Big Bend Texas
Platinum Member
- Mar 14, 2022
- 9,242
- 5,228
- 893
Completely different type of surveillance.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Completely different type of surveillance.
Yeah. I had that OnStar thing from GM for a while. Saved my butt once. They can unlock your car by remoteNot when i drive my work truck Scruff
My commercial insurance carrier demands it sync with their GPS on board
They track my route daily, even know when i break the speed limits
~S~
"Heavy" is a relative term.Not at the same time you're making a call or texting from it, not without some pretty heavy tech.
Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.So you, like most commies, want to play a game of semantics over the stages of human development. You do realize you are referring to human beings that develop over a continuum from conception to death, RIGHT?
.
Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.
Do I want these girls and young women to choose abortions.... Heck no!
But that is not up to me! It's such a personal situation that is up to her, and her doctor, and her mate, or husband, and her god, her pastor....etc.
It's not for me to decide. I have no right to even know she is pregnant early on, or what goes on in these women's bedrooms or household or in her Doctors office.... She has a right to privacy, and I am fine with the decision by the justices in Roe v Wade....because I should not be the one making these medical decisions for her, in something that affects her, for the next 20 years of her life, if she even lives through a pregnancy or dies in childbirth.... Those decisions are hers to make, early on....
My job is to let her and all the girls know that there are other choices, that we will be there to help 24/7 if the women decide to keep their pregnancies....
Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.
Do I want these girls and young women to choose abortions.... Heck no!
But that is not up to me! It's such a personal situation that is up to her, and her doctor, and her mate, or husband, and her god, her pastor....etc.
It's not for me to decide. I have no right to even know she is pregnant early on, or what goes on in these women's bedrooms or household or in her Doctors office.... She has a right to privacy, and I am fine with the decision by the justices in Roe v Wade....because I should not be the one making these medical decisions for her, in something that affects her, for the next 20 years of her life, if she even lives through a pregnancy or dies in childbirth.... Those decisions are hers to make, early on....
My job is to let her and all the girls know that there are other choices, that we will be there to help 24/7 if the women decide to keep their pregnancies....
That's very noble of you, and you're right, a woman should have the right to decide what to do in her own affairs, but, it's not the scotus job to force states into medical procedures, which, they actually did not. They simply said that people have a right to privacy, and the left, in turn, took that to mean abortion was a constitutional right. That's not what scotus did. They can't grant rights, and they can't make law.Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.
Do I want these girls and young women to choose abortions.... Heck no!
But that is not up to me! It's such a personal situation that is up to her, and her doctor, and her mate, or husband, and her god, her pastor....etc.
It's not for me to decide. I have no right to even know she is pregnant early on, or what goes on in these women's bedrooms or household or in her Doctors office.... She has a right to privacy, and I am fine with the decision by the justices in Roe v Wade....because I should not be the one making these medical decisions for her, in something that affects her, for the next 20 years of her life, if she even lives through a pregnancy or dies in childbirth.... Those decisions are hers to make, early on....
My job is to let her and all the girls know that there are other choices, that we will be there to help 24/7 if the women decide to keep their pregnancies....
Do you support the Patriot Act?
Because rights cannot be accepted or rejected piecemeal.
Rights must be accepted or rejected as an Indivisible whole.
Otherwise any arguments for or against them are nothing more than white noise.
Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.
Do I want these girls and young women to choose abortions.... Heck no!
But that is not up to me! It's such a personal situation that is up to her, and her doctor, and her mate, or husband, and her god, her pastor....etc.
It's not for me to decide. I have no right to even know she is pregnant early on, or what goes on in these women's bedrooms or household or in her Doctors office.... She has a right to privacy, and I am fine with the decision by the justices in Roe v Wade....because I should not be the one making these medical decisions for her, in something that affects her, for the next 20 years of her life, if she even lives through a pregnancy or dies in childbirth.... Those decisions are hers to make, early on....
My job is to let her and all the girls know that there are other choices, that we will be there to help 24/7 if the women decide to keep their pregnancies....
Yes, but that is piss poor reasoning to make abortion a national issue.Do we?
Yes, but that is piss poor reasoning to make abortion a national issue.
So the marital right to privacy is no longer valid? I thought subsequent court cases have reinforced the original ruling.The 4th is very specific, if they wanted to protect an overarching blanket right to privacy they would have specified it.
You can infer lots of things, just about anything in fact, that doesn't make the inference valid.
Except it's not a crime. At least not yet.What you’re saying only makes sense if it’s a victimless crime.
You sure did waste a whole lot of effort for nothing, no, I didn't say that.So the marital right to privacy is no longer valid? I thought subsequent court cases have reinforced the original ruling.
And what do you call the right to keep the government out of your home, your "papers", essentially your business (as in private affairs that is no concern of theirs)? You don't think that meets the definition of privacy?
The 2nd amendment has been a source of contention since it's ratification. As a part of the Bill of Rights which enumerates specific rights that "the people" have that the government is not allowed to infringe upon, the argument has been made that the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" pertains to the government (the State) and does not and was never intended to actually to the people. In other words, that's it's not an individual right which to me and many others makes no sense when you consider that the rest of Amendments specifically mention rights "of the people" or in the case of the 6th "the accused", etc.
This [legal] opinion was the law of the land until 2008 when the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v Heller established that the right to keep & bear arms is indeed a personal right.
Had the amendment been worded differently, then perhaps we wouldn't have had over a century of debate on something that to a lot of people was obvious if not in the language of the amendment itself, then in context of the entire Bill of Rights.
Also I previously mentioned the Katz case in which Justice Brandeis' s dessent in Olmstead was used to help overturn that ruling which stated that warrants were not needed for wiretaps of a payphone. Did not Katz establish that a reasonable expectation of privacy is something that "the people" have, that a right to privacy attaches to a person, not to a place (a payphone in this case).
So taking all of the previous SCOTUS rulings and case law I'm not sure upon what basis it is said that the U.S. Constitution doesn't protect the privacy of "the people" simply because it's not mentioned by name or called privacy.
I just assumed that the case/argument claiming that the Constitution doesn't contain an explicit right of privacy was a lot stronger than it appears to be, or maybe I just haven't seen anyone do a good job yet of presenting that side of the argument.
How is it a waste? It wasn't for me.You sure did waste a whole lot of effort for nothing, no, I didn't say that.
The sanctity of the home is grounded in both English Common law and English statutory law going back as far as the says of the Magna Charta upon which our legal system is founded.
The government is not "The People" and never has been so this argument fails on it's face. Scalia explains this in detail the Heller decision along with all the historical references he provided.The 2nd amendment has been a source of contention since it's ratification. As a part of the Bill of Rights which enumerates specific rights that "the people" have that the government is not allowed to infringe upon, the argument has been made that the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" pertains to the government (the State) and does not and was never intended to actually to the people. In other words,
It certainly was since you were arguing against something I never stated.How is it a waste? It wasn't for me.
I agree, but that hasn't prevented over a century worth of attestations and rulings to the contrary.The government is not "The People" and never has been so this argument fails on it's face. Scalia explains this in detail the Heller decision along with all the historical references he provided.
We've had a lot of bad rulings by activist judges over the years who ignored The Constitution to further their own political or personal beliefs.I agree, but that hasn't prevented over a century worth of attestations and rulings to the contrary.
I'm not arguing against you specifically, I'm posting my understanding of the situation and law, asking for your feedback in most cases.It certainly was since you were arguing against something I never stated.
Privacy rights have and always will be limited by such things as time, manner, and place.
What do you mean by overarching?The 4th is very specific, if they wanted to protect an overarching blanket right to privacy they would have specified it.