You are against proponents of Pedophilia because it exploits and abuses people without their consent. You support proponents of Communism, that exploits and abuses people without their consent, in the name of free speech. The only difference is I see two evils you only see one. Be a hypocrite if you like....see how tolerant I am? Now if you'll excuse me, this conversation is making me ill comrade.

He uses "I" a lot too, but then he cannot be all that he says he is.  Not even the original messiah was all that.

If I need to explain this than you are definitely not worth debating or arguing with. Your question is actually quite insulting to say the least. You make it seem as if Obama is clean and I can only point to silly or small errors that everyone is allowed to make as humans.

You really don't get it do you? It's scary to think people like you actually get to be part of voting for the leaders of this nation. I'm gald there's enough people in this country to avoid a win by a single vote. Obviously, Mr Genius, there are differences but I was focusing on the similarities, something you chose to ignore, as usual. It's rare to find a person in history or life for that matter who did not show some sign that they might be more dangerous than anyone would ever consider yet more often than not these signs were ignored for fear of stereotyping, racism and denial. I am not sure what you mean by pick and chose your battles, this article was not trully intended to form some kind of legal argument against Obama but more of a poke at those who think Obama is a Saint, a guy who's not as bad as the Right portrays him, a great leader.

I doubt ID  had any intentions of ending Obama's Presidency with this article, but it is interesting to note these kinds of stupid things in case some day in the future Obama (or any other person in the same position) turned out to be more of a surprise to us than we wanted to believe.

So now you're saying we should depend on other countries? I'm curious, aren't you one of those who thinks we should not be sticking our noses in other countries problems? How come now you expect them to do the same for us? I, personally, don't care about the international community at this point. Our people, US official, were warned by the father of this man and they did nothing. The people on that plane are thanking God more than the US Gov't for this persons sheer stupidity that make him a failure. But I'm curious, why did you ignore the other terrorist attack I posted with this one? Kinda funny how you could not blame the International Community for a guy who made it as far as Major in our own military and with many reasons to be watched yet you chose to ignore the fact that stereotyping was the excuse in that one.

Open minded? Yea right. You bicker about the smallest things while at the same time saying how unimportant they are because they are small. On top of that you have the balls to say it's not that important to you yet here you are writing long replies or replying at all.

Does this prove Obama is a "closet communist"? Duh, of course it doesn't. Doesn't take a genius to know this. But combined with many other "small things" it does show how little respect this Administration has for this country. How some idiot thought, because it's his right, that somehow it was OK to put an image of a murderer like Mao on something that's suppose to symbolizes peace and happiness, something you believe everyone in this country should be given.

People don't put pictures of killers on their walls unless they somehow agree and condone such people. Do you? BTW, whether it's your right or not, putting something like this on a "Gov't" tree is not a single persons right when the tree is for everyone. I would like to see how you would feel if someone put a picture of someone who killed someone you cared about on a Christmas tree. I seriously doubt you would be all "freedom of expression" with them. Let's be realistic here, even freedom has it's limits.

AJ, I'm curious; you say the Founding Fathers weren't aware of homosexuality; so, there were no homosexuals in 1776, then?  I kind of thought it had more or less always been around; I mean, there are references to it in Bible, after all. Wow; silly me.

