|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 13, 2007 14:43:16 GMT -6
thanks for the joke of the day. it is hilarious. if it weren't for the u.s., you'd be speaking german clown Were it not for the War of Independence you might be able to write English competently. you're welcome
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 13, 2007 14:47:55 GMT -6
Yep good works now post where they have done something in the world to stop Governments from doing crap to their people, countries like N. Korea, NVN, any of the African countries where people are being murdered daily. Yes it is easy to do UNICEF, take in few refugees, promote safe drinking water, but notice when some country needs to put its troops on the line who is it that is called upon to provide the most troops? think about that and get back to me with real answers. How about Kosovo, Cyprus, Haiti, Timor, Liberia, or Ivory Coast? I'm sure that the people in these countries are grateful to the UN peacekeepers present, who are preventing additional warfare and carnage.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 13, 2007 14:49:55 GMT -6
thanks for the joke of the day. it is hilarious. if it weren't for the u.s., you'd be speaking german clown And we're it not for the French, you'd be speaking, well, English. But you would have a queen, and not a president.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 13, 2007 14:59:16 GMT -6
I'm not sure where this discussion thread went wrong, but y'all are starting to sound like a bunch of 10 year olds. I wanted to join this "Legal Topics" board because I thought I would be able to learn something from attorneys around the globe. Unfortunately, I think this may be a waste of time. Let's try to get back to the issues and not childish cut downs... International laws and treaties are going to have an impact on the United States' Policies. If not directly, then surely indirectly through the liberal media's focus on chipping away at federalism. The truth of the matter is that the US HAS been party to several treaties concerning human rights and we will most likely continue to do so for the unforeseeable future. Thankfully, Our leaders are smart enough to include provisions that maintain our freedoms such as retaining the right to define "cruel and unusual punishment" and refusing to allow treaties to be self-executing with out Senate and House approval. As for the original question regarding a UN ban against the death penalty, I agree with most of you that it will have a minimal impact if any. Even without such a ban, there are 133+ countries that have already banned it and do their part to ensure that number continues to grow. In fact, just this week the EU declared October 10th as the European Day against the Death Penalty. Until recently the US has completely ignored this international push, but I fear that may be weakening. A couple of weeks back, Texas stayed an execution due to fears that lethal injection may violate the 8th amendment. Additionally, given all the press surrounding the Medellin trial and the president's recent support of the murdering rapist Medellin, it looks like the US government is starting to get soft on backing the death penalty. The Medellin case scares me the most because it appears that the president and congress are trying to contract around the judicial branch with the use of the international court of justice and various treaties. Anyway, despite popular opinion in this thread, I don't think a moratorium isn't just a remote possibility anymore. I don't support that and I wholeheartedly oppose allowing soft leaders to abandon Our rights to gain foreign favoritism. The US is THE World Leader and we need not forget that when international politics collides with our own. you're too pessimistic. the supreme court is going to reject meddelin at least 6-3, and possibly 7-2. the icc has no jurisdiction over state criminal matters in the u.s. they are authorized to adjudicate international crimes, and international affairs only. world opinion has no place in our system either. the euroweenies have clearly demonstrated that they are too stupid to properly punish criminals. it is conceivable that, in fifty years, this country will be populated by idiots stupid enough to abolish the death penalty, but it won't be in my lifetime at least
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Oct 13, 2007 17:16:12 GMT -6
Yep good works now post where they have done something in the world to stop Governments from doing crap to their people, countries like N. Korea, NVN, any of the African countries where people are being murdered daily. Yes it is easy to do UNICEF, take in few refugees, promote safe drinking water, but notice when some country needs to put its troops on the line who is it that is called upon to provide the most troops? think about that and get back to me with real answers. How about Kosovo, Cyprus, Haiti, Timor, Liberia, or Ivory Coast? I'm sure that the people in these countries are grateful to the UN peacekeepers present, who are preventing additional warfare and carnage. Koaovo major US help, Haiti major US help, that leave Cyprus, Liberia and the Ivory Coast which have not had major problems. Now tell me about what the UN is for places like Darfur (spelling) and other nations that are having major problems. Oh hell never mind we all know they are doing nothing and never have. The money we could save by not being in the UN could fund the mine removal project or other worthy projects. Talk to me when they do something that is really worth talking about. You are grasping at straws and you know it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2007 17:36:17 GMT -6
