anonemouse

Oh, I'm not going by what the ACLU says. I just posted that because it was convenient. The fact is, the Supreme Court agrees with them. Or is it the other way around, the ACLU agreeing with the Supreme Court? If the Second Amendment applied to individuals and not state militias, everyone would be allowed to own any type of arms that they could buy. They can't. Last time I checked, it was illegal to buy a nuclear weapon, even if I could afford one. You can say, "well, the Supreme Court is going to eventually reverse these rulings" all you want to. The fact is, they haven't yet. As of right now, the legal precedent of the Supreme Court says that the government (whether state or national) has the right to regulate guns.

Actually, Jack, you forget that the second amendment does not apply to the rights of an individual to bear arms. It applies to the right of a state to maintain a militia.

You or I may find someone's statement disgusting, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it.

Try looking at the First Amendment, Jack. Their sexual activity may be illegal, but their speech is not. From the ACLU website: Here is the press release:

Have you contacted Dr. Curry? Whenever he posts here, he always seems willing to see patients that he didn't band.

The ACLU isn't defending their right to molest children. The ACLU is defending their right to freedom of speech. As should you, since you are an ardent supporter of the Constitution. It isn't the popular opinion that needs supporting, it's the unpopular one. No, it doesn't. But it does provide a way to punish them. No laws = no punishment.

I tend to get pissed (in the 'ticked off' sense, not the drunk sense) around Christmas. It would really irritate me because my family would get really stressed out and snippy around Christmas from all the stress, so it always made me angry and resentful (so I'd always sleep late on Christmas morning and refuse to open presents). (I was a spiteful kid.)

And by the way, Funny, I apologize for the tone in some of my earlier posts. I have been under a lot of stress lately, and sometimes certain topics really set me off, abortion debate (and evolution and religion, but those are different threads) being one of them. I can get a little single-minded at times. I still don't agree with you, but I probably should have gone about it in a different way.

You can't compare amounts that people give. Maybe the person who gives $5 gives that much because that is all that they can afford to give, while the person who gave $5,000 could have given ten times that. Who is more generous, the person who gave all they could or the person who didn't? In my mind, the person who gave only $5 was more generous. The amount doesn't matter, it's the intent behind it that matters. I am more trustful of the person who says "I volunteer and I give money and time to charities" than a person who says "I give $5,000 here and $15,000 there and I volunteer at this place and that place and this other place", because it seems to me that they are looking for praise. People shouldn't be doing charity work for praise. If they are, they aren't being altruistic, they are getting something in return even if the only benefit is to their egos.

I've hardly ever posted there, but I love reading the entries. It really makes you a lot more appreciative of customer service workers.

That's true, and I try not to. I just happen to see more strings attached to charity than not. Some people and churches give authentically. Many that I've seen don't, though. Again, not saying all churches have strings attached to their giving, but I've run into quite a few. I've just seen so much underhandedness that I'm automatically suspicious of any group that advertises how much they give to charity. To me, charity is personal, and it should remain that way. IMO, you don't talk about politics, sex, or charity in public. It's just one of the no-nos. You don't talk about it, you just do it.

Definitely. I tend to keep my mouth shut around them, because arguing about it is more stress than it's worth. It wouldn't change the fact that their actions are disgusting to me, and I wouldn't be able to convince them that they're wrong. They really are the type of people you just smile and nod at and then go on your way.

An interesting article that goes back to one of the previous discussions: I find the statement that I highlighted to be really ironic. Doesn't she realize that she's defying her God's will by keeping the kid on a respirator? He'd already be dead right now, if it had been left up to "God's intentions".

My aunt and uncle's church would be an example of one that puts conditions on their "charity". They expect people to sacrifce their very personal religious beliefs in order to have a safe place to stay and a meal. It's disgusting, IMO. Charity isn't charity if there are strings attached.

