100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Daniel74126
|
Topic:
Kim Davis.....(clerk)
|
|
the problem in this case is as head clerk Davis was not allowing any of the other clerks to sign a certificate because it required her to stamp it afterward.
As far as I am concerned there should have been a special session that removed her from her office when she went to jail for refusing to do her job (and she should not have been released until she agreed to do her job or quit). but htat's just me |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In regards to what you said: I had not seen anything (other than self proven ignorant memebrs of this site) regarding the attacker claiming alliance with Issis, thus I asked on what grounds the poster was saying treason. As far as to whether I am a Dem, or a Rep or anything else, the answer is no. I am an American citizen,.intelligent enough to know that anyone who claims a specific party as the holy grail of all political parties is a fruitbat and has no business voting or even being involved politically; sadly the constitution disagrees with me, not that they are a fruitbat, but that they still have the right to vote. The biggest problem we have in today's society are people who refuse to look at anyone unless they are a specific party affiliation. That is why we have the worst Congress in History. As far as what is "only a religion" and what is "a global ideology/agenda", you need to pull your head out of the sand and learn the difference between a religion and an ideology. You also need to learn about Islam and what it entails and requires,then learn what Issis believes and entails; they are NOT mutually one and the same, just as Christianity and the KKK are not the same. Issis may CLAIM that they are Islamic, but they do NOT follow the Islamic teachings. No, I do not believe he is being discriminated against. If he claimed that he was acting on Issis orders, then he is guilty, yes. This does NOT mean he is trying to convert the Untied states to Issis or anything else. give me three names of an American citizen that has been charged unjustly as a terrorist along with proof of the charge. You can not be more or less of anything. You either are, or you are not, there is no middle ground. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
How do you???
|
|
fall out of love when you know someone is wrong for you? Do you? Or do you admit defeat and realise your heart may never beat again for a new love? Is it fair to be with someone else when you feel that all your passion\love is now a withered flame incapable of relighting once more? This is not a popular answer, but if you truly love someone, they could turn out to be the next child rapist or Ted Bundy and you will STILL love them. This does not by any means, mean that you agree with what they did, or condone it. This does not mean that you are not disgusted with them or even want anything to do with them; but you will still love them. And there is nothing wrong whatsoever with loving someone who is that bad of a person. EVERYBODY has SOME good in them, and it is the good that you fall in love with (or at least I would HOPE it's the good and not the bad lol). But being in love with someone does not mean you have to choose to be with them or to accept what they do if it is wrong. It just means that you love them. The way I look at things you have love and you have lust. Love has absolutely NOTHING to do with sex, and lust has EVERYTHING to do with sex. You can have one without the other and be the happiest person on the planet (look at our grandparents and great grandparents who had no say in regards to whom they married). Most people mistake lust for love, or think you HAVE to have lust in order to feel love and both are not true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Prison Reform
|
|
its funny, my mom who managed thousands during her career in finance,,, has been saying the same thing for years,, the cost effectiveness of putting non violent criminals to work instead of in the criminal factory we call prison,,,, Mom is a smart lady ;-) I would ALSO like to see the return of a judge (legally) being able to offer military service for certain non violent crimes (like perpetual shoplifting). Mandatory 4 year enlistment as a pvt (in regards to the army). While serving those four years you can not attain any higher rank than PFC. After the four years you may reenlist if you choose and then you are eligible for further promotion. If you do not accept the offer or if you get discharged early (other than for medical reasons) you go to jail and serve the full time. I would also say that if you accept and serve those four years honorably, then at the end of them, whether you reenlist or not, your record is expunged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/08/house-homeland-security-secretary-philly-officer-shooter-acted-on-islamic-state-orders-from-syria/ House Homeland Security Secretary: Philly Officer Shooter Acted on Islamic State Orders From Syria Friday in a report from Fox News Channel’s Peter Doocy, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, explained that following a briefing on the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a suspect that had claimed to be acting at the behest of ISIS, it was his conclusion that individual was acting at the direction of ISIS. “So once again we have a radicalized individual in the United States trying to kill law enforcement,” McCaul said. “And when you look at the Internet activity coming out of Raqqa, Syria, into the United States every day – 200,000 tweets per day – the message is clear: Kill military, attack military installations, and kill police officers. It’s in my judgment that this individual’s carrying out these directives – these orders, if you will – coming out of Raqqa, Syria, from ISIS.” ok, under that basis I can understand the terrorism basis and even agree. You still have not answered me though in regards to what you meant by "physical s/n" ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Kim Davis.....(clerk)