Who care what the UN says or does? It would mean nothing to the US and it should not. You redefine arrogance, count us out of your next "coalition of the willing." Comments like yours here make you a sitting duck for terrorism, and no wonder. Bravo! Poor Georgie is mad because he knows NOBODY will support him in his plans to invade Iran and Venezuela. Why should the UN work with a guy they KNOW isn't all there? Thing is, that there are his puppets like Howard and Harper whom when Bush farts, tell him how nice it smells...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2007 17:44:39 GMT -6
Yep good works now post where they have done something in the world to stop Governments from doing crap to their people, countries like N. Korea, NVN, any of the African countries where people are being murdered daily. Yes it is easy to do UNICEF, take in few refugees, promote safe drinking water, but notice when some country needs to put its troops on the line who is it that is called upon to provide the most troops? think about that and get back to me with real answers. How about Kosovo, Cyprus, Haiti, Timor, Liberia, or Ivory Coast? I'm sure that the people in these countries are grateful to the UN peacekeepers present, who are preventing additional warfare and carnage. Haiti??? There is no UN presence in Haiti. Both Bushes invaded because they had a personal problem with Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT there. Ir was the gusanos on Calle Ocho in Miami who thought Aristide was friends with Fidel and they wanted both Bushes to punish that uppity Haitian...
|
|
|
Post by txaggie1999 on Oct 14, 2007 11:50:40 GMT -6
Lisa - you are wrong. The USSC did not do anything that would have made ANYBODY think that they would have stayed an execution because lethal injection is cruel. There are probably 13 executions scheduled nation wide this week and next and there is NO sign that those states are going to stay executions. Besides, the Texas court system wouldn't have just done it to avoid having the Supreme court do so. Where would you get that?
Jumbo - I'm not trying to be pessimistic and I think you may be wrong on the ICJ's jurisdiction. According to the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, the United States has consented to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ over Convention related disputes. Medellin concerns a dispute over whether his VCCR rights to Consular notice were violated. I agree with you that I don't think Medellin will be successful, but I don't think it will be a blow out vote. With Bush pulling for the scumbag and providing additional resources to support him I think the vote will be a typical 5-4 or the always annoying plurality opinions. I also agree that international opinion has NO place in our judicial system. I further think that the president and congress have no place in the judicial system. The founders designed our Government to avoid the type of crap going on recently. Anyway, I hope you are right about having the death penalty around for another 50 years. I'm slowly starting to lose my faith, especially with the liberals taking over (God forbid).
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 14, 2007 14:07:11 GMT -6
"Sharia creep"? Good God, Jim, take a pill! You bet there's sharia creep. In the US alone, we have: Muslim cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol or guide dogs. We have footbaths being installed at colleges and airports on the public dime. We have elevated koran burning/throwing into a toilet/etc. into a hate crime. (If it's your own book, and it is a friggin' book, what's the problem? We can burn the US flag here freely, but not the flag of Hisb'Allah or Mexico.) We have Eid dinners at the White House. We have CAIR telling the FBI how to handle muslims, which we already treat with kid gloves. We have public schools serving halal meals and removing all pork items (like pepperoni). We have muslim indoctrination/play acting (including reciting the shahada) in California public schools. We now have a madrassa in Brooklyn (The Khalil Gibran Public School for muslims). We have burqa clad women trying to get drivers license photos wearing the black bag and veil. We have muslims on assembly lines who want to hold up production while they pray. We have imams acting suspiciously in an airport, then suing the John Does for reporting such suspicious behavior. Sharia creep? You bet. And it's another prong in the jihad arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 14, 2007 16:35:56 GMT -6
Haiti??? There is no UN presence in Haiti. Both Bushes invaded because they had a personal problem with Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT there. Ir was the gusanos on Calle Ocho in Miami who thought Aristide was friends with Fidel and they wanted both Bushes to punish that uppity Haitian... www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minustah/Now go away.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 14, 2007 16:42:33 GMT -6
Talk to me when they do something that is really worth talking about. You are grasping at straws and you know it. And I'm not getting much out of this thread with you David. Someone who dismisses the two civil wars in Liberia isn't going to bring a lot to the debate about the value of the UN.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 14, 2007 18:43:11 GMT -6