Funny, the way you come across is that you want to be able to say, "I gave more than you, so I'm a better person!" It's not the amount that counts. It's the act of giving. You want recognition for the amount of time and money that you give. You want to be praised for how generous you are. A truly generous person wouldn't care about how much other people give. And, well heck, if you were a truly charitable person that cared more about others than yourself, you'd give way all of "your nearly 200k per year" except just enough for you to live on. Actually, I don't think you ever actually mentioned where you were volunteering, except for the pregnancy couseling centers. If you did, I apologize. If you didn't, well, am I supposed to be a mind-reader? And by the way, how do you know the politics of every single person you've ever volunteered with or who's sent money? Unless you've met every single one of them and were close enough to discuss politics (which most people don't do with anyone they don't know very well), you have no idea what they're politics are. So really, you're just blowing smoke up our asses about "knowing that conservative give more than liberals". I realize this was directed towards BJean, but I wanted to put my two cents in, anyway. I think anyone who has to brag about the amount of money they make and the amount they give away is a snob.

Funny, you also work with primarily conservative charities. Of course there are going to be more conservatives than liberals at a pro-life pregnancy counseling center. Most liberals believe that a woman has a right to choose, so they aren't going to donate their time to a place that doesn't believe that way. If you work at primarily conservative agencies, you are going to see primarily conservatives.

That's what my mom wanted me to do instead of having surgery.

Wha....? My eyes!

Exactly. I think there is a clear difference between "discipline" and "beating". If someone is hitting their three year-old hard enough to leave marks, I'm damn well going to call the police. If people want their business to stay their business, they leave it at home.

I ran across a posting on a blog community that I thought really illustrates my point. Here it is (from http://community.livejournal.com/customers_suck/):

I should correct my above statement. Funny, I have compassion for you because you had an abortion that you regret. I don't have compassion for you because you think you "were scammed".

The fact is, with any law we make, we create it to stop anomolies. Most people don't act in a way that we need to outlaw. Do most people molest their kids? Nope. Do most people go out and dig up graves? No, they don't.

Actually, it doesn't. Knowledge is what helps someone win a debate. Compassion is what people request when they know they can't win. I am happy to give compassion where it is deserves, but I don't think you deserve it. Yes, you got talked into an abortion. But I happen to feel that you, as a legal adult, are 100% responsible. I don't hold the nurse responsible in any way for your abortion. She didn't hold you down while they sucked your fetus out. She just drove you to the clinic. You could have left at any time. You could have refused to sign the consent forms. The moment you walked into that clinic, that abortion became your decision, not the result of any so-called "scam" the nurse was running. I think that you've always been pro-life, but that you had just a few moments where you actually put yourself above that little clump of cells inside you. You've always been told that that little clump should come first, so now you feel guilty, like you've betrayed everything you've ever been taught. You say you've forgiven yourself and that you accept all responsibility, but you haven't. Every single time you tell someone "but the nurse scammed me", you show that you aren't accepting all responsibility. If you had, the nurse would never come into the conversation. You would just talk about how you made a mistake years ago and rushed into an abortion without first considering all the options. That's taking responsibility for your actions. I know you think that the nurse bears some responsibility, but she doesn't. The fact is, if you hadn't been considering abortion in the first place, she never would have been able to convince you to have one. As much as she talked about abortion or tried to trick you (which I doubt), you would not have had an abortion if you were absolutely anti-abortion at that moment. Actually, that is still not answering the question that I asked. Try to keep up, please. This is the part of your statement that I was questioning (in bold): Where did I say that I did not feel that " if a counselling does not include both options it is unethical"? I know where I said that I do feel that way, but you said I flip-flopped. I want to know where exactly you think I flip-flopped. Is that clear enough for you now?

Yeah. Next time you see a person beating their kids, you can look at them and say, "Sorry, kid. I'm not going to turn your sexually abusive dad into the police because this isn't any of my business." Try living with yourself then. I'm not that cavalier. I'm not going to ignore someone getting hurt because you think it's "none of my business".

If the states won't impose restrictions, the national government should. That's one constitutional amendment that I would be behind 100%. Unfortunately, only gay marriage seems to be important when it comes to amendments this days. Like two men marrying each other is more dangerous to the common man than some illiterate yahoo with a gun stuck in the back of his pants. Oh, no! Can't leave marriage up to the states, but guns? Okey-dokey!