09jisaac
Regular Member
It would not be battery if I saw you attempt to touch my car and then I slap your hand with enough force to make you reconsider your actions?
I highly doubt that would be a prosecutable form of battery.
It would not be battery if I saw you attempt to touch my car and then I slap your hand with enough force to make you reconsider your actions?
Regardless of his personal views on unions, it WILL NOT be something he uses at the Federal level. He is committed to returning this power to the states. As is it, there are States that are very pro-union, and those that are not. There is no reason for the Federal Government to be involved, and you can bet Ron Paul will ensure it stays that way.
Your choice is clear.
Some parts of what you mention about "returning power to the states..." worries me. For one... I had a lot of "political" family members (dead now), but they would talk about how the states where "different"... basically at the lower government... the police where like "little kingdoms", where it was more "they are the law" instead of enforcing the laws. For instance, where my mother grew up in Mississippi, at a certain hour and certain places, if you where black, you got beat from the police to leave the area. I'm not saying it would go back to that... but I would picture the police are "given" a "blind eye" to bring about what they consider "order". Such as stopping OCing and the right to CC. Really, how many would continue to OC or CC if cops where on a "mission" to frame you etc to send a message? Hey, there are people who have been framed by bad cops and served years in prision for false crimes etc.
Maybe I'm going too far with my thoughts... but when it comes to polictial issues... You always have to "look down the road" and imagine... what could go wrong with this "law"? And what can we do NOW, to keep it from going "wrong".
Maybe I'm going too far with my thoughts... but when it comes to polictial issues... You always have to "look down the road" and imagine... what could go wrong with this "law"? And what can we do NOW, to keep it from going "wrong".
I highly doubt that would be a prosecutable form of battery.
Some parts of what you mention about "returning power to the states..." worries me. For one... I had a lot of "political" family members (dead now), but they would talk about how the states where "different"... basically at the lower government... the police where like "little kingdoms", where it was more "they are the law" instead of enforcing the laws. For instance, where my mother grew up in Mississippi, at a certain hour and certain places, if you where black, you got beat from the police to leave the area. I'm not saying it would go back to that... but I would picture the police are "given" a "blind eye" to bring about what they consider "order". Such as stopping OCing and the right to CC. Really, how many would continue to OC or CC if cops where on a "mission" to frame you etc to send a message? Hey, there are people who have been framed by bad cops and served years in prision for false crimes etc.
Maybe I'm going too far with my thoughts... but when it comes to polictial issues... You always have to "look down the road" and imagine... what could go wrong with this "law"? And what can we do NOW, to keep it from going "wrong".
Again with this children have no rights crap? Believing this only shows a lack of understanding of natural rights. If GJ is going to go off on this again, I'm done with this thread.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
Yeah, I wondered how much I should qualify that statement. But the intent of my post should make it clear that I am referring to ACTUAL interstate commerce, not all the BS that has been illegally lumped into "interstate commerce."OC for ME said:Don't get me started on 'interstate commerce'....
SCOTUS drops the ball almost every time on this issue.
People understood that a government was necessary to protect their rights form each other. In other words... you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Why in the world, thinking along the same lines, would I continue that thought to say... "Oh, I also need the government to intrude into my life just in case me or my wife are bad parents?"
If your kid is going to touch something dangerous then you are a poor parent, should be prosecuted, for not make your home safer. The child has a right to a safe environment....don't make me get the village to raise your kid because you can't or won't raise your kid in a safe environment.
This would never happen in a union household.
Why in the world, thinking along the same lines, would a person say, "Oh, I also need the government to intrude into my life just in case I decide to shoot someone in the face because I hate them for stealing my woman"?
Obviously, there is one or the other flawed premise in your reasoning. Firstly, a person might reason, "I do not like government prohibiting me from doing x, but I think the societal cost of others doing it is worse, therefore I accept the law for selfless reasons." Alternatively, a person might think, "I would never do x, so I don't care if the government prohibits others doing it, because it is obviously bad," where x is, say, killing someone you intensely dislike, or abusing one's children.
While these attitudes are an allowing factor for insidious creeping statism, they are also the basis for even the tiniest minarchies. One does not implement government to intrude into his own life.
The point of this is merely to point out that you cannot prove your case by making such appeals to hypothetical thought processes of revolutionary-era Americans.
^
Hogwash.
It isn't only an unprovable assertion, there is a total and complete lack of correlation.
Once again you bring religion into it. In the other thread; in which I don't remember anyone agreeing with you, we brought up the fact that some religions think it's ok to kill their children. So, you'd be ok with that? You'd be OK with a father killing his 16 year old daughter because she dishonored the family? You're effectively advocating family based theocracy.
You are the one making dangerous arguments here. The founders, Jefferson in particular; were heavily influenced by the theory of natural law. Saying that children have no rights totally abrogates that. Can't you see that? I think you need to go back further than the founding documents, back to the people that influenced the founders, and study up on natural law. I would hope that you would understand then that what you are proposing actually completely undermines the basis for a limited republican government.