Lisa - you are wrong. The USSC did not do anything that would have made ANYBODY think that they would have stayed an execution because lethal injection is cruel. There are probably 13 executions scheduled nation wide this week and next and there is NO sign that those states are going to stay executions. Besides, the Texas court system wouldn't have just done it to avoid having the Supreme court do so. Where would you get that? Jumbo - I'm not trying to be pessimistic and I think you may be wrong on the ICJ's jurisdiction. According to the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, the United States has consented to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ over Convention related disputes. Medellin concerns a dispute over whether his VCCR rights to Consular notice were violated. I agree with you that I don't think Medellin will be successful, but I don't think it will be a blow out vote. With Bush pulling for the scumbag and providing additional resources to support him I think the vote will be a typical 5-4 or the always annoying plurality opinions. I also agree that international opinion has NO place in our judicial system. I further think that the president and congress have no place in the judicial system. The founders designed our Government to avoid the type of crap going on recently. Anyway, I hope you are right about having the death penalty around for another 50 years. I'm slowly starting to lose my faith, especially with the liberals taking over (God forbid). the thing is, a legitimate court has already decided that the fool's rights weren't violated by his not having been told about the consulate. you're right that the president and congress have no business in the justice system. it is blatantly unconstitutional for them to interfere in the judicial branch. the death penalty will stay because the supreme court is not elected. no matter who is president, or what congress tries to pass, the supreme court is the only entity that can abolish the death penalty nationwide, and it won't happen. it is conceivable that enough loonies will be able to get it abolished in a couple of states, but they won't be able to do it in all states. for good measure, no world weenie body has any say in what the supreme court does either.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 14, 2007 18:46:55 GMT -6
"Sharia creep"? Good God, Jim, take a pill! You bet there's sharia creep. In the US alone, we have: Muslim cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol or guide dogs. We have footbaths being installed at colleges and airports on the public dime. We have elevated koran burning/throwing into a toilet/etc. into a hate crime. (If it's your own book, and it is a friggin' book, what's the problem? We can burn the US flag here freely, but not the flag of Hisb'Allah or Mexico.) We have Eid dinners at the White House. We have CAIR telling the FBI how to handle muslims, which we already treat with kid gloves. We have public schools serving halal meals and removing all pork items (like pepperoni). We have muslim indoctrination/play acting (including reciting the shahada) in California public schools. We now have a madrassa in Brooklyn (The Khalil Gibran Public School for muslims). We have burqa clad women trying to get drivers license photos wearing the black bag and veil. We have muslims on assembly lines who want to hold up production while they pray. We have imams acting suspiciously in an airport, then suing the John Does for reporting such suspicious behavior. Sharia creep? You bet. And it's another prong in the jihad arsenal. unfortunately, that's all too true. the government has done everything wrong that could be done wrong as far as muslims are concerned. the problem is, i didn't see any normal people really raising hell about providing the clowns with foot baths in the university, which is an obvious violation of separation of church and state.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Oct 14, 2007 19:40:36 GMT -6
Talk to me when they do something that is really worth talking about. You are grasping at straws and you know it. And I'm not getting much out of this thread with you David. Someone who dismisses the two civil wars in Liberia isn't going to bring a lot to the debate about the value of the UN. I do not dismiss it at all, You have shown me a few non-military things that the UN did with out major support from the US and even then the US supported those efforts. Then you brought out things they did with out major US support in over 60 years, two of those actually had major US support. I dismiss the UN as an effective tool. I am sure that the very few places that they have actually done something is a good thing the question is why those few places when there are more that have even greater problems than most of those? I see little real value for the money that has been spent over the years on the UN. It is an orginization that has been racked with corruption and graft and has done nothing to clean itself up. You have failed to show any significant amount of effort on the part of the UN without US support.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 14, 2007 21:19:14 GMT -6
