You've been hanging out with Spanky too much.
I hope you guys got here OK.
Well, seeing as there still is no proof of "curing" gay people, or pedophiles, it seems to be the case that we can't radically change our sexuality. It might be possible to shift it a little, or to change the expression of it to some degree, but the basics are hardwired. Facets of our person that are not changable are typically heavily biological as opposed to environmentally determined. My guess is that it is a heavily selected trait that people HAVE a strong preference regarding sex, it is a necessity if you consider it an evolutionary system for producing male-female sex. As long as many enough have the typical opposite sex preference, what the others go for is less vital from an evolutionary perspective.
So, no, we do not choose our sexuality. I have never talked to anyone who could tell me about making such a decision.
Our religion, however, we do choose. Most religions even have ceremonies to signify that choice. The biological part of religion is likely the need to HAVE a religion. The specifics of it are obviously environmentally determined.
*dons her flame-retardant suit*
What's everyone's thoughts on the new National Defense Authorization Act?
Personally, I kind of always knew that our freedoms would end, not with a bang, but with bi-partisan support.
links
That takes care of our 5th and 6th Amendments. Patriot Act took care of our 4th. Tonight, there will be a vote for SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), which should seriously cut into our 1st.
Thoughts?
The thread seems to have gone off track.
House Passes NDAA & White House Won’t Veto Indefinite Detention
The thread seems to have gone off track.House Passes NDAA & White House Won’t Veto Indefinite Detention
What the DEUCE?!
It's like, I can't really imagine someone being for this bill. And yet we're not hearing this talked about ALL DAY EVERY DAY on the news. Where is the freaking uproar?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And so, in the spirit of the holidays:
‘Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
There was much rejoicing for the Prez was a louse.
A new bill to keep people “safe and from harm”,
While locking up “terrorists” should not raise alarm.
Promises broken, lay all scattered around,
The 5th and 6th Amendments no where could be found.
And I and my neighbors, who so long sat content
Paid little heed to the horrid event.
In through the door, the strike team did burst,
The shock it was bad, what came next was the worst.
“You’re under arrest”, their cries merry and gay
“You evil damn terrorist!” and I was bundled away.
“You haven’t a warrant!”, my neighbor did yell
“What you’re doing’s illegal!”, and then he caught hell.
His face it was sprayed, he choked, his eyes red,
As he was thoroughly beaten and kicked in the head.
“We no longer needs warrants”, was said between blows
“Not for more than ten years, as everyone knows.”
My neighbor, he muttered, “That was not the intent.”
But that did not stop them, to the van I was sent.
Then to a dark cell, where it is is unknown
To answer strange questions and pictures I’m shown
“It’s a mistake!” I yell, “My lawyer, where is he?”
“He ain’t been born yet”, came a laugh without pity.
So here I do sit, as the months they have passed
Soon to be years or decades at last,
Indefinite holding and no speedy trial
I realized that I could be here for a while.
No habeas corpus, that writ is long gone
And little recourse to show how they were wrong.
No courtroom I’ve seen, and as I lay here these nights,
I wonder what became of our Bill of Rights.
Well, seeing as there still is no proof of "curing" gay people, or pedophiles, it seems to be the case that we can't radically change our sexuality. It might be possible to shift it a little, or to change the expression of it to some degree, but the basics are hardwired. Facets of our person that are not changable are typically heavily biological as opposed to environmentally determined. My guess is that it is a heavily selected trait that people HAVE a strong preference regarding sex, it is a necessity if you consider it an evolutionary system for producing male-female sex. As long as many enough have the typical opposite sex preference, what the others go for is less vital from an evolutionary perspective.
So, no, we do not choose our sexuality. I have never talked to anyone who could tell me about making such a decision.
Our religion, however, we do choose. Most religions even have ceremonies to signify that choice. The biological part of religion is likely the need to HAVE a religion. The specifics of it are obviously environmentally determined.
*dons her flame-retardant suit*
I think you posted this in the wrong thread, friend. Did you mean to put this in the Send this Letter to a Homophobic Parent thread?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thread seems to have gone off track.House Passes NDAA & White House Won’t Veto Indefinite Detention
What the DEUCE?!
It's like, I can't really imagine someone being for this bill. And yet we're not hearing this talked about ALL DAY EVERY DAY on the news. Where is the freaking uproar?
why would the American media upset their corporate overlords by complaining about something the overlords want?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm.
This amusing British expat ties together two of the recent OTD threads in a way that if humorous and informative. However, given the anti-Kim Jong-il vibe of its jibes, I'm not sure if Grandmother Pei would enitrely approve of its contents. If he ever comes to Bachuan, we'll throw him in a reducation camp!
And so, in the spirit of the holidays:
‘Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
There was much rejoicing for the Prez was a louse.
A new bill to keep people “safe and from harm”,
While locking up “terrorists” should not raise alarm.Promises broken, lay all scattered around,
The 5th and 6th Amendments no where could be found.
And I and my neighbors, who so long sat content
Paid little heed to the horrid event.In through the door, the strike team did burst,
The shock it was bad, what came next was the worst.
“You’re under arrest”, their cries merry and gay
“You evil damn terrorist!” and I was bundled away.“You haven’t a warrant!”, my neighbor did yell
“What you’re doing’s illegal!”, and then he caught hell.
His face it was sprayed, he choked, his eyes red,
As he was thoroughly beaten and kicked in the head.“We no longer needs warrants”, was said between blows
“Not for more than ten years, as everyone knows.”
My neighbor, he muttered, “That was not the intent.”
But that did not stop them, to the van I was sent.Then to a dark cell, where it is is unknown
To answer strange questions and pictures I’m shown
“It’s a mistake!” I yell, “My lawyer, where is he?”
