Law proposes men be taxed for masturbation - highlights abortion issues

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Bowerbird, Mar 14, 2017.

  1. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    So bring on the impeachment charges :)
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would love to for most of these racketeers masquerading as representatives of The People. Unfortunately I have no standing to do that. The only alternative it seems is to do what the founders did and wrote in our founding document (see my signature).
     
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I'll pass....I just can't take your "outrage" seriously....
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I could care less what you take seriously or not. This is a discussion forum and I'm expressing my personal opinion in this venue, same as you. What you do with it or not is irrelevant to me other than to discuss it if you wish to do so. Your participation/responses to my posts may prompt a response from me depending on content, as I see fit of course. You are also free to ignore me or drop out of the discussion at any time as it is your prerogative. My opinions are strictly my personal opinions, and they are genuine whether you like them or not or you believe it or not. I speak for no one but myself.
     
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I completely agree with everything you have said :) The point of introducing a bill on masterbation is simply to point out how stupid (and complete anathema to sound law) these bills - such as the "sanctity of life act- are.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I understand the point she wants to convey but I strongly disagree with her methodology as her actions sets a bad precedence. It's not what we need, legislators submitting frivolous bills to make a point. As I posted earlier, I would much rather have her submit a bill that repeals all these unconstitutional laws because:

    1. It would be 100% legitimate and fully within the scope of her position and be something we do desperately need.
    2. It would send the same message in an appropriate manner and I believe have similar or even greater impact if properly worded.
     
  7. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a very good point. Your right.

    This leads to an interesting question that has been bugging me for a long time.

    Why is it that elected Democratic officials have not pushed for repeal of the UVVA. Clearly this is contradiction in law. A violation of the Rule of Law and just an anathema to justice.

    What I also noticed is the the left and center media will not discuss this issue properly. How tough is it to point out that there is no consensus among subject matter experts that a single human cell is a " Living Human" any more than any other living human cell.

    One does not even have to take sides. All one needs to do is provide evidence in support of the claim "Experts Disagree" - such as the fact that College level developmental biology textbook gives 5 different perspectives on "When human life begins"

    http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

    Only one perspective (genetic) puts the beginning of human life at conception. The text then goes on to explain:
    At the end of the day - the consensus among subject matter experts is that a single human cell is not a living human but, this do not even need to be given.

    All that needs to be ceded is that "Experts Disagree". Once this threshold is crossed - the whole Pro -Life legal case collapses.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It gets right to the heart of what I posted. Most legislators don't operate within the scope of their mandate or the law (which is of course the Constitution). Many knowingly introduce unconstitutional legislation or support it for a variety of reasons, usually having to do with $$$$ or political favors (for helping them get elected or in return for other favors).

    The MSM is not trustworthy unfortunately, they have failed us all too often. They are supposed to be an entity that keeps government in check (the "4th branch") but they have been corrupted.

    Totally agree. Proposed legislation is rarely properly vetted because doing so would fail to serve individual agendas.

    What we need and what I've advocated for many years is an Amendment that provides an independent jury like system to review proposed bills by all state and federal legislatures for constitutional compliance before they are voted on. And also includes a constitutional test for any candidate for office. It's just like any other job, if you can't pass a qualifying test, you can't get the job. It's amazing how many government servants (up to and including some Presidents) are ignorant of the Constitution. Of course I know that such an Amendment would never be proposed, much less ratified.

    Once an unconstitutional law is passed, it is extremely difficult to overturn it. The damage has already been done by the time it reaches judicial review and often fails on that as well because the judicial branch is just as corrupt.
     
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In addition - an educated electorate is needed. By educated I am not talking Science and Math.

    12 years of school and the system manages not to teach (by design) the bare basics of Philosophy (logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument, critical thinking).

    A couple of times a teacher had issue with my comments saying "we don't want kids arguing with teachers". Can you believe the idiocy of such a comment - from folks who are supposed to be teaching kids.

    Also - as per your comments- we should teach the basic principles on which the USA was founded ( Individual rights and freedoms "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't, Legitimacy of Authority/limits on that authority (limited to what ?), basics of Classical liberalism - the enlightenment ideas used for the Declaration of Independence and from which the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted and that Gov't authority comes from "we the people" as opposed to "Divine right/God as was the case in the past)

    Without these basic tools, how is a voter supposed to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and bad arguments that rain down on a daily basis from Politicians and the mainstream media ? How are they supposed to know when the Gov't is stepping outside it's legitimate purview ?
    You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned elected leaders that have no clue. Was just last year that some Justice claim that Gods law was above the Constitution or some such nonsense. I have been in countless debates on here with folks that think separation of Church and State was not something the founders wanted. Then when I ask them if Theocracy is what they want - they don't respond - either not realizing that this is what they are suggesting or in some kind of denial.

    If it were up to me I would fire every sitting member of SCOTUS for dereliction of duty - failing to interpret the Constitution on the basis of the principles on which this nation was founded.

    The founders set up a system where the power of Gov't was extremely limited. For 200 years the Gov't has been trying to get that power back ... and they have succeeded.
     
  10. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You must care a little or you wouldn't have posted this "Statement of the Obvious"...:)

    I agree with you that all Republicans who introduce "Control Women" laws should be impeached .... Trump should be impeached if he withdraws federal funding from Planned Parenthood but he won't be ...
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You and I are apparently on the same wavelength. Government education is indoctrination and it's a lot worse these days than when I went to school a few decades ago. I learned the basics of the foundation of this country and the Constitution in school and it was far from enough to understand it on an intellectual/philosophical level. I had to study the Constitution and civil rights issues/laws on my own to get the full impact of the kind of government we are supposed to have in the US and sadly we have nothing of the sort. Thanks to indoctrination, most Americans believe this is the way it's supposed to be. So instead of millions protesting for a true American form of government, we now have Donald Trump and his billionaire minions who are supposed to do what's best for the average working class of Americans. It wasn't any better with his war criminal predecessors either. All 3 branches of the federal government are corrupt to the extreme and it's not much better on the state and local level either.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it was obvious to you you would have taken my post seriously. I merely corrected your false impression of me.