"Sharia creep"? Good God, Jim, take a pill! You bet there's sharia creep. In the US alone, we have: Muslim cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol or guide dogs. Capitalism. Let them carry whomever they want. We could all do a better job of keeping our feet clean. Agreed, ridiculous. If someone wants Koranic - or New Testament - for that matter, toilet paper, who cares? Why do you care who the Pres entertains? I've no problem asking for their input. How are we supposed to battle them if we don't understand them? Pork is bad for you. We used to have to say the Lord's Prayer before our football games in public high school. I survived. Are you afraid it will begin turning out terrorists? Brooklyn is a far cry from Islamabad. Pretty cheeky, I'll grant. Fire them. I can't pray to Jehovah when I'm slapping windshields into BMW's in Spartanburg, why can they? As if we needed any more proof that you can sue anybody in America for anything. I'm unconvinced.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 15, 2007 1:13:29 GMT -6
You bet there's sharia creep. In the US alone, we have: Muslim cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol or guide dogs. Capitalism. Let them carry whomever they want. They have a public conveyance license that dictates they carry anyone (who is not a readily visible threat). So cabbies should be allowed to not pick up blacks if they so choose? Why should bus drivers be required to pick up everybody? I honestly can't believe you wrote what you did. These are muslim footbaths being built in public spaces on the public's dime. There is no other use for these footbaths than for muslims to wash their feet before praying, which makes them 'religious' in nature from the get-go . Do you honestly think that us kuffirs using those footbaths would not raise a hue and cry of seething and outrage? That's good to hear. Tell me about those Passover seders held at the White House. Since when is an Eid dinner like Thanksgiving or an Easter egg hunt in this country? Taking it to the next logical step, why is the FBI not having mobsters dictate the rules and hold sensitivity training for the FBI when it comes to their activities? Says you. I like pig. So do many Americans, including school kids. You sure you're not related to Mayor Bloomberg? Oh, and let's not forget the ham steak of hate at a school in Maine. Do you understand what the shahada is? Not as far as you might think. The original principal resigned after fund-raising t-shirts were sold that praised the Intifada. And those 1993 WTC bombers were mostly from a mosque in Brooklyn; the mosque on Atlantic Avenue was where the blind sheik, Rachman, preached his hatred. He now sits in a cell at ADX Florence with a LWOP sentence. But these women claim it's their religious right not to be photographed uncovered. We have a similar problem with airport screening and musliminahs 'right' not to uncover for security. And it's not like muslim men haven't used the burqa as cover to escape arrest before. Unfortunately, businesses negotiate with them, instead of firing them. Of course you remain unconvinced. You just don't wish to see the totality of the situation. And I haven't even mentioned the crap going on Britain, like banning Piglet from office cubicles, or the NHS dentist requiring all his female patients to cover up, or the muslim check-out clerks who are now allowed to not touch bacon packages when ringing up the bill, or changing The Three Little Pigs to a more inclusive The Three Little Dogs, which are also haram. That last one was a big multi-culti OOPS by dhimmies too stupid to know any better. Remember, islam is not in America to be a part of our culture, but to change our culture so that islam dominates. Those are officials of CAIR's words, not mine. They are also the koran's words. Do you really want your little girls to have to cover up in order not to be seen as uncovered meat and subject to rape by muslim 'youths', as is happening in Sweden, France, Great Britain, and Australia?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 15, 2007 1:23:04 GMT -6
unfortunately, that's all too true. the government has done everything wrong that could be done wrong as far as muslims are concerned. the problem is, i didn't see any normal people really raising hell about providing the clowns with foot baths in the university, which is an obvious violation of separation of church and state. To a point, I agree. If it's a public college or university, receiving Federal monies, then yes, I agree. If it's a private college, that's their choice. But I don't really see Liberty Baptist College, and the like, installing footbaths. I have a bigger problem with footbaths being installed in airports, which are most definitely public spaces. Installing footbaths at airports, on the public's dime, is a violation of the separation of Church and State, as muslim footbaths, by their very nature, are for the use of one religion over all others. Since when should our Government be in the religion business anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 15, 2007 10:52:12 GMT -6
They have a public conveyance license that dictates they carry anyone (who is not a readily visible threat). So cabbies should be allowed to not pick up blacks if they so choose? Why should bus drivers be required to pick up everybody? I honestly can't believe you wrote what you did. Guess I walked into that one. No, I wouldn't advocate that cabbies deny pick up service to people based upon race. Still, have you tried to get a cab at 4PM going to EWK on a Friday? Show your luggage and you can forget about it. Obviously cabbies already choose whom they want to carry... It's America. Someone's always going to be p!ssed off about something somewhere. At which airports, exactly, are these footbaths being installed? Since enough people started celebrating it. They do. Didn't you see Donnie Brasco? I know it's the "other white meat" (that