“He ain’t been born yet”, came a laugh without pity.So here I do sit, as the months they have passed
Soon to be years or decades at last,
Indefinite holding and no speedy trial
I realized that I could be here for a while.No habeas corpus, that writ is long gone
And little recourse to show how they were wrong.
No courtroom I’ve seen, and as I lay here these nights,
I wonder what became of our Bill of Rights.
:)
Does anyone have some helpful links about the final version's content?
Some folks swear that Americans are exempt from the NDAA's provisions.
According to this piece by a U.S. Representative, Americans are not exempt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to this piece by a U.S. Representative, Americans are not exempt.
Thanks!
The source may be helpful in talking to some of my fellow conservatives!
I'd love more input on the final version if anyone has something.
According to this piece by a U.S. Representative, Americans are not exempt.Thanks!
The source may be helpful in talking to some of my fellow conservatives!
I'd love more input on the final version if anyone has something.
Quite welcome. I'm confused as to why more people across the political spectrum aren't more concerned about this. The opposition to this bill, what precious little there was of it, consisted of three democrats, three republicans, and one independent.
Quite welcome. I'm confused as to why more people across the political spectrum aren't more concerned about this. The opposition to this bill, what precious little there was of it, consisted of three democrats, three republicans, and one independent.According to this piece by a U.S. Representative, Americans are not exempt.Thanks!
The source may be helpful in talking to some of my fellow conservatives!
I'd love more input on the final version if anyone has something.
I share your confusion, but we all know how I feel about government. While my views are far outside of the main stream it seems to me that being on guard against crap like this is a fundamental duty of citizens in general and the free press in particular (HD making the obvious point).
In the words of Yoda...
"You will be..."
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Note that this caveat applies only to the requirements in that specific section -- it's the other sections allowing it that we're concerned about.
If this passes and an American citizen is detained under the statute who exactly is this citizen supposed to appeal to? Their constitutional rights will be non-existent. There is no one phone call to a lawyer. In fact the likelihood is that this citizen will be sequestered in a facility where no one will know where they are or how to find them (this person may not even be in this country after they are picked up). This is scary stuff.
Exactly. As a citizen of the United States of America, you are entitled to these rights...unless we think you're friendly with Al Qaeda, in which case we'll let the military bag you and drag you into a hole to deal with as they please. We don't have to prove you've done anything wrong, we just have to be suspicious.
It's a bad idea.
A petition to urge the vetoing of the NDAA on whitehouse.gov.
Obama Approves Draconian Police State Law
This from a progressive site.
|
|
Obama Approves Draconian Police State Law
This from a progressive site.
It's also dated the 19th December. He hasn not yet signed it. According to the NLG site linked earlier, he has until January 2nd to sign it before it becomes effectively vetoed.
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.Note that this caveat applies only to the requirements in that specific section -- it's the other sections allowing it that we're concerned about.Section 1031 starts on the middle of page 426. It defines who is considered a detainee. From subsection E of 1031:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
captured or arrested in the United States.The part I quoted came from Section 1032, which defines the requirement for military custody.
Why do you think this precludes indefinite detention without trial or charge?
The administrations current position is that they are not subject to judicial or legislative scrutiny when killing US minors without charge or trial abroad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ron Paul: Defense Bill Establishes Martial Law In AmericaAnd this is why Ron Paul to stupid to be president.
In the US we live enmeshed within vast matrices of all-encompassing laws and codes that are enforced at the discretion of law enforcement officials. Lives and property are routinely destroyed for minor offenses or just the appearance of minor offenses. Children are charged with sex crimes. Elderly cancer patients are taken from their wheel chairs and have their diapers searched at the airport. Peaceful protesters are sprayed with chemicals and beaten. We live in a de facto police state already, whether or not you have felt the boot on your neck; these new developments only make it official.
Ron Paul is wrong about a lot of things, but not this.
Look up the term Nacht und Nebel. It should give you perspective. It is not the first time this s+&& has happened.
This is why I can say with much confidence: the terrorists have won.
Lolwut?
Oh, I forgot, the terrorists hate our freedom *eyeroll*.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also dated the 19th December. He hasn not yet signed it. According to the NLG site linked earlier, he has until January 2nd to sign it before it becomes effectively vetoed.Obama Approves Draconian Police State Law
This from a progressive site.
Think he'll pocket veto it? Or perhaps attempt a line item veto?
When does Congress re-adjourn?
Mid-January -- he (President Obama) has put off a request to raise the debt ceiling until they get back too.
Generally I wouldn't expect such an activity (the pocket veto) from him but I'm thoroughly convinced that he played Congress with the Libyan military action and a pocket veto with an "oops I forgot" would follow on that track.
never mind. He signed it. But at least he had "reservations" while doing so.
never mind. He signed it. But at least he had "reservations" while doing so.
/cry
never mind. He signed it. But at least he had "reservations" while doing so.
But on the bright side, according to this report, there were last minute changes to the bill that mean U.S. citizens wont' be carted off to Guantanamo for being suspected terrorists.
The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
If that part got dropped then the biggest part of my reservations have been clear. THAT was the major part of my worries. Everything else can be fixed with time and was minor in comparison.
Are you saying that having the first black President -didn't- cause a dramatic social change?
Minor Point of Order: You have the causal arrow pointing in the wrong direction in this question.
Suggested Change: Are you saying dramatic social change caused us to have the first black President?
.
Carry on..
Are you saying that having the first black President -didn't- cause a dramatic social change?Minor Point of Order: You have the causal arrow pointing in the wrong direction in this question.
Suggested Change: Are you saying dramatic social change caused us to have the first black President?
.
Carry on..
No, I meant what I said.
Then it is always TRUE.
