsewhere, Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007. The group signed a consent decree with King County (Seattle), requiring it to beef up its oversight or face criminal prosecution. In the 2008 election, Acorn's practices led to investigations, some ongoing, in 14 other states.
The stink is bad enough that some congressional Democrats have taken notice. At a March 19 hearing on election problems, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pressed New York Rep. Gerald Nadler, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to hold a hearing on Acorn. He called the charges against it "serious." Mr. Nadler agreed to consider the request.
Mr. Nadler's office now says there will be no hearing on Acorn because Mr. Conyers has changed his mind. Mr. Conyers's office released a statement on Monday saying that after reviewing "the complaints against Acorn, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." A Democratic staffer told me he believes the House leadership put pressure on Mr. Conyers to back down. Mr. Conyers's office says it is "unaware" of any contacts with House leaders.
ACORN actually has a history of voter fraud.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2009 08:32 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
As mentioned ACORN Flagged and alerted about the fraudulent registrations long before anybody said anything. Beck and Hannity just made a big deal about it as the Election grew nearer.
The reason behind the voter fraud were several ACORN employees. They created fake registrations, were found to be committing fraud by ACORN, and were then fired. About a dozen employees. Even so, law required ACORN to submit even the blatantly fraudulent information, but they flagged the ones that were fake registrations. ACORN didn't commit the fraud in question, it reported it. And that's a matter of signed & dated record.
When people are offered money as a reward for registering more, a small percentage WILL take advantage of it. Those 7 workers out of... how many legitimate ones? Are being prosecuted, with loads of evidence.
There is no real factual evidence to support that ACORN willingly committed the fraud. Why would it flag its own registrations otherwise?
You also didn't ask my question, in registering more people as one party or another, how does that change how a real person votes? If I was fraudulently signed up as one party I would probably vote the opposite out of spite. This ACORN garbage is being beaten like a dead cat. There are legitimate things to be upset about (defending the Patriot act, keeping the wiretapping, keeping the torture, etc). Why pick at something that has been proven false?
I'll pose you a question. ACORN as an organization is being prosecuted, but most likely those will fail. Why? Because the Justice system measures the evidence carefully. Just because people unsuccessfully prosecuted Bush for the 9/11 attacks doesn't mean he committed them you know. ACORN is a convenient scapegoat for an invisible so called "conspiracy". Next thing we'll be told is that the UN is pushing for one world currency.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
| |
|
|