|
|
on a side note, something most people seem not to realize and individual states try to deny is the fact that a clergy member does not need a marriage license to marry two people. I myself am ordained; I do not have to have you and your fiance get a marriage license before I can marry you, nor am I legally required to sign a marriage license. The catch though is the state will try and not recognize your marriage without the license (there are ways around that but I can not remember them off the top of my head; something to do with the government being required to recognize certain religious ceremonies as valid).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Kim Davis.....(clerk)
|
|
which religion is being promoted? several religions oppose the lifestyle as well as people who have NO religion church and state clause is that CONGRESS can pass no law respecting or PROHIBITING exercise of religion modifying a document would not be doing either, it would be making its purpose and wording practical , there is a lot of undue hardship on someone who has done their job faithfully to provide for their family to start back at zero,, The judicial branch has already deemed many times over that"Congress" means NO branch of government or government employee when it comes to separation of church and state. This is why so many people tried to have the government change the wording of it to Civil Union instead of marriage and leave the term marriage to the church. So basically, a government employee, (judge, clerk, justice of the peace, etc) would be authorized to sign off on a Civil Union but not a marriage, and clergy could sign off on marriages but not Civil Unions. They are the same identical thing, just two different names. Now in the case of Mrs. Davis, this still would not help her as she would still be required to provide the signature for the Civil Union (which would violate her religious beliefs). In her specific situation, the best thing would be to create a different job or position equivalant to what she already does that would not conflict with religious issues, such as marriage. Or to state that the head clerk (Mr.s Davis) was not authorized to sign off on any marriage licenses, only regular clerks could. But int he end, an individual has to accept that laws may change and if they do and your religion prevents you from performing it, you no longer qualify for the job and have to find a different one. Same as you or I would have to if we worked as a fireman and lost one of our legs. It sucks that we are no longer capable of doing the job, but life sucks sometimes lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Prison Reform
|
|
I don't think I need to post any specific articles regarding prison reform to have most people agree that it is a serious issue and needs to happen. But what I am curious about is how would you reform it? Without violating current laws and constitutional requirements, name three things you would change and how you would change them. Also explain WHY you would change them please. In my case it would be as follows: 1: Make Marijuana legal across the board (Federally). not just medical marijuana, but full personal recreational use. Follow Colorado's example of regulating it and taxing it, but make it legal. The reason for this, is no matter what anybody says or does, marijuana simply is NOT any more dangerous than a cigarette. We definitely need to have similar laws as alcohol in regards to operating a vehicle while under the influence and make it for adults only, but there is absolutely no reason to have it be illegal, and definitely no reason for our prisons to be filled to the bursting point with people who had such little amounts on them. 2. Child Support: Stop basing child support off of a persons individual income and base it off what it costs to raise a child to age 18 in that state. Every state is required to provide information on how much it costs each year to raise a child to age 18. So if the parents are not together, you make BOTH parents responsible for HALF of the cost of raising their child to 18. let's say it costs me $100,000 in 2016 to raise a child to 18. Divide that by 18 years and you have $5,555.555555556 as your yearly cost per child. now divide that by 12 months and you have $462.96 per month. Divide that by two (one half per parent) and you have $231.48 per month that BOTH parents are responsible for providing, regardless of income. Working 7.43 hours per week at $7.25 (Federal minimum wage) would meet this number. Now, in 2017 let's say it costs $200,000 to raise a child to 18. $200,000 divided by 18, divided by 12 divided by 2 equals $462.96 per parent. If one of the parents wants the child(ren) to have more, they have to provide it, not the other parent. 