insein said:And? Did that relationship produce a child? So then it provided nothing to society. I don't think government should be in the marriage business, period. Churches should decide who gets married. Its handout programs like Social Security and the like that even make this an issue.
So only couples who can conceive children should be allowed to marry. Couples who, for whatever reason, can't have children should be denied the benefits and responsibilities of the legal version of marriage.
No emergency room in America will turn away a person in need. Then after the fact its often paid for through welfare insurance anyway so we basically do have universal healthcare and it still sucks. The people with money have to pay for their own insurance as well as everyone elses through taxes.
It would be far, far cheaper to pay for basic insurance for these kids to go to the regular doctor instead of the ER. The average cost of an ER visit is $360.00 and the average cost of a doctor visit is $55.00 according to https://www.healthy.net/aipm/store/CategoryInfo.asp?CatCode=2&SubCatCode=0 Which is cheaper???
Land developers? Maybe loggers at one point but National PArks are protected by the constitution. However, if natural resources are needed, like oil, then i think we need to pursue these resources for the sake of the country.
Land developers. As suburban sprawl intesifies throughout the country, national parks and monuments are becoming hemmed in because greedy developers buy up the land around them and put 2,000 houses or a Wal-Mart Supercenter on it. National parks and monuments should have some sort of buffer, preferably at least a couple of miles, where major development is not allowed. As for pursuing oil, quite simply, NO! We need to find alternative, environmentally friendly resources. The answer to every energy problem isn't to turn over precious, irreplaceable natural resources to big corporations who exploit them for profit.
So in 6 years, all the clean air is now gone in America? I'm all for environmental concerns like the obvious, not dumping polution into water supplies and limiting the toxins in smoke stacks, but environmentalists need to be realistic. 100% clean air is not a possibility ever again.
In six years the Bush administration has done more damage to the environment than was repaired and prevented in the 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt, the original environmentalist president was in office. I can't honestly quantify this statement, but when you look at the overall number of stories, global warming, super hurricanes, melting glaciers, etc.
I agree with the means to achieve and the security. Pay and benefits are NOT needed. The average salary for teachers here in PA is $55,000 and that comes in most towns with full benefits. Getting a job in PA as a teacher is almost impossible.
PA is in the minority paying teachers that much, and frankly, teachers deserve to be making even more than that. Many work in excess of 70 hours a week, and often buy their own classroom supplies.
I go back and forth. Capital punishment should be left to God in my mind but on the other hand, some people need to be removed from society, period. Some people can't even coeexist with prisoners and those people need to be removed if the crime suits the punishment (1st degree murder, REAL child rape, etc)
But the real question is, should we have a system whereby the possibility exists that an innocent person could be killed for a crime they didn't commit?
:rotflmao: Ok. Yes lets stop the 1 judge thats been trying to keep the activists in check and the newest judge on the court who has yet to prove himself. Im sure you have proof of the activism right?
Alito's record in PA was one of blatant conservative judicial activism. He frequently sought to rewrite law from the bench to limit rights and liberties. This is the judge who said it was just fine to strip search a 10 year old child. Thomas (along with tag team partner Scalia) have been the most conservative, judicially active justices on the court.
Church and state were never meant to be separated in your ideal. Separation of church and state is an idea that was fabricated long after the constitution was created. The original intent of the constitution is to not create any laws that restrict the practice of any religion. That was purposely worded to not allow a state run religion but still be able to allow government officials the right to practice their faith without discrimination from the government to do so. The only thing thats been wrong lately has been the judicial branches unconstitutional measures to discriminate against christian ideals by individuals within the government. These government officials and state run buildings have a right to display all materials that they deem fit. They do not restrict the fair practice of any other religion when a display of the 10 commandments are on the wall of a courthouse. They do not restrict the fair practice of any religion when a giant cross is on the hill of a city founded by christian missionaries in California. These objects of historical significance are being removed in the name of "separation of church and state" when they violate the fair practice of religion without discrimination from the government. The ACLU and those like them seek to create a theocracy of Atheism where worship of God is punished by the government in schools, government buildings, courthouses and any other place of government. This is the most unconstitutional thing to occur in the 230 year history of this country. The founding fathers would be disgusted at the current state of the judicial branch in this country.
It's not about restricting religious practice. Religion was specifically and intentionally left out of the Constitution because our founders wanted a secular government. They firmly believed that religion ought to stay out of government and government ought to stay out of religion. Erecting Christian symbols may not "restrict practice" but it does render non-Christians unable to use public facilities without fear of retribution and harassment. The erection of Christian symbols is designed to harrass and intimidate non-Christians by making it clear that the government does not approve of their religion. When someone walks into a courthouse, they have reasonable expectation that they will be treated fairly. If a Muslim walks in and sees the Christian Ten Commandments posted, how in the world can he then expect a fair hearing? You're right our founders would be disgusted, that people are trying to use the government to force their religion on other people. They would be horrified at how conservatives try and twist their words and the words of the Constitution to deny people basic civil rights and liberties. They would be angry at those who call themselves "originalists" and then fail to see that the founders intentionally wrote the Constitution to be firm enough to hold against tyranny, but to be flexible enough to change with the time, that's the genius of it.
acludem