Just when did homosexuality start, and when did it become an issue? Also:

~~~"Neither do I, but that is beside the point because Pedophilia isn't covered under our constitution or law system and we're discussing the freedom of speech/expression and the concept of believing whatever one wishes - which is in our constitution.

Additionally, on the point of pedophilia, children cannot give any legal consent - as such its a moot point. Secondly, pedophilia and freedom of expression/speech  have nothing to do with each other. At the basis of our argument is whether or not expression or speech that is communist/socialist-esque, is covered..."---AJ~~~

But see, that's one big thing you and the masses you claim to represent here don't seem to grasp: there are advocacy groups and such which work, propagandize and sue toward negating these points. they work to remove the stigma and soften resistance, by muddying the waters with PC issues and moral relativity/equivalency. NAMBLA, for example, is just one higher-profile group of many. They say things like, more or less,

"Well, you might not like screwing little boys in the ass, mister, but does that REALLY give you the right to say someone else shouldn't, if they want? Maybe they like it....why should your likes and dislikes prevent them from enjoying their life?" And that's how it works.

These types of groups and organizations are at work all the time, politicizing and litigating various agendas and issues which not many people, really would normally support. They're are all on your side of the line, AJ, yet you and your kind seem to purposely blind yourselves to their machinations and general effects.

Now, please...begin the rationalization, as you always do.

In the words of Inigo Montoya to Obama, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I think that can be applied to many things Obama says.

I am impressed Charles! Very good!  No, outstanding!

Oh, btw, either you or someone else mentioned conservative groups "not" using the courts to overturn or inforce matters (or rarely considering)....look at massachusetts, new hampshire, vermont, california. These are places where conservative groups are either in the process of planning, or currently involved with movements to overturn judicial rulings. Is that not unconstitutional, pushing their point of view (versus live and let live), etc.? I guess apparently it is the amount of times that matters, not the ethical and moral principles of the act.

What is OK - is ultimately dependent on the individual and law. So far as I know there is no law against what was done, and, it was his choice - not yours, and you don't define what is right and wrong for everyone else Charles.

Yeah well I'm scared of people like you and others here who have shown that they are willing to support the suppression of a group of people based on the majority's religious beliefs (despite the constitution - and despite that they do not have equitable rights), the assumption that liberals (or anyone opposite of them) are idiots and/or evil which plays into the unscrupulosu politicians' hands(despite the freedom of expression/speech), etc.

Like I have said "pain-in-the-ass," ( ) I agree that there are some interesting concidences and similarities concerning Obama that are worth noting...I say for the billionth time, since you - again - don't pay attention.

Simply: Take notes, be aware - ignorance is a horrible trait to have - however, sometimes the little things are just not worth the effort; sometimes, there are bigger fish to fry. Sometimes, the little things do not equal the grand claims (i.e. that he is a closet communist). Maybe, just maybe, he is merely someone who is far left? Maybe, just maybe, he is an opportunistic politician? I just can't reconcile the logical warp jumps some of you people have made. To me it's like you forgot to go through everthing between points A and Z. It's your life and your right though, as I've always said.

1. Try telling that to people like Nitro, who has implied it (whether intentionally or not).

2. Ah, but that is merely your opinion, and not law of the land. And the law is (supposed to be ) final. I've no issue with you believing that because it is your right, even if I think it's a silly conclusion. Again - to each their own Charles.

Tangent: I'm curious Charles - if a judge is supposed to interpret the law and give a ruling, thereby applying the law as they interperate it - and a judge rules in favor of a conservative group, is that judge now suddenly not an activist judge? I say they still are given that the term activist is, what i call, a "joker" term; it is defined, then used whenever needed and then the definition is skewered as needed. (Essentially, it is the wild card, malleable) The conservative who claims that a judge is being an activist - if they find the law is not in the conserative group's favor - would just as easily deny that a judge is an activist judge if they rule in their favor on a matter. The same goes for liberals.

Selfish? Self interest? Special interests?

It is ironic though, that given the nature of the constitution - there is room left to interperate it. This isn't just the case for what is in it (i.e. implied meaning), but for what is not (i.e. intention). As such, it is logical to see two overall different interpretations (static vs. living), with their respective ideaologies - conservative/liberalism.

So really, could it be that the "activist judge" is actually interpreting it in ? Even then, if groups don't get what they want, they follow the four step process: Whine/complain, , try again. 

Lets just face it Charles. Flat out, bluntly, honestly...it isn't about the principle of things - it is about being right, or being in control. Both sides have shown that.

Welcome to America - Consevatives: watch out for the falling sky. Liberals: Watch out for those evil fascists.  \sarcasm

Perhaps americans need to brush up on their understanding of the legal system/constitution? Not all "activist judges" are such, most of the time they're following the lettter of the law, despite certain political desires.