3. I would make a law that mandates the punishment be fitting of the crime whenever possible, with jail/prison being used only if a legally suitable punishment can not be found or agreed upon. For example: You get arrested for shoplifting groceries because you can not afford to buy them. instead of throwing them in jail, making them lose whatever little income they may or may not have and causing even more hardship for their family (and them, when they get out), put them to work for the community. We used to have what was classified as "public works" jobs; street cleaner, park cleaner, pruning of public trees and plants, etc. Bring all of those back and put the convicted shoplifter to work at minimum wage for a certain amount of time based on their theft, with minimum being 6 months. That's 40 hours per week at minimum wage, Monday thru Friday. This serves so many different purposes it isn't funny, but to name a few immediately: cleans up the public areas in each city. Does not put a hardship on the citizens in regards to providing jail room for someone who does not need to be in jail. It HELPS the shoplifter get income for 6 months so they can eat and feed their family. It gives them honost work experience which will make getting another job after those 6 months (or however long) of working for the city. these are great suggestions, well thought out I especially like giving people honest work experience which inspires self respect and value which I believe is the logical way to truly reduce the chance of getting stuck in repetitive crime,,, The best way to reduce the possibility of a repeat offender is to give them a reason to stop. If you throw them in prison without any way to better themselves, release them with no way to get a job once they are released, they are GOING to go back to whatever put them in jail, and they will slowly get more and more dangerous. We need to teach them while they are in; teach them SKILLS (I am not saying let someone get a law degree while they are in jail, but they COULD get training and experience in mechanics, carpentry and other construction, etc). If you treat the training like an apprenticeship program, then they are also earning their keep at the same time, reducing the cost to tax payers. When they get out, they have experience in a skill and should be able, with a little help from the parole system, to find a job with a local union, which normally starts out paying $10 and more for general non-skilled labor. This will give them a decent income so they can afford a decent apartment and eventually even purchase their own place. They will have self respect, like you said and no reason to return to the life of crime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Prison Reform
|
|
Very few people steal food for any other purpose than to sell it for tobacco, drugs, or alcohol. And because they are too lazy to apply for food stamps, go to a food bank, or cook. Or heaven for bid actually grow even a minimum of a container garden. And I am tired of having the price of what they do steal added onto the price of what I pay for. This is a personal opinion and it is not even close to being factual. However, if you have anything that backs up this statement I would be happy to see it ;-) And I am tired of so called petty criminals, who refuse to work, refuse to try to seek out or accept resources, and still expect three hots and a cot and better medical care than many who work get. Often free job training when they ditched high school. . Again a personal opinion with no basis of factuality (is that even a word? lol) I am against legalizing marijuana simply from the fact of living around it is a major burden for those of us who find the stench of it growing, drying, and being smoked intolerable and the fact that the more adults you have using it the more children you will have using it and I see very few cases where a child consuming it is in their best interest if from no other reason but brain development. I have yet to see a stoner that was motivated or a dependable employee. What I do see is them pontificating on their rights rather than meeting their responsibilities you say it is a major burden for those living around it to have to smell it... Well, I am sorry but you have the right to live where ever you want, as does every other (unless restricted by the court for past offenses) citizen and this means your right does not trump their's. So if you find it intolerable, the burden is on you to find some place else to live; just as I do not have the right to expect the neighbors in my community to keep their kids on a leash (figuratively speaking, I do NOT believe in leashes for kids lol). You also claim that if more adults use it, then more kids will use it. I strongly suggest you look at reports on how the legalization of marijuana is affecting Colorado (I will try and find a specific article I was reading the other day for you). You will find that the theory that it will increase in use with kids has been debunked. You also say you have yet to see a stoner who is a motivated or dependable employee. Again, I refer you to Colorado and their findings. Yes there are A FEW people who will overuse it. That is why you regulate it and treat it the same as tobacco and / or alcohol. But there will ALWAYS be those who abuse something (like the person who overindulges on chocolate. But hte simple HISTORY and facts will show you that motor vehicle accidents that involve drugs or alcohol have never been found to include those who are high on marijuana (or to be so limited as to be non existent). Here is a link to who is REALLY in our prisons as of November of last year... You will find y\that what you stated is very much wrong. And if you dig in a little bit further and look into what is listed under each type of crime (for example sex crimes) you will find many that should not even be there. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp In regards to having to serve your entire sentence, I agree completely. I also believe that you should not be able to plea bargain to a lighter offense. I also agree with work farms (watch for a related post regarding work farms for those behind on child support) for prisoners to grow their own food, etc. You are also right that it should not cost us more to incarcerate someone (outside of the costs of prosecuting them of course). With that said though one thing you are very much dead wrong in believing (unless I misunderstand you which I don't think I do) is the idea that prisoners should basically be in an 3x5 cell with nothing to do other than work in the prison farms and that they should have no way to improve themselves while in prison. prison used only for punitive actions will do NOTHING except make the person a worse criminal when they get out because they will get out and have absolutely nothing to do in regards to gaining employment and making an honest life for themselves. They will have no skills (generally speaking) and be unable to get a job and will thus return to breaking the law and end up back in prison. Prison HAS, no NEEDS to be rehabilitative as well or we may as well just lock the person who robs a convenience store up for the rest of their life. In reghards to school being mandatory it is mandatory in every single state, generally from age 5 through age 16 and all states have truancy laws (though they ARE unenforced in many places, I admit). You want prison reform then you need to reform the schools, the foster care system and the juvenile medical and homeless care systems. No child in a developed world should be sleeping on the streets and or they should not be allowed to be shuttled around like a bag of potatoes for their parents convenience. We have plenty of public land and even land that could be taken by immanent domain in every community to have children's dormitory's where they could stay stable. Parent have a kid they should have to support the kid first and themselves second. Parents want to divorce fine let them move in and out; not the kids. I do not disagree at all with any of this needing to be done, nor that it would help reduce those in prison. HOWEVER it will not stop the problem that is happening right now, which is that prisons are not government facilities any more. They are private businesses that DEPEND on more and more prisoners being locked up AND KEPT LOCKED UP (and yes htis has been PROVEN several times now). Finally, I am sorry but we can not hold another COUNTRY liable for the actions of one or two of it's citizens. If we did then every time someone from Alaska committed a crime, say in Tennessee, then YOUR taxes should be increased to help pay for his detention in Tennessee. In the end, our best option is rehabilitation for those who can be rehabilitated. For those who can not, and are too violent to release, I say create another Australia. Place it inside the daily patrol of the United States Navy; have it a complete no fly and no ship zone, anyone found in the skys or the seas is shot down without warning. The prisoners are escorted to the island via the Navy and left there to fend for themselves. The problem with that though is it is considered cruel and unusual punishment which is not constitutionally allowed :( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall I have to agree with you. In regards to ANYTHING she posted on twitter, so long as she did not use school property to do so, she can not be touched (and that has been proven in court numerous times the last several years. As far as the first amendment goes however, what a lot of people fail to remember or realize (mainly due to poor educational standards across the nation) is that until you are an adult (or emancipated by a court of law) you do not have the same rights as an adult citizen. You do NOT have the right to free speech for example. You DO have the legal right to be heard which means if you have a problem or if you need to address something you have to be listened to and considered. You do not however, have the full freedom to say what you want when you want however you want. Now, with that said, it doesn't really mean much at this point anyway because nobody is going to refuse to listen to a teenager or a child just because they are not an adult as well all know. BUT it does cover the fact that she does NOT have the right, and more and more schools are enforcing this, to say what she wants in school without fear of reprimand. In regards to the school taking her phone and searching it? That is a direct violation of the fourth amendment (which minors DO HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO); and again this has been upheld in court numerous times over the past several years. This does not mean the student was right in recording the conversation without stating she was going to first (she does not need permission to do so, she just needs to state she will be recording so the other person(s) can refuse to talk while on tape). The proper and legal path has to be followed in order to obtain it, and under most circumstances it will be disregarded unless the recording was used to bring harm to the other person or is used as evidence and it will then be tossed out. What it boils down to is if it did not happen on school property or at a school function, and it did not involve school equipment, the school pretty much has no authority. IF she is bullying someone via the internet and not from a school resource, then the only thing that can be done is to involve the police and have the police investigate the matter. No Conrad I will not. If you are interested in following up on it you are more than welcome to read the constitution yourself, and the many, many judicial rulings in place regarding what is meant by the constitution. After taking a look at your profile, and realizing that you are not (again this is going by your profile) an American citizen, and thus did not have the education I had growing up (Civics