[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Stream stopping at promo - lannydevaney - Jan 17, 2020 - 7:51pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Jan 17, 2020 - 7:41pm
 
We need some new car names - kcar - Jan 17, 2020 - 7:32pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - triskele - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:55pm
 
R&R Hall of Fame Show - buddy - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:53pm
 
What the hell OV? - buddy - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:51pm
 
Trump - hayduke2 - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:39pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jan 17, 2020 - 4:15pm
 
DIY - cc_rider - Jan 17, 2020 - 3:27pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - ptooey - Jan 17, 2020 - 3:26pm
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Jan 17, 2020 - 12:53pm
 
war is a racket - haresfur - Jan 17, 2020 - 12:47pm
 
how do you feel right now? - SeriousLee - Jan 17, 2020 - 12:43pm
 
Mellow stream - jarro - Jan 17, 2020 - 11:45am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - Red_Dragon - Jan 17, 2020 - 10:22am
 
Canada - westslope - Jan 17, 2020 - 10:07am
 
The war on funk is over! - rhahl - Jan 17, 2020 - 8:25am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jan 17, 2020 - 5:30am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 17, 2020 - 4:40am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 16, 2020 - 8:20pm
 
What makes you smile? - Coaxial - Jan 16, 2020 - 6:14pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Jan 16, 2020 - 2:21pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - success - Jan 16, 2020 - 1:46pm
 
Fix My Car - cc_rider - Jan 16, 2020 - 1:22pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Jan 16, 2020 - 11:39am
 
Regarding cats - Proclivities - Jan 16, 2020 - 11:11am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Jan 16, 2020 - 10:43am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Jan 16, 2020 - 6:07am
 
Music Videos - sirdroseph - Jan 16, 2020 - 4:24am
 
I'm a Dem. Which Republican would you recommend I vote for? - jahgirl8 - Jan 15, 2020 - 8:36pm
 
Stuff I like - Antigone - Jan 15, 2020 - 5:07pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - triskele - Jan 15, 2020 - 4:43pm
 
Private messages in a public forum - jahgirl8 - Jan 15, 2020 - 4:19pm
 
Impeachment Time: - kurtster - Jan 15, 2020 - 3:38pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - Antigone - Jan 15, 2020 - 2:57pm
 
Amazon Echo/Alexa stream not working - piratesbaseball44 - Jan 15, 2020 - 1:23pm
 
Books - R_P - Jan 15, 2020 - 1:03pm
 
Anti-War - westslope - Jan 15, 2020 - 11:58am
 
Breaking News - buddy - Jan 15, 2020 - 8:34am
 
Maps • Google • GeoGuessr - Red_Dragon - Jan 15, 2020 - 7:34am
 
Drinking Establishments - Coaxial - Jan 15, 2020 - 7:00am
 
LOVIN The ONION - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 15, 2020 - 6:59am
 
Star wars with a twist - sirdroseph - Jan 15, 2020 - 4:17am
 
Things You Thought Today - sirdroseph - Jan 15, 2020 - 2:21am
 
Iran - R_P - Jan 14, 2020 - 8:08pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 14, 2020 - 3:01pm
 
Photography Chat - haresfur - Jan 14, 2020 - 2:50pm
 
Internet Speed Test - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2020 - 11:33am
 
audio codec - BillG - Jan 14, 2020 - 10:33am
 
Are you ready for some football? - Coaxial - Jan 14, 2020 - 5:18am
 
Name My Band - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2020 - 5:05am
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Jan 14, 2020 - 12:16am
 
Guns - R_P - Jan 13, 2020 - 9:01pm
 
Sweet horrible irony. - R_P - Jan 13, 2020 - 2:31pm
 
Amazing animals! - kurtster - Jan 13, 2020 - 2:24pm
 
OUR CATS!! - jahgirl8 - Jan 13, 2020 - 2:12pm
 
help me - jahgirl8 - Jan 13, 2020 - 1:50pm
 
Republican Wingnut Freak of the Day - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2020 - 1:49pm
 
Big Brother - success - Jan 13, 2020 - 8:59am
 
Things Women Should Not Be Allowed to Do - success - Jan 13, 2020 - 8:14am
 
Posting pictures - RabbitEars - Jan 13, 2020 - 7:53am
 
Democratic Party - sirdroseph - Jan 13, 2020 - 5:18am
 
Tartaria And The Mud Floods - success - Jan 13, 2020 - 4:30am
 
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet - gvajda - Jan 13, 2020 - 4:01am
 