Bullshit, that's a fallacy Charles (guilt by association), and illogical. Hell, I've the book "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life," does that mean I'm automatically like him or that I condone what he did? No, of course not.

Honestly? I would be extremely disapointed, but my values and principles dictate that I not do anything about it. I may say that I disagree, but that's it. Ultimately, I would hold true to a part of what makes me who I am; I'm not some person who will drop their principles and values when it suits them, period. If I did, I would be less of a man and not worth respect - in my opinion.

It dawned on me that what I meant, and what I typed were two largely different things; so I apologize for that. My point was intending to cover the fact that they may have been religiously opposed to it, and the states may have had laws against it (ironically due to religion)...but, the founders actions via the constitution (and individual sovereignty) would indicate that they would likely support it on principles.

They set up a constitution that granted each individual american ultimate sovereignty over themselves (aside from women, blacks, and non-land own whites...).  Again, as I said earlier (rephrased): While they may have been opposed religion wise,  what the founders wrote in the constitution (and individual sovereignty) would indicate that they would likely support it on principles.

Ultimately though, as noble as we may find them, they were just as fault as anyone. They were human after all.

There's a difference between stick our nose into other people's business, and working with other countries' toward a common goal - in this case: terrorism. I was talking about the latter.

Of course they are at fault for their share, but the ultimate blame lay with the military and/or government for not flagging what was obviously a red flag case.

Would you mind providing your proof for your assertion about stereotyping, so I could read it first hand. As is, I cannot say one way or another because of my limited info on that (the stereotyping issue concerning hasan.

Would you associate yourself with any (hypothetical) domestic terrorist who happens to be of your faith? What if someone in your family did something wrong and was sent to jail, then freed after time served and are found to be up to their own manipulative shit. Would you not ignore them/dissacciate yourself with them?

Just because a group or person happens to be connected to a 'side' or whatever, it doesn't mean that the side as a whole or the individuals within the group, agree with what that they do.

The NAMBLA movement association is on this side merely because, well, would you logically think it would be right wing? It's logical to assume that such a thing would fall on that side - aside from the occasional catholic priest - you just don't see it. Additionally, just because it is on that side doesn't mean that all on that side agree to it. There may  be one or two people, but for the most part, left wing groups oppose it (Hell, the majority of gay rights groups also).

That said, my side, as you call it, at its roots supports the rights and principles of the constitution. We generally favor freedom Charles, freedom. With that we also support liberty, justice, fairness, equality, etc. Modern democrats push that belief via various erroneous schenes, but....that doesnt mean however, that they represent all liberals.

Again, just because a side or person doesn't consistantly reject something, doesn't mean that they support it.

Personally, I don't agree with it. They are, however, allowed to believe in what they want and to use the legal system.

That said, I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs, ethics, comments on here, etc. I'm confident and proud of who I am, what I believe  - even if others think I'm an idiot. To be honest, I've got better things to do than debate this topic with y'all; we're just never going to see eye to eye. Apparently my explanations are not translating well, and vice versa. So, with that, I will say good night and happy new year.

~AJ

I'll cede this point to you, but only because I'm not a big opponent of gay marriage. True, the Bible says homsexuality's wrong, but that only means it's between them and God, not them and me.

Western Civ isn't going to collapse if gays marry, and the idea that hetero relationships and marriages will "be rendered meaningless" is just asinine. I personally couldn't care less if they marry or not.

However, it's still rightist groups responding to pressure and legal actions taken, first, by the left. I may or may not moderately agree with what the libs are doing in this case, but they still don't win hearts and minds by pushing their agendas on everyone, as they do through the courts. They only breed resentment, and stiffen the resolve of those who do oppose it. I believe it was the great Dr. Guy who said, "liberals seem to have trouble with the 'carrot' part of the "carrot and the stick".

See; right here....how are we actively "suppressing" anyone? We're not, and we don't want to "supress" anyone or anything. Where/when have there ever been pogroms in America? There are churches, mosques and synagogues, for example, in the same blocks, in many cities. Where are the concentration camps filled with gays, blacks, Latinos......etc.?

I mean---for such a hairtrigger angry, racist, intolerant people as Americans--- 9/11 should have been more than enough excuse for a"Kristallnacht" of mosques and Muslim-owned stores and such; for beatings, shootings and lynchings of Muslims. But that never happened. Know why? Because, generally speaking, Americans are among the most tolerant and accepting people in the world. Instead, we all came together and healed each other, much to the chagrin of the liberals on left, who breathlessly expected the Kristallnacht, to finally prove their theories and claims.

