Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Ron Paul isn't crazy, but living through the civil rights era and still thinking the states should be able to do whatever they want...it shows a real disconnect.

Thinking the state can do no wrong and should have near unlimited power is no different than thinking the same of the federal government.

Dvergar /
Quisling

The states are bound to honor the rights granted under the Constitution because of the 14th Amendment, so while they would have greater power if Ron Paul had his way, there would still be checks on their power.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Except that Ron Paul wants to appeal the 14th amendment. He has also proposed legislation that would neuter the federal judicial in cases of state laws. The state could do whatever it pleased and the federal government couldn't step in to protect it's citizens.

Dvergar /
Quisling

It's ok to be dumb you can even make other dumb friends nbd.

your nation was founded by convicts.

and before that, cavemen.

Doesn't Australia have a ban on lolicon?

Austrailia does a lot of censorship on things.

Out of all of them, you chose child porn?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

If I draw something with no name, zero resemblance to any actual specific person, and is not slanderous (or would it be liable? The editor from the Daily Bugle only explains the difference between written and spoken word) in any way and I do not display for public eyes...

...then what is the basis of banning such things in a free society?

I use lolicon as an example because mostly it's the only Australian law I've heard of in some conversation somewhere, as I've never looked into Australian law.

Or lolicon for that matter.

But it makes the best example, as it is probably the easiest thing to get banned. Yet is essentially not harmful.

I'm buying a Ron Paul tshirt and wearing it everywhere.

Druid: Meowth
« Steam »« Xfire »
Glorious Death Metal Music

Libel is written words or pictures, Slander goes both ways in common usage, but refers to only oral communication in a legal definition.



Ssssuuuuurrrrreeeeee

Dvergar /
Quisling

Just my opinion...

Creationism and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive - they're not even the same thing. If a creationist believes that a higher being created life then the principals of evolution could be part of that grand design; why redesign the wheel every couple generations? Evolution might explain how life forms adapt to environmental changes but it doesn't answer where life first originated, does it? Evolution doesn't explain anything about the origin of life.

Creationism is an explanation for the origin of life - not the adaptation of life. Science doesn't know exactly how life arrived on this planet. They have ideas but no idea has more credence than another. Panspermia, exogenesis, abiogenesis and creationism could be the reasons for the origin of life on our planet in any combination so I have a hard time saying, "Well, abiogenesis can't be proven as the source of life but it's definitely not creationism." For all we know there is another theory that we have yet to concoct... and even that theory might be a far cry from what actually happened. Looking back on my past opinions I kinda laugh at myself for thinking that I had all the answers. There is no possible way any of us can say, "There is absolutely no God and it's not possible that a God created life" because no one knows the truth about the origin nor can we observe God. (Something that isn't observable under our current understanding and technology doesn't mean that which can't be observed doesn't exist.)

So creationists that don't believe in the theory of evolution are just as narrow-minded as evolutionists that think it's impossible that a God could have created life. A creationist that supports evolution or an agnostic evolutionist is probably in the right mindset at this juncture in time.

before we get into this conversation again.

is there a time when this every came down to the president's office, and he had to choose between creationism and evolution, and then if he failed we all died in a nuclear holocaust?

no?

Ok, so put that on the backburner, and keep in mind that obama, and everyone else that has been elected to the presidency, is religious in some capacity, so let's just let it drop.

Honestly, its not important.

Most Presidents are only religious to get the vote. After that, meh. But this guy was bringing his religious beliefs to work with him. He probably denied performing abortions on people who would die w/o them. I wouldn't put it past him, anyway. And if elected president, his beliefs would curb stem cell research and put a ban on Gardasil for young girls, both of which have seen substantial gains and benefits over the last few years.

The scientific questions that candidates have to answer are the #1 reason I am a Democrat and can never see myself a Republican, regardless of fiscal, economic, military and social issues.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]