one didn't last very long, did it? ;D ) but it's not lean cutlets being served in schools. More likely the mystery meat we had when I was in school, which was inevitably chopped peckers and eyes (I got that from the kid in Sling Blade ). Yes. And essentially the same thing can be found in the New Testament. They can claim the right, but it isn't going to be granted them. Security needs will always trump an individual's religious sensitivities. If they don't like it, they don't have to fly. The ACLU can moan all it wants. It's probably in the Sarbanes-Oxley code someplace. Everything else is. Ain't gonna happen in America, Rick. Falwell, et. al. have tried just as hard to make Christianity dominant. If I were going to worry more about a religion taking over our country, it wouldn't be Islam. No, and multi-culturalism will insure that they never have to.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 15, 2007 11:31:37 GMT -6
Capitalism. Let them carry whomever they want. They have a public conveyance license that dictates they carry anyone (who is not a readily visible threat). So cabbies should be allowed to not pick up blacks if they so choose? Why should bus drivers be required to pick up everybody? I honestly can't believe you wrote what you did. These are muslim footbaths being built in public spaces on the public's dime. There is no other use for these footbaths than for muslims to wash their feet before praying, which makes them 'religious' in nature from the get-go . Do you honestly think that us kuffirs using those footbaths would not raise a hue and cry of seething and outrage? That's good to hear. Tell me about those Passover seders held at the White House. Since when is an Eid dinner like Thanksgiving or an Easter egg hunt in this country? Taking it to the next logical step, why is the FBI not having mobsters dictate the rules and hold sensitivity training for the FBI when it comes to their activities? Says you. I like pig. So do many Americans, including school kids. You sure you're not related to Mayor Bloomberg? Oh, and let's not forget the ham steak of hate at a school in Maine. Do you understand what the shahada is? Not as far as you might think. The original principal resigned after fund-raising t-shirts were sold that praised the Intifada. And those 1993 WTC bombers were mostly from a mosque in Brooklyn; the mosque on Atlantic Avenue was where the blind sheik, Rachman, preached his hatred. He now sits in a cell at ADX Florence with a LWOP sentence. But these women claim it's their religious right not to be photographed uncovered. We have a similar problem with airport screening and musliminahs 'right' not to uncover for security. And it's not like muslim men haven't used the burqa as cover to escape arrest before. Unfortunately, businesses negotiate with them, instead of firing them. Of course you remain unconvinced. You just don't wish to see the totality of the situation. And I haven't even mentioned the crap going on Britain, like banning Piglet from office cubicles, or the NHS dentist requiring all his female patients to cover up, or the muslim check-out clerks who are now allowed to not touch bacon packages when ringing up the bill, or changing The Three Little Pigs to a more inclusive The Three Little Dogs, which are also haram. That last one was a big multi-culti OOPS by dhimmies too stupid to know any better. Remember, islam is not in America to be a part of our culture, but to change our culture so that islam dominates. Those are officials of CAIR's words, not mine. They are also the koran's words. Do you really want your little girls to have to cover up in order not to be seen as uncovered meat and subject to rape by muslim 'youths', as is happening in Sweden, France, Great Britain, and Australia? you're totally correct. muslims have no right whatsoever in thinking that any accomodations should be made for their cult. it is actually a violation of every american's civil rights for any government entity to do so, since it is blatant discrimination on the basis of religion. it is also prima facie violation of the separation of church and state. there is NO rational argument that can be made to the contrary
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 15, 2007 11:41:28 GMT -6
unfortunately, that's all too true. the government has done everything wrong that could be done wrong as far as muslims are concerned. the problem is, i didn't see any normal people really raising hell about providing the clowns with foot baths in the university, which is an obvious violation of separation of church and state. To a point, I agree. If it's a public college or university, receiving Federal monies, then yes, I agree. If it's a private college, that's their choice. But I don't really see Liberty Baptist College, and the like, installing footbaths. I have a bigger problem with footbaths being installed in airports, which are most definitely public spaces. Installing footbaths at airports, on the public's dime, is a violation of the separation of Church and State, as muslim footbaths, by their very nature, are for the use of one religion over all others. Since when should our Government be in the religion business anyway? while i don't necessarily agree in the total separation of church and state, the fact is that this is what has been ruled. obviously, if it is deemed unlawful for a christian to pray in school, it's damn sure unlawful for a foreign cult to pray in school. the only way the government could constitutionally provide ANYTHING for a muslim's benifit is if it provided equal amounts for every other religion practiced in the country. not just major religions, but every single religion. if the government does not want to do that, it has no right doing anything whatsoever for muslims.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 15, 2007 11:52:21 GMT -6