specific to the USA), I have decided to go ahead and provide a single link for you in regards to a minors rights being limited... See below: http://family.findlaw.com/emancipation-of-minors/what-are-the-legal-rights-of-children.html Minors also have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they have the right to equal protection, which means that every child is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability, or religion. Children are also entitled to due process, which includes notice and a hearing, before any of their basic rights are taken away by the government. - See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/emancipation-of-minors/what-are-the-legal-rights-of-children.html#sthash.TZeNhmXx.dpuf  Time for the Rolling Heads! You can laugh all you want to Conrad, but the simple fact is you are wrong. In the United States of America, until you reach majority age (generally 18 unless emancipated and 21 for consumption of alcohol) your rights are limited to just about basic human rights. there are many, many more links out there that you can easily find going into more detailed explanation of what rights a minor has or does not have, and I leave the research to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A social media storm erupted after administrators at a New Jersey high school accused a student of bullying because of anti-Israel comments that she posted on Twitter. They say that the tweets may have violated the state's broad anti-bullying laws. Bethany Koval, a 16-year-old Israeli Jew, said on Wednesday that she was called to the principal's office at Fair Lawn High School and reprimanded for making tweets criticizing Israel and mentioning that a pro-Israel classmate had unfollowed her on Twitter. Comment: So where's the real problem? It doesn't seem to exist. Maybe the school administrators need a refresher course in the 1st Amendment. Administrators warned her that she could face legal consequences for her actions, since New Jersey has some of the strictest anti-bullying legislation in the country. Under the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, which only came into force in 2011, she could be suspended or expelled. Koval is a prolific Twitter user. She had made over 21,000 tweets and has almost 7,000 followers, many of whom she gained in the last few days. The fiasco that she is the center of has since become a social media sensation. The outspoken high schooler has been met with both support and opposition online. When Koval was called down to the principal's office, she began documenting the situation on Twitter. "I'm about to be exposed for being anti-Israel. Pray for me," she tweeted. A few minutes later, she tweeted that the administrator threatened to "file a bullying case" against her. "It's against state law to express unpopular political views on the Internet, now," she tweeted again. In addition to rebuking her and warning her about legal consequences, the administator searched Koval's phone to make sure that he had not recorded their conversation. The student could be sued if she had, he told her. The administrator was correct in their assumption; Koval posted videos of the meeting on Twitter. In one recording, Koval can heard telling the administrator that her tweets may have been controversial, but she didn't think they were "problematic." "Well that's your interpretation," the administrator said. "There's a state law that might interpret it differently." Comment: Ya maybe, except for that little nuisance known as the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution that guarantees the right of free speech for everyone in the USA. In a second clip, the administrator can be heard warning her about legal consequences again. "You can sit there with your smug attitude right now, but if it's got to go into a bullying case because you think it shouldn't be and the state says it is, you're going to lose," he said. Fair Lawn High School Principal James Marcella told the New York Times that the issue has been referred to the school district's superintendent, Bruce Watson, and that a statement would be released on Thursday afternoon. Stanley Cohen, a lawyer consulted by Koval's family, said he that doubted that the complaints over her tweets would end up being a legal matter. He said he hoped school officials would looking beyond "the emotion of the moment and say 'Move on, this is no big deal,'" adding that he believes that young people should be encouraged to express their opinions in an academic environment. http://www.rt.com/usa/328218-new-jersey-bullying-tweets/ SCOTUS made that so,when they decided that Christian Bakeries are "Public" and have to bake Cakes whether they are so inclined or not! Chicken are coming home to bite Ar$es! You need to stop and familiarize yourself with American laws and our constitution before saying someone is right or wrong ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall I have to agree with you. In regards to ANYTHING she posted on twitter, so long as she did not use school property to do so, she can not be touched (and that has been proven in court numerous times the last several years. As far as the first amendment goes however, what a lot of people fail to remember or realize (mainly due to poor educational standards across the nation) is that until you are an adult (or emancipated by a court of law) you do not have the same rights as an adult citizen. You do NOT have the right to free speech for example. You DO have the legal right to be heard which means if you have a problem or if you need to address something you have to be listened to and considered. You do not however, have the full freedom to say what you