Do what you want; all we ask is the same respect and consideration, but we don't get it. You'll never see, though, because you simply don't want to, that the Left is constantly trying to make it harder and harder for >Christians<, mainly, to honor their faith, publicly or not.

True enough; people often are only aware of what they wish. My wife's aunt, for a wonderful example, is a staunch liberal Democrat, and Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

She absolutely WILL NOT hear of any anti-Obama information or opinions. Especially information, because facts can actually mean something. I accidentally sent her a story I read on newsmax.com, and she didn't even respond to me, personally; she sent my wife a pissy e-mail, asking her to please tell me not to send her such trash.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that truly big things frequently don't present themselves up front. And even when they do, they are often ignored, covered-up or pushed aside, depending upon who presents them, and how. Just ask Mary Jo Kopechne's family.

As I believe I said in my first post here, little things very often do indeed add up to big things. How do you think police often build cases? How do you think the 9/11 Truthers build their nutty conspiracy theories against Bush? The difference is, we actually have the evidence to prove our cases (i.e., Obama's associates; his record and background--what we actually know of them), where they only have skewed science, hard-to-prove coincidences and whacko hypotheses.

I have many books on Adolf Hitler; does that make me a Nazi? Not at all. But I don't have pictures of him hanging on my walls or sitting on my desk, much less hanging on my Christmas tree. I don't fly the swastika on the flagpole in my side yard, as an Obama campaign office did a Cuban flag--bearing the image of Che--which it tacked to the wall. Little things, AJ; little things.

Reading about tyranny and its progenitors, so as to understand them, is one thing. Celebrating the tyrant by displaying their image is quite another.

 So then, you do respect us, for holding firmly to our principles, values and ideals, despite the fact that we disagree?

No need; I was just doing to you what you so often do to us.

Stuff to do...more later.

WOW.

When I was in High school, I had an authenticate USSR flag (a school mate lived in Moscow) and a Confederate Flag.  I guess that made me a rebel commie?  LOL. The only thing it did do was make my step father mad.

I agree with you RW, but you failed to go far enough.  It is not that we (conservatives) want to tell YOU (liberals) what to do, we just want you to not tell us.  Indeed, the idiots (I think taht would be Lucas) whole premise is to attempt to accuse us of his sins!

But LIberals are not satisfied doing what they want, they have to make sure all do it.  I guess they know they are wrong, and they just feel all being wrong together makes them feel less guilty.

so you're ok with legislative or judicial tyranny?  Because that's what you're endorsing.  Not one of these states you mentioned were they able to vote on this issue.  But the states that did put it to the vote (Maine & CA) voted it down. 

What's wrong with the public voting?  What's wrong with allowing the majority vote? 

Don't even get me started about those "pushing their own point of view." 

Thank you. I'm just expressing my beliefs and opinions.

First, please next time you quote me try adding a bit more as oppose to such a small piece. You know how long it took me to find this small portion of one of my replies? You do't expect me to memorize all my comments do you?

I define what's right and whats wrong based on my beliefs. That someone else will do what they please regardless of what i think is their right but as they saying goes:

“While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions"

He does not know what he is talking about.  Judicial tyranny as most people know is when anyone (usually liberals) use the courts to make law.  IN the cases cited by the child, the groups were using the courts to challenge a previous judicial ruling - in other words to stop judicial tyranny.

Why wow? Care to expand on that?

Oh come on Charles, you expect me to. lol. Sure thing, I'll keep it in mind.

First, like I said...one man's judicial tyranny is another's courts doing their jobs. Conservatives freak out when a judge is allegedly acting as an activist for liberalism - yet - they don't say a peep when it goes their way. Same goes for liberals. Double standards, hypocrital? Definitely. It all depends on your point of view.

Secondly, if the court is doing its job, as defined in the constiution - then yes, i have no problems. Why? Because they're doing what they're expected to do, as such...if we don't like it, then we need to change it.

Thirdly, don't get me wrong. I believe that the right to vote is a great thing, but as history has shown us - the majority is not always right. Look at women's rights or Black rights for example. For years, the majority believed that they had no rights - yet now we have no issue with that. Like I said, sometimes (i.e. rarely, minimally), the majority has to be overruled so that the minority (political) are also represented, etc. (Go look up political majority, minority, et al - you'll see what I mean)

Fourthly, again...it all depends on perspective.

Yet...you've attributed others sins to me, told me what i should do, etc. Wtf? Sorry, but unlike you doc, I'm going to support someone's right to expression and speech - even if what they say is unintelligent, and even if what they say is "unamerican," as you say, because in my eyes...it is unamerican to say the shouldn't express themselves. We grant the right completely, to those we agree and disagree with - no matter what.

Btw, judge the man by his actions (merit) - no? It's interesting that you've based a lot of your argument on people and what they believe in, instead of just on their actions.

s/ Whatever, right? We all have to be "american." \s