They have a public conveyance license that dictates they carry anyone (who is not a readily visible threat). So cabbies should be allowed to not pick up blacks if they so choose? Why should bus drivers be required to pick up everybody? I honestly can't believe you wrote what you did. Guess I walked into that one. No, I wouldn't advocate that cabbies deny pick up service to people based upon race. Still, have you tried to get a cab at 4PM going to EWK on a Friday? Show your luggage and you can forget about it. Obviously cabbies already choose whom they want to carry... It's America. Someone's always going to be p!ssed off about something somewhere. At which airports, exactly, are these footbaths being installed? Since enough people started celebrating it. They do. Didn't you see Donnie Brasco? I know it's the "other white meat" (that one didn't last very long, did it? ;D ) but it's not lean cutlets being served in schools. More likely the mystery meat we had when I was in school, which was inevitably chopped peckers and eyes (I got that from the kid in Sling Blade ). Yes. And essentially the same thing can be found in the New Testament. They can claim the right, but it isn't going to be granted them. Security needs will always trump an individual's religious sensitivities. If they don't like it, they don't have to fly. The ACLU can moan all it wants. It's probably in the Sarbanes-Oxley code someplace. Everything else is. Ain't gonna happen in America, Rick. Falwell, et. al. have tried just as hard to make Christianity dominant. If I were going to worry more about a religion taking over our country, it wouldn't be Islam. No, and multi-culturalism will insure that they never have to. Still, have you tried to get a cab at 4PM going to EWK on a Friday? Show your luggage and you can forget about it. Obviously cabbies already choose whom they want to carry... that's a wrong decision based on economics, rather than a wrong decison of a racist. in the time the chap could take you to the airport for twenty bucks, he could take four a few blocks down the street for fifty. the punk discriminating because of booze or the dog has no right whatsoevr to do so, and shouldn't be allowed to drive a cab. and multi-culturalism will insure that they never have to. that's because it means that your daughter will no longer have ANY worthwhile culture
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 15, 2007 13:21:49 GMT -6
They have a public conveyance license that dictates they carry anyone (who is not a readily visible threat). So cabbies should be allowed to not pick up blacks if they so choose? Why should bus drivers be required to pick up everybody? I honestly can't believe you wrote what you did. Guess I walked into that one. Yep, you sure did. LOL! Logic's a pain, iddinit? So, if you're not going to discriminate based upon race, then it's okay to disciminate based upon religion. At least, that's what you're implying. And discriminating based upon religion is what muslim cabbies are already doing. Oh, and you do know that the Americans With Disabilities Act makes it a Federal crime for a cabbie to not pick up a fare with a guide dog, right? Just food for thought. Newark? Who goes to Joisey? I can, and have, walked to LGA from home. With luggage, you throw the cabbie ten bucks, then negotiate. I have a story about that (but then, I have lots of stories). Once, while in the company of a black woman in Brooklyn Heights, we were trying to get a cab back to Fort Green. None stopped, and I would hazard a guess that it was because we were a bi-racial couple. This one cab had its light on (meaning it was available), saw us, and quickly turned his light off. A cop just happened to be standing on the corner, asked us if we wanted that cab (we said yes), then pulled the cab over. He told the cabbie he saw what he did with his light, and that he was to take us wherever we wanted to go and to not start sh*t with us. In front of the cabbie, he handed us his name and badge number, telling us to contact him at the precinct should anything untoward happen. Instant justice! Best cab ride I ever had.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 15, 2007 15:56:12 GMT -6
I have a story about that (but then, I have lots of stories). Once, while in the company of a black woman in Brooklyn Heights, we were trying to get a cab back to Fort Green. None stopped, and I would hazard a guess that it was because we were a bi-racial couple. This one cab had its light on (meaning it was available), saw us, and quickly turned his light off. A cop just happened to be standing on the corner, asked us if we wanted that cab (we said yes), then pulled the cab over. He told the cabbie he saw what he did with his light, and that he was to take us wherever we wanted to go and to not start sh*t with us. In front of the cabbie, he handed us his name and badge number, telling us to contact him at the precinct should anything untoward happen. Instant justice! Best cab ride I ever had. That's great! My friend in NYC has taken more than a few badge numbers...I supposed I've never had the guts, or the time, when I've had problems. I guess I've just felt lucky to finally get a cab! Thank you Mr. Mohammed from Pakistan! Now off we go!