want when you want however you want. Now, with that said, it doesn't really mean much at this point anyway because nobody is going to refuse to listen to a teenager or a child just because they are not an adult as well all know. BUT it does cover the fact that she does NOT have the right, and more and more schools are enforcing this, to say what she wants in school without fear of reprimand. In regards to the school taking her phone and searching it? That is a direct violation of the fourth amendment (which minors DO HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO); and again this has been upheld in court numerous times over the past several years. This does not mean the student was right in recording the conversation without stating she was going to first (she does not need permission to do so, she just needs to state she will be recording so the other person(s) can refuse to talk while on tape). The proper and legal path has to be followed in order to obtain it, and under most circumstances it will be disregarded unless the recording was used to bring harm to the other person or is used as evidence and it will then be tossed out. What it boils down to is if it did not happen on school property or at a school function, and it did not involve school equipment, the school pretty much has no authority. IF she is bullying someone via the internet and not from a school resource, then the only thing that can be done is to involve the police and have the police investigate the matter. No Conrad I will not. If you are interested in following up on it you are more than welcome to read the constitution yourself, and the many, many judicial rulings in place regarding what is meant by the constitution. After taking a look at your profile, and realizing that you are not (again this is going by your profile) an American citizen, and thus did not have the education I had growing up (Civics specific to the USA), I have decided to go ahead and provide a single link for you in regards to a minors rights being limited... See below: http://family.findlaw.com/emancipation-of-minors/what-are-the-legal-rights-of-children.html Minors also have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they have the right to equal protection, which means that every child is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of authority regardless of race, gender, disability, or religion. Children are also entitled to due process, which includes notice and a hearing, before any of their basic rights are taken away by the government. - See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/emancipation-of-minors/what-are-the-legal-rights-of-children.html#sthash.TZeNhmXx.dpuf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall I have to agree with you. In regards to ANYTHING she posted on twitter, so long as she did not use school property to do so, she can not be touched (and that has been proven in court numerous times the last several years. As far as the first amendment goes however, what a lot of people fail to remember or realize (mainly due to poor educational standards across the nation) is that until you are an adult (or emancipated by a court of law) you do not have the same rights as an adult citizen. You do NOT have the right to free speech for example. You DO have the legal right to be heard which means if you have a problem or if you need to address something you have to be listened to and considered. You do not however, have the full freedom to say what you want when you want however you want. Now, with that said, it doesn't really mean much at this point anyway because nobody is going to refuse to listen to a teenager or a child just because they are not an adult as well all know. BUT it does cover the fact that she does NOT have the right, and more and more schools are enforcing this, to say what she wants in school without fear of reprimand. In regards to the school taking her phone and searching it? That is a direct violation of the fourth amendment (which minors DO HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO); and again this has been upheld in court numerous times over the past several years. This does not mean the student was right in recording the conversation without stating she was going to first (she does not need permission to do so, she just needs to state she will be recording so the other person(s) can refuse to talk while on tape). The proper and legal path has to be followed in order to obtain it, and under most circumstances it will be disregarded unless the recording was used to bring harm to the other person or is used as evidence and it will then be tossed out. What it boils down to is if it did not happen on school property or at a school function, and it did not involve school equipment, the school pretty much has no authority. IF she is bullying someone via the internet and not from a school resource, then the only thing that can be done is to involve the police and have the police investigate the matter. No Conrad I will not. If you are interested in following up on it you are more than welcome to read the constitution yourself, and the many, many judicial rulings in place regarding what is meant by the constitution. Actually Conrad you have done no such thing, or you are intentionally ignoring facts and court rulings (as usual). I highly reccomend you stop replying with (you're wrong) every time someone says something you do not agree with because eventually you are going to get enough egg on your face to smother yourself ;-)  OMG,not another "EXPERT" of the Constitution!  