The Obituary Page - westslope - Jan 13, 2020 - 3:03am
 
Band Names !!! - sirdroseph - Jan 13, 2020 - 2:58am
 
Android App not working on cellular? - jarro - Jan 12, 2020 - 8:36pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - SeriousLee - Jan 12, 2020 - 4:37pm
 
TED Talks - Red_Dragon - Jan 12, 2020 - 2:51pm
 
Films you're excited about. - islander - Jan 12, 2020 - 2:18pm
 
Iraq - R_P - Jan 12, 2020 - 1:27pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Jan 12, 2020 - 12:35pm
 
RP App for Android - rtrt - Jan 12, 2020 - 12:15pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Red_Dragon - Jan 12, 2020 - 9:12am
 
Class in America - sirdroseph - Jan 12, 2020 - 9:11am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 70, 71, 72  Next
Post to this Topic
triskele

triskele Avatar

Location: The Dragons' Roost


Posted: Nov 4, 2010 - 4:35pm

 BluEyes wrote:

Looking for Schlabby! Limited navigation online with my cell phone ;( we are in Lawton now and will be in OKC on Saturday.

 
he sent you a pm!

triskele

triskele Avatar

Location: The Dragons' Roost


Posted: Nov 4, 2010 - 4:35pm

 kurtster wrote:

I think that either South Carolina or Mississippi comes in last, not sure.  Its all crazy.

Priorities are messed up for sure.
 
ayup

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 4, 2010 - 3:09pm

 triskele wrote:

but state question 744 (i think that was the number), to designate more of the state's budget money for schools and teachers' salaries, in order to bring OK up to the standards of neighboring states, was overwhelmingly voted DOWN.  80% of ballots cast were NO.  OK is ranked 49th in the country, not sure who is 50th, as far as the education system.
 
I think that either South Carolina or Mississippi comes in last, not sure.  Its all crazy.

Priorities are messed up for sure.

BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar

Location: planting flowers


Posted: Nov 4, 2010 - 3:06pm

 kurtster wrote:
Oklahoma Question 755 passed overwhelmingly.  Is it an unnecessary law ?  Evidently not as its margin of victory is very revealing.
Question 755 (International Law)
Result Votes Percentage
 Yes    695,568            70.08%
  No296,903     29.92%      
Total votes992,471      100.00%     
Voter turnout %


 
Popularity does not equal necessity!

BluEyes

BluEyes Avatar



Posted: Nov 4, 2010 - 3:05pm

 triskele wrote:

but state question 744 (i think that was the number), to designate more of the state's budget money for schools and teachers' salaries, in order to bring OK up to the standards of neighboring states, was overwhelmingly voted DOWN.  80% of ballots cast were NO.  OK is ranked 49th in the country, not sure who is 50th, as far as the education system.


 


Looking for Schlabby!

Limited navigation online with my cell phone ;(

we are in Lawton now and will be in OKC on Saturday.
triskele

triskele Avatar

Location: The Dragons' Roost


Posted: Nov 4, 2010 - 2:56pm

 kurtster wrote:
Oklahoma Question 755 passed overwhelmingly.  Is it an unnecessary law ?  Evidently not as its margin of victory is very revealing.
Question 755 (International Law)
Result Votes Percentage
 Yes    695,568            70.08%
  No296,903     29.92%      
Total votes992,471      100.00%     
Voter turnout %


 
but state question 744 (i think that was the number), to designate more of the state's budget money for schools and teachers' salaries, in order to bring OK up to the standards of neighboring states, was overwhelmingly voted DOWN.  80% of ballots cast were NO.  OK is ranked 49th in the country, not sure who is 50th, as far as the education system.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 3, 2010 - 8:16pm

Oklahoma Question 755 passed overwhelmingly.  Is it an unnecessary law ?  Evidently not as its margin of victory is very revealing.
Question 755 (International Law)
Result Votes Percentage
 Yes    695,568            70.08%
  No296,903     29.92%      
Total votes992,471      100.00%     
Voter turnout %



kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 2, 2010 - 9:00pm

  • In a poll conducted by SoonerPoll.com, 49 percent of voters polled stated that they were for the measure. The poll surveyed likely registered voters in the state, which included 385 Democrats, 340 Republicans and 31 independents. The margin of error was reported to be 3.57 percentage points and was commissioned by the Tulsa World.<9>
Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
July 16-21, 2010SoonerPoll.com49%24%27%755

Two measures aimed at illegal immigration received even greater approval. State Question 751, which would make English the state's official language, was favored by 85 percent; SQ 746, to require photo identification to vote, was favored by 83 percent.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20100805_16_A9_Amswhr19725





And


State Question 755 has received national attention, and Duncan has been interviewed about the proposal by several national news outlets.

