Are there any normal people on this site or just Wack jobs?

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 82
Topic's author
#61
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
How did the draft dodgers who fled to Canada manage not to do this? 
Oh they did require someone to take their place, absolutely. But they avoided the war the right way, not as a weasel. And they gave up their country as a consequence(for a period of time)

#62
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 Your argument is most Americans would shirk their responsibilities.
King George certainly didn't think that!
Topic's author
#63
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
As it so happens, I have mild asthma. It's not debilitating, but I couldn't imagine being a star football player. Granted, I was never sporty to begin with, but this is something on top of that. And I mentioned baseball for a reason: that sport kicks up a lot of dust. The odds of Joe Biden knowingly having asthma and playing baseball at the same time are rather slim. And yet, he played baseball in the same age range when he allegedly had asthma.
I played baseball all through my childhood. Dust wasn’t a big problem on the baseball fields I played on. Biden did have asthma and was treated for it during his childhood. That’s why he was granted a 1-Y classification. He didn’t lie. He didn’t make it up. He didn’t seek out a phony doctor’s note.
Most adults would see a big difference in those two scenarios. Not all, but most.

Topic's author
#64
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
So then, you admit that combat conditions are rough, and that something like a bone spur which wouldn't matter so much in civilian life could be a dealbreaker for the army?
A real bone spur, absolutely. An imaginary one, would be more like a ball spur - no balls.

Topic's author
#65
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
Says who?
So you are starting to realize it is hard to defend faking a disability to avoid the draft as compared to going to college or actually having asthma or children.
Good, we are making progress. Now you want to switch to the truth of his fraud.

Topic's author
#66
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
Because, again, under civilian conditions it was a minor ailment and it happened decades ago. I likely wouldn't have remembered if I were him.
That’s not true at all.
And I am well aware that you are special/different. I bet you remember now why you were rejected from military service and you will remember 30 years from now. Right?
Topic's author
#67
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
I'm talking about not being able to have an abortion.
Ok, but woman have a constitutional right to an abortion, until we got a few nut jobs on the Supreme Court who are applying their personal beliefs to get a desired legal result. That right will likely return in most of the 25 red states where it is now under threat.

A military draft has not been deemed a violation of our constitutional rights as far as I know. Do you have a case to cite from the Supreme Court?







#68
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Swagnarok
I'm talking about not being able to have an abortion.
Ok, but woman have a constitutional right to an abortion, until we got a few nut jobs on the Supreme Court who are applying their personal beliefs to get a desired legal result. That right will likely return in most of the 25 red states where it is now under threat.

A military draft has not been deemed a violation of our constitutional rights as far as I know. Do you have a case to cite from the Supreme Court?

Topic's author
#69
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
Please make a point to accompany any links. How do we know what you think the article says or that you read the article at all?
#70
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
until we got a few nut jobs on the Supreme Court
Contrast with:

Do you have a case to cite from the Supreme Court?
from the same post.

No true Scotsman much?
#71
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I will rounded debate site should have a little bit of every type of population so the whack jobs are just as entitled to be here as anybody else. If you can't handle whack jobs and turn off your computer and sit in your house without engaging with anybody.
Topic's author
#72
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
from the same post.
Has the Supreme Court always had the same people or do they change over the years?

Topic's author
#73
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I will rounded debate site should have a little bit of every type of population so the whack jobs are just as entitled to be here as anybody else. If you can't handle whack jobs and turn off your computer and sit in your house without engaging with anybody.

Notwithstanding the poor grammar you used, I don’t think everyone deserves a seat at the table to discuss all things. The village idiot should sometimes be excluded from the debate.
#74
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Has the Supreme Court always had the same people or do they change over the years?
It changes, but the constitution largely has not. It thus follows that the supreme court has erred in its interpretation of the implications of the constitution at some point.

This could easily have been predicted since human beings are fallible and especially so when subject to irrational philosophical indoctrination.

It would then behoove the rational and honest thinker to analyze the matter in question rather than placing absolute authority over truth into the hands of others, not only in the case of the supreme court but in all cases.

You however want to have your cake and eat it too. You want people to consider the supreme court the "last word" regardless of what the constitution actually says... but only when you agree with the supreme court. When you disagree with the supreme court you dismiss its rulings.

You ask for supreme court rulings, but if one happens to say something like "secure from search and seizure ~ privacy != abortion" you cry " That's no true supreme court ruling!"
Topic's author
#75
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You ask for supreme court rulings, but if one happens to say something like "secure from search and seizure ~ privacy != abortion" you cry " That's no truesupreme court ruling!"
Ya go figure, there are good Supreme Court rulings and bad Supreme Court rulings. Some are grounded in racist thinking like the Dred Scott decision, blacks are inferior human beings, and some are based on logic like Roe v Wade, a women’s decision to continue a pregnancy is a private matter.

#76
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Note how you implicitly agree that looking at the merits is the decider. So don't ask for previous rulings, look at the constitution.

There is no consistent structure in supreme court precedent, demonstrating so is easy:

and some are based on logic like Roe v Wade, a women’s decision to continue a pregnancy is a private matter.
So is how I spend my money, are taxes unconstitutional?
#77
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
TROLL
#78
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I have no doubt. You seem to think you are better than most people for some reason.

21 days later

#79
Lair77
Lair77's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 97
0
1
4
Lair77's avatar
Lair77
0
1
4
Nope, we're all weirdos and oddballs.

I'm an oddball, but I definitely aint no weirdo.
#80
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
I am new around here so I have to go with what you all think about each other as wack jobs and other weirdo’s and odd balls.

Maybe that is  why I got a pass and breezed through the topics while the rest were throwing labels at each other.
#81
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
All you are is a never ending purveyor of unwarranted personal insults and attacks. You hardly live up to any standard of intellect. You are a cancer to this site.

#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
Two decisions by the Supreme Court during the 1920s solidified this view of the 14th amendment. They found the liberty clause of the 14th amendment to prohibit the states from trying to interfere with the private decisions of parents and educators when shaping the children’s education. During the case Meyer v Nebraska in 1923, the Supreme Court said that a state law that did not allow the teaching of German or other foreign languages to students before the ninth grade was unconstitutional.

The issue of the right to privacy regained momentum in the 1960s during Griswold v Connecticut where the Supreme Court said that the state law prohibiting the sale, distribution, possession, and contraceptives to couples who were married was unconstitutional. There were different reasons for this based on the judge, whether it was the gray area of the law or the zone of privacy created by the Bill of Rights.

In 1969, the court ruled on Stanley v Georgia in a unanimous decision staying that an individual had the right to privacy to have and watch pornography, even if the pornography could potentially be the basis for any prosecution against the distributor or manufacturer. The opinion stated that the State could not tell a person who was in his own home what he movies he could watch or what books he could read.

More recently, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right to privacy. For example, in the 1990 case Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health, the Court found that individuals had the right to make their own decisions about terminating medical treatments that were life-prolonging. Another case was Lawrence v Texas in 2003 where a sodomy law in Texas that prohibited homosexual sodomy was struck down by the Supreme Court. [**]