never claimed (and never will claim) to be an expert on anything (or a scholar). However, you do not have to be either to have looked something up and followed anything that is related to it in order to know what you are talking a bout ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe if this gun had been better secured or micro chipped they could have recovered it before it was used for such a tragedy. I am sure the officer that it was stolen from is beside himself for his brother officer. I hate to think we have to put our officers behind bullet proof glass in their cruisers but if it takes that to keep them safe I would pay that tax willingly. And I think if it takes making police officers sworn federal officers also, so if you kill a police officer, you get the death penalty I would vote for that. I am sick and tired of it being open season on the lives of our police officers. you need to explain what a Microchip could have done that a physical S/N couldn't? As far as to what a microchip could have done, it is very simple: the microchip can be programmed to only activate (thus allowing the weapon to electronically unlock) when certain conditions are met. Those conditions could include a microchip that is also in the officers badge being within say 3 feet of the weapon, among other possibilities. Until I know what you meant by "s/n" I can not say if that is different or not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall I have to agree with you. In regards to ANYTHING she posted on twitter, so long as she did not use school property to do so, she can not be touched (and that has been proven in court numerous times the last several years. As far as the first amendment goes however, what a lot of people fail to remember or realize (mainly due to poor educational standards across the nation) is that until you are an adult (or emancipated by a court of law) you do not have the same rights as an adult citizen. You do NOT have the right to free speech for example. You DO have the legal right to be heard which means if you have a problem or if you need to address something you have to be listened to and considered. You do not however, have the full freedom to say what you want when you want however you want. Now, with that said, it doesn't really mean much at this point anyway because nobody is going to refuse to listen to a teenager or a child just because they are not an adult as well all know. BUT it does cover the fact that she does NOT have the right, and more and more schools are enforcing this, to say what she wants in school without fear of reprimand. In regards to the school taking her phone and searching it? That is a direct violation of the fourth amendment (which minors DO HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO); and again this has been upheld in court numerous times over the past several years. This does not mean the student was right in recording the conversation without stating she was going to first (she does not need permission to do so, she just needs to state she will be recording so the other person(s) can refuse to talk while on tape). The proper and legal path has to be followed in order to obtain it, and under most circumstances it will be disregarded unless the recording was used to bring harm to the other person or is used as evidence and it will then be tossed out. What it boils down to is if it did not happen on school property or at a school function, and it did not involve school equipment, the school pretty much has no authority. IF she is bullying someone via the internet and not from a school resource, then the only thing that can be done is to involve the police and have the police investigate the matter. No Conrad I will not. If you are interested in following up on it you are more than welcome to read the constitution yourself, and the many, many judicial rulings in place regarding what is meant by the constitution. Actually Conrad you have done no such thing, or you are intentionally ignoring facts and court rulings (as usual). I highly reccomend you stop replying with (you're wrong) every time someone says something you do not agree with because eventually you are going to get enough egg on your face to smother yourself ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achhh.. Fry the f@cker. He is a terrorist. And IF he is a citizen.... Charge him with treason. Then fry em' I can (slimly) understand the idea of charging him as a terrorist, but what grounds do you have for suggesting treason? He is not threatening or causing direct harm to the Country by his acts, thus he is not acting in a treasonous manner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hhaa.. There are some distinction. Miley Cyrus is a whore of Babylon @bendykoval is a propoganda whore of Palestine Cyrus is an adult who gets paid to be one. Koval is a child who is being used as a political pawn. * And should have all her electronic toys taken away & be suspended or expelled * lmao I agree she should have all her electronic toys taken away, but her posting on twitter has nothing to do with the school, since it did not happen from a school computer or something similar. her recording the conversation with her principle can not be legally proven since it was found through the principle violating her fourth amendment rights so no school suspension, etc. However, as I said, I completely agree her parents need to step up, remove all electronics and GROUND HER SORRY BEHIND, basically putting her under house arrest for however long is needed lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stop Bullying on the Spot
|
|
First, I have to start by saying there is no such thing as "bullying" unless you are talking about someone five years of age or younger (that includes those who may be twelve physically but mentally are only 5).
