I don't want to talk about religion and I am not going to discuss it from a religious perspective.
Hurting yourself should be illegal. It's bad for the economy. They give you education, they feed you, and then you go kill yourself off. Suicide is illegal for the same reason that smoking is not allowed for minors. The belief of many political scientists is that the public tends to make "poor choices" and should be protected from those poor choices, aka protected from themselves. I am a fan of this policy. It limits the freedom of some individuals, but sometimes those individuals would not benefit from that freedom nor will they benefit the economy with that freedom.
Of course, you may prefer it when people decide everything for themselves, but, if you ask me, it leads to utopias and utter chaos (USSR, for instance).
I don't think suicide has anything to do with religion. I also think suicide is highly negative 99% of the time and should be kept illegal.
You are hurting a ton of people besides yourself: parents, friends, community, anyone who cares about you. Usually, suicide is a sign of a mental breakdown, but the person may not have fully intended to die... very few suicides have a proper reason behind them.
Stuff like suicide, murder, etc., is not protected by First Amendment as a form of "belief". By the First Amendment, people are allowed to do anything that all other people are allowed to do. Aka, if a company kills chickens to produce chicken meat, some sect may kill chickens for religious rituals. But that is where it stops.
I must say I dissagree with this. If the media was guided by the public then I highly doubt there would be this many reality telivision shows.
You cannot disagree with a fact. Media is a business. If you actually disagree with that you need to take this class called "AP US Government". :rolleyes: Or, just, READ. Internet. The vast source of info. Use it. Please.
What you are doubting is that the public likes reality shows. Well, if they are aired, that means more than enough people like them, simple as that.
The television broadcasters get more money from viewers. Therefore, the television broadcasters try to get something on TV that would get more viewers. If people will watch realtity shows, the broadcasters will put on reality shows. If people watch Discovery, 70% of the TV would have been Discovery. In fact, currently, Discovery channel is what they call "narrowcasting". Aka channel specifically for a demographic group. Pretty big one, it seems, but still a narrow one.
Quote from "LinkX" »
I would say that the government is guided by both the public and, more so, the media, and that the public is, in large part, guided by the media.
Yup. And who are the voters? The "more" part of the public.
Quote from "LinkX" »
I know that the entire public is not, we are examples of that Equinox, however I do feel that a vast majority is guided in one way or another via the media.
So, what's your argument?
It's always the competition between one mass of people controlled by a few intellectuals vs the other mass of people controlled by some other intellectuals. Aka democratic vs republican party. Or Obama vs Clinton. Or w/e you want. But it's not the voters competing, it's the people who know the difference guiding the voters to compete, because people who know the difference are too few to influence the elections.
Of course, it's not like people watch someone say "vote for Clinton" and they go vote for Clinton. It's not that dumb. But it is as dumb as people looking at tracking polls and believing in them. Why did Gore lose in the 2004 election? Media predicting results incorrectly and democrats deciding it's all done and republicans deciding that it's not done yet and Bush is losing so they need to vote and, suddenly, Bush wins, hahhahahahha... Would he win if it wasn't for that? Who knos. Tracking polls usually have like 10% margin of error or so... srsly, want to talk about government, learn something about it, take a class or read books.
You CAN influence government, but voting is just not enough. Voting is the least thing you can do, but if you really want to make a difference, you gotta get a bit more involved. Aka, join some interest groups, encourage people around you, class lawsuits, etc. Despite what people usually say, the American system is an actual working democracy.
And, Constitution is a very powerful government for the SUPREME COURT. The Supreme Court, along with the Federal Reserve, is a very liberal and not-so-biased an institution. And, thanks to them, we are not in total shit right now. The Supreme Court cares about everything, and they want to do things right because no one really bothers about bribing them or w/e. They also get like 1% of the media coverage, which means the media doesn't affect them, either. I respect the Supreme Court and I believe those guys will support this country for many years to come, and that they, among others, actually do believe in the Constitution. Why is that law no longer there? The Court. The laws were passed by Congress, a much more biased and corrupted insitution, and not until a group of people collect and say "no" to that law may the Court pay attention to it and decide it's unconstitutional.
To say it short, laws are easier to pass because they are not tested for being constitutional at the time of passing, but afterwards, if the public DOES go against them, they may get thrown out. If the public is fine with an unconstitutional law, why would the Court bother with it? Would they even know about it?
So basically what your saying is that the Constitution is jack shit? Usually here I would say "My appologies" then go on and say why I dissagree, but I cant appologise for dissagreeing with this.
I really don't get your point here. I said that if a law is unconstitutional, it can still be passed if there is no opposition against it, and the example you brought up in your first post proves that, what are you arguing against?
I have trouble adding "realtively nice place" + "it was bad where I lived".
Quote from "LinkX" »
We even had a mansion ten or so roads down.
Having a mansion doesn't mean you have the mansion in a wealthy area.
Quote from "LinkX" »
I also said that I live inbetween the north and south. *Coughs.*
It doesn't matter where you live. What matters is your ignorance in the question of which places are bad and which are good. You lived in one spot which you don't even consider South, and you say "down there it must be worse". I think that's the most ignorant statement I have heard on this forum besides cuss exchanges... Pretty offensive, too, I live in the South, and I have lived in your North, and I lived in Ohio, and I gotta say, South was the best place I have ever been to!
Quote from "LinkX" »
Back on topic, even if this was 40 or 50 or even 80 or 90 years ago, the Constitution is the Constitution, and it still would have been unconstitutional.
Constitutionality of anything is defined by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the media/mass. Not by the constituality. The older the times, the more acceptant are the mass/media of religion, the easier and safer it is for policy institutions to impose an unconstitutional law.
If we have a law protecting a drug company from lawsuits inside the bill for the establishment of Homeland Security, which was passed, what, in 2001, there is little I can say.
Someone explain to Equinox the intolerant South of the old.
The first post does not specify the year of the law, the condition of the law, who passed it, why they passed it, and so on. I hate when people do that, make a post like "OK, is this right?" and don't explain anything...
In fact, STILL nobody explained anything. After I asked the question. It's all because of your jokes, Siaynoq... are you ever serious?
South of the old? Old South? How old is "old"?
If you lived in a slum poor neirbourhood that ended up being a South slum poor neirborhood it doesn't mean that ALL South is like that. Poor areas are poor areas, they are always bad, whether it's Cali, Alabama, Minnesota, or Maine... Look at my location, I think it's a lot better than everyone's belowed New Jersey or NY (yes, I did live there).