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 15, 2007 16:02:26 GMT -6
Guess I walked into that one. No, I wouldn't advocate that cabbies deny pick up service to people based upon race. Still, have you tried to get a cab at 4PM going to EWK on a Friday? Show your luggage and you can forget about it. Obviously cabbies already choose whom they want to carry... It's America. Someone's always going to be p!ssed off about something somewhere. At which airports, exactly, are these footbaths being installed? Since enough people started celebrating it. They do. Didn't you see Donnie Brasco? I know it's the "other white meat" (that one didn't last very long, did it? ;D ) but it's not lean cutlets being served in schools. More likely the mystery meat we had when I was in school, which was inevitably chopped peckers and eyes (I got that from the kid in Sling Blade ). Yes. And essentially the same thing can be found in the New Testament. They can claim the right, but it isn't going to be granted them. Security needs will always trump an individual's religious sensitivities. If they don't like it, they don't have to fly. The ACLU can moan all it wants. It's probably in the Sarbanes-Oxley code someplace. Everything else is. Ain't gonna happen in America, Rick. Falwell, et. al. have tried just as hard to make Christianity dominant. If I were going to worry more about a religion taking over our country, it wouldn't be Islam. No, and multi-culturalism will insure that they never have to. Still, have you tried to get a cab at 4PM going to EWK on a Friday? Show your luggage and you can forget about it. Obviously cabbies already choose whom they want to carry... that's a wrong decision based on economics, rather than a wrong decison of a racist. in the time the chap could take you to the airport for twenty bucks, he could take four a few blocks down the street for fifty. the punk discriminating because of booze or the dog has no right whatsoevr to do so, and shouldn't be allowed to drive a cab. and multi-culturalism will insure that they never have to. that's because it means that your daughter will no longer have ANY worthwhile culture Learning to use the quote tool would make your posts more comprehensible, and might even increase the chance that more people would respond. Whether or not this skill would elevate the intellectual content of your message of course remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Oct 15, 2007 16:07:32 GMT -6
So, if you're not going to discriminate based upon race, then it's okay to disciminate based upon religion. At least, that's what you're implying. And discriminating based upon religion is what muslim cabbies are already doing. Oh, and you do know that the Americans With Disabilities Act makes it a Federal crime for a cabbie to not pick up a fare with a guide dog, right? Just food for thought. My original comment was based solely on my own personal experience with NYC cabbies, who, as I think we've established, tend to pick and choose their fares, even as they run substantial risk in doing so. I am conceding this point without reservation. Under no circumstances should any cab driver refuse any fare, regardless of how many hot dogs they are holding. I would if I could, believe me. I frickin' hate Newark. Often though it seems the only airport I can get to when arriving from out West on Delta.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 16, 2007 2:34:05 GMT -6
while i don't necessarily agree in the total separation of church and state, the fact is that this is what has been ruled. I agree. Today, the separation of Church and State is one of the most misunderstood founding concepts. Our country was founded on belief in a Supreme Being, a Deity, God, but our courts have forcibly altered the reverse of that. The whole Separation of Church and State thingy originally meant the Government could not push or favor one religion over another, that is, having an established State Church, like Catholic France or Spain, or Protestant England or Holland. It never meant the public abolition of a belief in God him or herself. Politically correct multi-culturalism. Ain't it grand? I wouldn't be surprised to see more demands for accomodations by other religions. I can't wait for the Voodoo chicken sacrificing room at airports. "We demand our abbatoir!" Like our Freedom of Speech, muslims will misinterpret that one, too, and take over the room. Of course, once that happens, it will no longer be chickens sacrificed there.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 16, 2007 2:42:37 GMT -6
So, if you're not going to discriminate based upon race, then it's okay to disciminate based upon religion. At least, that's what you're implying. And discriminating based upon religion is what muslim cabbies are already doing. Oh, and you do know that the Americans With Disabilities Act makes it a Federal crime for a cabbie to not pick up a fare with a guide dog, right? Just food for thought. My original comment was based solely on my own personal experience with NYC cabbies, who, as I think we've established, tend to pick and choose their fares, even as they run substantial risk in doing so. I am conceding this point without reservation. Under no circumstances should any cab driver refuse any fare, regardless of how many hot dogs they are holding. Good for you. And thanks. Now I've got to work on some of my other points with you. LOL! Why be chintzy and just hate Newark? Go for the whole state. You know why New Yorkers are always depressed? The light at the end of the tunnel is Joisey.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 16, 2007 12:32:51 GMT -6