Bullying is a "relatively" newer term in regards to the behavior of children old enough to know better and teenagers. Some common actions that get labeled as bullying are: 1: Punching a kid or beating them up * This is not bullying, it is assault. Appropriate response start at physical intervention and go up through calling the police and filing charges (yes, the school CAN press charges against the aggressor, even if the victims parents don't want them to, because it happened on school property. 2: Tripping a kid as he walks past * Again, this is assault, not bullying; see response above 3: Pinching, Poking, pulling, shoving... * again, assault; see above 4: Calling names, Insulting, using racial slurs.... * This is not bullying, it is harassment and verbal assault, could also include stalking. Appropriate responses are the same as above. 5: Taking a kids lunch money under threat of harm * This is not bullying it is extortion and should ALWAYS involve the police as part of the intervention 6. Hiding the kids clothes when they are in the gym shower * Sexual Assault. Involve the police every single time My point is that every single thing that gets labeled as bullying (because the aggressor is a minor) is in fact not bullying, but an actual crime that would see an adult in jail or prison. With this being the case, we need to stop the double standards and if the minor is old enough and mentally capable of understanding right from wrong, then it should be the very same result that would happen to you or me if we did it. THAT is the only way we are going to get a handle on "bullying" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Daniel74126
on
Sat 01/09/16 12:30 AM
|
|
For single parents you can ask for subsidy on child care. It depends how much the person is making. You can ask for assistance with child care through Social Services (where you would go for food stamps and medicaid). They generally offer assistance for those under a fairly high cap (I believe it was 140% poverty level or something like that last time I checked). The problem though is day care centers (especially those that specialize in special needs) know exactly how much assistance you get from social services and then charge exhorbitantly beyond that. A good example is the ONLY child care that I can register my youngest son in. He is diagnosed with high functioning autism and I can not leave him alone even though he is thirteen, for more than a half hour and then not on a regular basis (basically, say he gets sick and I don't have medicine on hand, I could leave him alone long enough to walk to the store 3/4 of a mile away and get the medicine). I can leave him in his older brothers care, but his brother is only fifteen and can not handle him on a full time basis. The daycare he qualifies for, when I first looked into them is only open from 6am to 6pm Mopnday through Friday. Their fees worked out to $50 PER DAY< OVER what DHS was going to pay for assistance. Even if it was no assistance and the fee $50 per hour, if you figure one hour after dropping him off to get to work, another hour to go pick him up, thats ten hours per day. If you work 40 hours per week, Monday thru Friday (good luck on that) for minimum wage, you end up receiving an average of $829 after taxes. That's per month. You owe the daycare $250 per week, or $1,000 per month, which is more than you take home. It is not affordable Edit: Please note also that assistance for daycare is NOT dependent on being a single parent; that would be discrimination. Married parents can seek and receive as well |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Equal Rights For Dads
|
|
surrogates are only a vehicle there is no right except those that protect the baby they carry,,, at least, that's as I think it should be if someone signs on to be only a vessel,, the law should allow them to be only a vessel,, Personally, I think ALL surrogate situations should be required to have a legally signed contract and possibly even involve family court mediation prior to ensure all parties are knowledgeable on their rights (or lack there of) and that one side can not back out after the fact, or try and negate the other sides half of the contract because they changed their minds. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
