I remember when Roe vs. Wade - what legalized abortion - had not yet been passed. When women with money would simply fly to a country where they could have an abortion, vs. the "coat-hanger" abortions, which killed women who were raped, or who couldn't afford raising a child, more than just eliminating the fetus. If this country provided funds for both child-care, and an adequate minimum wage that did not require food stamps, this discussion would be very different...
You miss or willfully dismiss the point: the woman is practicing within a highly secretive organization whose mission is to "circumvent representative government, certainly not to strengthen it. Then, blatantly lies, in effort to cover her tracks while earnestly pushing forward a vicious, extreme right-wing/corporate agenda, that is so far proved to be egregiously anti-citizen.
The fellow you replied to should be allowed the use of cannibus to ease suffering brought about by his condition. No politician regardless of party affiliation has the moral authortiy to block a form of treatment known to provide relief from the deleterious effects of an illness.
Furthermore, I hold my rights as a citizen dear and sacred, since without them I have no voice. I strongly suggest you re-assess the actions of ALEC members and whose position in society - they're "really" concerned for. I'm confident that after further review, you'd find it sure as heck -aint you.
There are many documented cases of stand your ground laws that have been credited with saving lives through the use of firearms. There is little mention of these instances, although there seems to be a certain fondness for denigrating the surviving victims(s) of these instances while calling for sympathy for the perpetrators. The basic law should be, was the person using force under stand your ground in danger according to the specific of the law in his case. If a legitimate threat is perceived, then use of whatever force is necessary to eliminate the threat should be allowed. This should not mean that the victim should be able to legally chase a perpetrator down the street to shoot him. If there is a person intent on harming another, who is engaged in threatening behavior which might be construed as life threatening, then the victim of these actions should have the full weight of the law to support him in defending his or her life, and the lives and wellbeing of those in his charge. When these rights are stripped, the victim has less rights than his attacker, and violence against the innocent will thrive.
I will be changing providers and will encourage all my friends and relatives to do the same. Businesses should not attempt to take over governments on any level - lobbyists are bad enough!
Pages