    Trump should be impeached regardless of what he does. He was never a qualified candidate for President in the first place. The two war criminals that preceded him should have been impeached and prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and treason as well. It seems that these days, what qualifies as President are those who can murder as many innocent men, women and children as possible under pretext of defending the US from the fake war on terror. An excuse used to empower and enrich the military industrial complex off the backs of Americans.
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did a science degree but also took a bunch of Philosophy classes (including Philosophy of law) - Got lucky with that one as the prof had his Ph.D from Oxford and was very cool. Also took Political Science and did a paper on Classical Liberalism.

    I get that some of these elected officials do not know squat but, what is very troubling SCOTUS not interpreting the constitution via the principles set forth.

    Perhaps even more troubling is when you have Obama - Constitutional Scholar and Civil Rights activist doing a complete 180.

    Most folks do not know the age old tactic of using fear to get folks to trade away their rights for the illusion of security... but, Obama does.

    The founders were well aware as per Franklin "those who would trade essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither" and of course "give me liberty or give me death".

    My jaw dropped when Obama said "if we want increased security - we have to give a little". This guy knew exactly what he was saying.

    Stalin wrote a chapter in the text on using fear to take away liberty in the name of Security - "Security for the Motherland"

    Hitler did the same "Fatherland Security"

    Bush - also used fear to take away liberty. Lacking the creativity to come up with a new name he called his program "Homeland Security" and then made it our "Patriotic duty to give up individual rights and freedoms" - Patriot Act.

    Obama changed the name to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act"

    Factor in a serious lack of transparency and a controlled media and the canary in the coal mine is screeching.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's the problem that most people have been indoctrinated to believe, that SCOTUS has the power to interpret the Constitution. SCOTUS has NO constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution. It's written in plain English and should be understood by most educated/intelligent people, including judges (LOL), although some of these are far from. SCOTUS stealthily seized that power in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). By doing so, they forever corrupted our form of government. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the concept of judicial review but interpreting the Constitution and using case law to rewrite the Constitution was NOT what the founders intended as a part of judicial review. They created the Amendments clause (Article V) for a reason. SCOTUS subverts that via "interpretation" and that is 100% illegal under the 10th Amendment. Article III grants the judiciary limited power which does not include the power to interpret the Constitution. It grants the judiciary power to interpret LAWS for constitutional compliance when these laws are subject to a questions of legality via grant of petition for writ of certiorari. When SCOTUS creates case law via interpretation, they are effectively amending/rewriting the Constitution.

    The Constitution is a contract between The People and their government. Government servants are employees under that contract. Imagine if you were an employer and you gave your employees the power to interpret their employment contract. This is what's going on today and has been going on since 1803. And this is why we get garbage from SCOTUS such as qualified and absolute immunity for government servants and that corporations (a paper created fiction) have the same constitutionally protected rights as human beings and money is speech. Our government is not at all the Constitutional Republic guaranteed in Article IV Section 4. It is an illegitimate plutocracy, a fascist corporatocracy run by billionaires. The evidence is right in front of our eyes.
     
    Giftedone likes this.
  15. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting Post. I use the term "Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster" to describe out current system.

    Extreme Capitalism and extreme Socialism (totalitarian Communism for example) both end up at the same place on the spectrum. In both cases you end up with a few elite owning all or most resources and means of production.

    Somehow we have managed to fuse the worst of both into this ugly monster.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  16. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's only one problem. The unborn is a separate entity with its own DNA.
     
  17. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Which doesn't give it rights and certainly doesn't give it more rights than anyone else...
     
  18. The Mandela Effect

    The Mandela Effect Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I would vote for it just to find out how they plan on catching a bunch of men doing it.
     
  19. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just because no one has ever done it over her, she wants to abolish it. Such a jel. :laughing:
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  20. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Imagine the amount of tax-fraud we would see. :p
     
    NCspotter and Diablo like this.
  21. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Actually I think that more effective tax would be a "pole tax" based on, well, physical attributes let's say....

    Could you imagine men being caught between declaring a...ahem..."shortfall" and paying more tax!;)
     
    Zeffy likes this.
  22. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Period-tax too, pls.
     
  23. Abandon

    Abandon Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I generally dislike arguments that attempt to frame abortion exlusively as a women's rights issue. I think that this is dishonest and misdirects the conversation by downplaying the very significant moral aspects of the matter.

    It also makes the implication that the significant percentage of Americans who oppose abortion, and the vast majority of Americans who oppose it beyond a certain time limit, are all just sexist. Including women, apparently.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I think that is an oversimplistic view of a complex issue. What this is protesting are situations like this

    Republicans deciding on Maternity Care

    [​IMG]
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  25. Abandon

    Abandon Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The oversimplification lies in attributing any dissagreement over complex issues, particularly abortion, to sexism while downplaying other factors. This is a reccurent phenomenon and especially apparent in this particular case.

    Politicians are voted in by their constituencies, which include both men and women. It is these elected politicians who get to decide on significant matters, since they have been chosen by the populace to represent them. What is the objection here? What is it that is being protested? Democratic procedures?
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017

Share This Page