However, the proposal appeared less controversial among Oklahoma legislators. House Joint Resolution 1056 passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives on an overwhelmingly bipartisan 82-10 vote and cleared the Senate on a bipartisan 41-2 vote.

Duncan has predicted the measure will receive similar overwhelming support from voters. Recent polling indicates the measure will pass, although many citizens remain uncertain. A poll conducted July 16 to 21 for The Tulsa World found that 49 percent of likely voters supported State Question 755, while 24 percent opposed it and 27 percent were undecided.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 4:55pm

 kurtster wrote:
Perhaps this is an intent that Oklahoma Question 755 is well suited for:

Just heard on the radio, no not Rush, that the US State Department has submitted Arizona's 1070 to the United Nations for review for possible Human Rights violations.  WTF ?

This is an internal affair undergoing an internal Constitutional review. 



 
Great.  Just great.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 4:44pm

 cc_rider wrote:

Isn't that one of the reasons WW I got so out of hand?
 
Ayup.  'Zactly what George was talking about.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 4:40pm

 kurtster wrote:


No, definitely not good for our country either.  Besides, I love women. 

Probably overkill because The US Constitution already guarentees a seperation between Church and State, which Sharia Law is clearly not in keeping with that.  That would be a State endorsement of a particular religion.

But you never know, cause most politicians wipe their posterior with the Constitution.
 
I'm not quite sure which components you are referring to, but the first amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".

It rightly says that Congress (the State in this case) doesn't support or interfere with any religion directly. People can gather up under any peaceful cause they want and complain to their representatives without interference.  Seems pretty reasonable to me. Sharia, like many other sets of "God's laws" has many different interpretations depending on if the followers are modernist, fundamentalist, evangelical...
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 12:55pm

 oldslabsides wrote:
What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.
 
Isn't that one of the reasons WW I got so out of hand?

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 30, 2010 - 12:50pm

Perhaps this is an intent that Oklahoma Question 755 is well suited for:

Just heard on the radio, no not Rush, that the US State Department has submitted Arizona's 1070 to the United Nations for review for possible Human Rights violations.  WTF ?

This is an internal affair undergoing an internal Constitutional review. 


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 10:52am

 kurtster wrote:
We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties.  I know of no example.  Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country.  The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life.  All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.

The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights.  Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State. 

For the most part that's true—international treaties have only indirect effects on people's behavior within a state*. Which makes the OK proposition both pointless and in violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.

*One of the few areas where state law gets involved with treaties is in regard to extradition, tho usually the impact is the other way around—the state law can interfere with exercising a treaty.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 10:35am

 kurtster wrote:

We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties.  I know of no example.  Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country.  The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life.  All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.

The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights.  Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State. 

I'm happy that 80% of Sharia Law is in harmony with our Constitution.  To allow the other 20% to take hold for the convenience of a particular religion is not acceptable.  If it is allowed, then it applies to all of us, not just the believers.  There is no (longer a) place for seperate but equal in this country, especially justice systems.  Sharia Law within the United States can adapt to our legal precendents, it cannot be the other way.  A Constitutional Amendment of this kind, strengthens the original intent of our Constitution, it does not minimize individual rights, it strengthens them.  To argue against this is similar to the argument used to argue against the ERA Amendment.

 
I don't know of any specific examples, but I'm confident that there are any number of commerce treaties that have significant impact on businesses and individuals here in the US. If we sign a treaty that says we won't impose the death penalty, that would preclude any state from imposing the death penalty. If we sign a treaty that says we will no longer manufacture lead-based paint, then none of the states get to give any of their pet manufacturers a pass on the Pb. A treaty specifying we will sell stealth technology only to our NATO allies means companies that manufacture stealth components have some pretty significant restrictions on their sales and marketing.

Again, I'm not in favor of Sharia law or any kind of "separate but equal" justice system in the US. We all need to be held to the same standards. I'm saying that the existing separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution already covers that. I'm saying that we don't need to keep proliferating laws to cover situations already covered under existing law. And I'm saying that logically if you're going to pass a law excluding one specific set of religious traditions from our judicial system, you need to exclude them all or it's discriminatory. You can't say "your religious traditions are unacceptable for our system of justice, but mine are okay".

So instead of saying "Sharia law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Buddhist law is not to be used for judicial decisions" and "Jedi law is not to be used for judicial decisions", it's easier and fairer to stick with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I don't see how adding redundancy to the already burdensome body of law in this country is going to maximize my rights.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 10:14am

 winter wrote:

My point is that we already live under international laws in the form of treaties - we have for over 200 years. It's not news, and those treaties are signed by the President and ratified by the Senate. Our representatives get a say in them. If they don't find them in the best interests of the US and its people, they don't commit us to them. If we disagree with our representatives on that, we elect someone whose views and values are more in line with our own.