while i don't necessarily agree in the total separation of church and state, the fact is that this is what has been ruled. I agree. Today, the separation of Church and State is one of the most misunderstood founding concepts. Our country was founded on belief in a Supreme Being, a Deity, God, but our courts have forcibly altered the reverse of that. The whole Separation of Church and State thingy originally meant the Government could not push or favor one religion over another, that is, having an established State Church, like Catholic France or Spain, or Protestant England or Holland. It never meant the public abolition of a belief in God him or herself. Politically correct multi-culturalism. Ain't it grand? I wouldn't be surprised to see more demands for accomodations by other religions. I can't wait for the Voodoo chicken sacrificing room at airports. "We demand our abbatoir!" Like our Freedom of Speech, muslims will misinterpret that one, too, and take over the room. Of course, once that happens, it will no longer be chickens sacrificed there. true. nowhere in the first amendment is there freedom "from" religion. the ONLY provision is that congress can't establish a state religion. of course, the truth has never been of abiding concern to the aclu politically correct is a synonym for stupid. it is only for the totally irrational of course, the reality is that this applies to all, not just the muslims. printing ANY government documents, or having messages on government agency phone lines, in spanish, mandarin, or vietnamese is prima facie discrimination on the basis of race. unless they want to have it for every language spoken in the u.s., it is a violation of civil rights.
|
|
|
Post by txaggie1999 on Oct 21, 2007 11:46:47 GMT -6
Jumbo... I think it's interesting what's going on nationwide too. Now all the states are postponing executions to see what's going on with the Court. kind of an impromptu moratorium looks like to me. I read through the briefs and the oral argument transcript from Medellin. It's pretty good stuff. That poor defense attorney for Medellin must have never argued before the Court before. I don't think he had a good day. haha!!
Thanks for continuing to respond...I'm in my third year of law school and writing a journal article on the effect International law on the Death penalty. I'm looking at cases like Medellin, Sanchez-Llamas, Breard, etc. and also cases dealing with Foreign countries failing to extradite US citizens back to the US to face death or the death row phenom.
On Foreign Countries refusing to extradite US citizens back to face the death penalty, Anyone have any thoughts?? There is a man accused of kidnapping, raping, murdering, and then setting on fire this UNT student a few weeks ago. The Interpol just busted him in South Mexico. NOW Mexico says that we can't have him back if we plan on seeking the death penalty. Any Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 21, 2007 14:33:55 GMT -6
Jumbo... I think it's interesting what's going on nationwide too. Now all the states are postponing executions to see what's going on with the Court. kind of an impromptu moratorium looks like to me. I read through the briefs and the oral argument transcript from Medellin. It's pretty good stuff. That poor defense attorney for Medellin must have never argued before the Court before. I don't think he had a good day. haha!! Thanks for continuing to respond...I'm in my third year of law school and writing a journal article on the effect International law on the Death penalty. I'm looking at cases like Medellin, Sanchez-Llamas, Breard, etc. and also cases dealing with Foreign countries failing to extradite US citizens back to the US to face death or the death row phenom. On Foreign Countries refusing to extradite US citizens back to face the death penalty, Anyone have any thoughts?? There is a man accused of kidnapping, raping, murdering, and then setting on fire this UNT student a few weeks ago. The Interpol just busted him in South Mexico. NOW Mexico says that we can't have him back if we plan on seeking the death penalty. Any Thoughts? true. mexico is worse than france. any country that refuses to extradite is manifestly violating the extradition treaties. there is no way that they can rationalize making exceptions because of the death penalty. it is ridiculous that some states are postponing executions to wait on the supreme court. there is no legitimate reason for doing so. they should proceed with the executions, and let the attorneys go to the supreme court to attempt to stop them. since the court is going to rule lethal injection constitutional, at least 6-3, the murderer would not be able to get the four votes necessary to stay the execution.
|
|