And I'm not opposed to Judeo/Christian values per se any more than I'm in favor of Sharia law. I'm opposed to murder, lying, theft, etc. (I'm a little less comfortable with keeping the Sabbath or having no gods before God, but that's me.) I'm saying that you can't say "Sorry, Muslims, your religious laws are out. Only ours are acceptable." Either all religions (and irreligions) are equal in the eyes of the law, or they're not. If you're going to rule one out, you have to rule them all out.

I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Sharia law just like I'd leave out the specific exclusion of Buddhist law or Zoroastrian law or rabbinical law or Catholic law. Keep it simple. Interpret the laws of the US and the state as written - that's the job of a judge. You can't list all possible stuff to exclude ("also judges should not use dice to make decisions, or flip coins, or employ any other methods of chance - oh, and Ouija boards and Tarot cards are right out"), so it doesn't make sense to me to start.
 
We don't live within the country with laws based on international treaties.  I know of no example.  Treaties only affect interaction when dealing with another country.  The example that we choose to live with less nukes does not affect our day to day life.  All of our laws governing domestic activity have so far been based on the US Constitution.

The purpose of our Constitution as I see it is to maximize the rights of the people or individual and minimize the role of the government in interfering with those rights.  Introducing anything new from foreign and religious sources to our legal system will only dilute the rights of the individual and strengthen the State. 

I'm happy that 80% of Sharia Law is in harmony with our Constitution.  To allow the other 20% to take hold for the convenience of a particular religion is not acceptable.  If it is allowed, then it applies to all of us, not just the believers.  There is no (longer a) place for seperate but equal in this country, especially justice systems.  Sharia Law within the United States can adapt to our legal precendents, it cannot be the other way.  A Constitutional Amendment of this kind, strengthens the original intent of our Constitution, it does not minimize individual rights, it strengthens them.  To argue against this is similar to the argument used to argue against the proposed ERA Amendment.


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:19am

 winter wrote:

I know. (Although wasn't it Washington who allied us with the French during the Revolution?)

You and I disagree on that point. But you knew that already.
 
Yes, it was.  However, George did make exception to his principle concerning temporary alliances in time of war - as distinct from long-term alliances like say, NATO or the UN.

(former member)

(former member) Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:17am

 buzz wrote:

The issue is that we elect state and federal legislators to represent us in the law making process. In theory, they are accountable to the citizenry. Would you really be comfortable with unknown people in The Hague creating the laws you live under? The upside of this would be that we could cancel that pesky election day. It would no longer be necessary.
 
Yes, our laws are based on Judeo/Christian values. Would you prefer that your daughter live in a country whose laws are based on The Ten Commandments like ours is, or a country like Iran, with Sharia Law?
 
There have been instances lately of judges wanting to use International Law in place of US law when making decisions. 

 
I'd prefer my daughter live in country with laws based on logic, reason and equality not any religion.  Too bad Vulcan is a made up place.  Gene Roddenberry was way ahead of his time.  Christianity, while its current practitioners are not as blatant about it, is just as misogynistic as Islam.  Ever been a girl in a christian community?  Its not a very equal place to be.  That is one of the reasons I reject organized religion.  I got tired of being told I was lesser because I had a uterus.  At least I think I have one, I've never actually tested the theory.

When was the last time you voted for someone who did as promised?  I've always referred to elections as choosing the least of the evils.  I wish we could execute reform guaranteeing us the right to a lobbyist free government; politicians who do as they are asked to by those they represent; justices who rule based on law and reason instead of their own personal agendas.  It's bizarre that we even have to vote on this in any state.  Why wouldn't ruling be based on our own laws?  But then again, how many rulings are based on deals, agendas, personal views and political alliances?

I know, I know.  I 'm a dreamer.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:15am

 oldslabsides wrote:

What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.
 
I know. (Although wasn't it Washington who allied us with the French during the Revolution?)

You and I disagree on that point. But you knew that already.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jun 20, 2010 - 9:13am

 winter wrote:

Fair enough. (EDIT: Although I can't see how we could get along without it short of having fifty separate countries with fifty separate foreign policies. If you're going to let the federal government handle international relations and foreign policy, you can't let each state decide which treaties it won't follow.) But you can't just ignore it any more than you could, say, the Second Amendment.

Or, in my state's case, the Fourteenth.

 
What I'm uncomfortable with (so was George Washington, BTW) is foreign policy dominated by treaties and alliances.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 70, 71, 72  Next