What is a law in your country that you think should be abolished because you feel it infringes on people’s rights and liberties?

[ADFSDF1996]

I believe that the law that allows the US government to extradite its own citizens to be tried abroad should be abolished. There is absolutely no reason for such an appalling unconstitutional law to be practiced in one of the most developed nations of the world. It’s inhumane and it infringes on just about every right a US citizen has.

Think about it, once a US citizen gets handed over to foreign law enforcement, that US citizen’s rights are completely nullified since they are no longer in the custody of US authorities. That US citizen would be at the mercy of that foreign law enforcement agency. That could be a problem if it’s a country that is known for human rights violations.

Technically the US government can only extradite US citizens to countries that the US has extradition treaties with but quite a few of those countries are known for human rights violations. And even though the US government is less likely to extradite a US citizen to a country if they know their rights will be violated, that US citizen can still be extradited to said country. Even more appalling is how the US government can also make exceptions and extradite US citizens to countries whom the US has no extradition treaties with, including authoritarian countries.

Furthermore, what if an innocent US citizen gets wrongly accused and gets extradited to a country he or she never set foot on based on a misunderstanding like a mistake from the authorities? That’s unacceptable.

Updates

+1 y

Plenty of countries don’t extradite their own citizens. Among them are Japan, Germany and France.

Second of all, I never said that a perp committing a crime on foreign soil shouldn’t be punished. Instead that perp should be tried and inprisoned in his or her home country in accordance to his or her home country’s laws. The only way that a perp should be tried in a foreign country is if he or she gets caught while he or she is in that country.

Updates

+1 y

My opinion on this hasn’t changed at all, I still believe that it is unconstitutional and tyrannical for a country to extradite it’s own citizens.

Only commies think that it’s a “good” thing for a country to extradite it’s own citizens

Updates

+1 y

Many of you don’t seem to see the biggest issue with “extradition”, which is how victims of identity theft could risk getting extradited to a foreign country he or she never set foot on if a foreign criminal uses his or her identity for nefarious activities. So there’s yet another reason why “extradition” should be abolished or at least modified to make alleged cyber offenses non extraditable offenses.

[dontknowgoodname98]

Conscription for men only. Either make it mandatory for everyone or abolish it completely

[BazookaTrouper]

Marc Angelucci of the National Coalition for Men sued the Selective Service System to make that happen.

[blondfrog]

I originally live in Iraq so basically I think every law should be changed lol.

[OlderAndWiser]

Okay, but how would you feel if your sister was murdered by a foreign national who returned to his home country and that country refused to extradite him to the US to stand trial for the murder?

[ADFSDF1996]

Simple, both governments come to an agreement that the criminal stand trial in his or her home country in accordance to his or her country’s laws.

[OlderAndWiser]

That is not where the evidence or witnesses are located. If there is a language barrier, then all the witnesses will require translators. And in every case of acquittal, the residents of the country where the crime occurred will assume that the verdict was the result of emotion and favoritism for the native son.

[ADFSDF1996]

And who is to protect an innocent person from being wrongly extradited?

[OlderAndWiser]

His lawyer and the court system in his country which must decide whether to extradite.

[ADFSDF1996]

That’s assuming it’s not a kangaroo court and the lawyer is competent enough.

[OlderAndWiser]

If you are afraid that you would face a kangaroo court with an incompetent lawyer at an extradition hearing in your home country, then why would you expect anything different at a trial on the criminal charge in your home country?

[ADFSDF1996]

There’s been plenty of cases where judges have been arrested for corruption. Not to mention many innocent people who’ve been proven innocent years after being in prison and all those people get is a “whoops, sorry bout that”. Yet the judges and prosecutors who sentenced that person don’t even get a slap on their wrists.

Think about a John Doe who is living a rather Peaceful life and minding his own business. He has no criminal history yet one day he is wrongly arrested and sentenced for a crime he didn’t commit. By the time he gets acquitted, he lost his job, he lost his house, his wife left him, he lost friends and his life is overall ruined. Who is going to come to his aid?

So yeah quite a few US citizens don’t trust their own legal system and quite frankly you can’t really blame them.

[OlderAndWiser]

So answer my last question. If you don't trust the legal system in the US, why would you rather have your criminal trial here than in the country where the crime was allegedly committed?

[ADFSDF1996]

Just to clarify we are only talking about hypotheticals (what if scenarios) here, With that being said...

It’s a matter of lesser evil vs greater evil. How do you know that the foreign country’s legal system isn’t a lot more worse. At least here, there’s a much greater chance that the judge is competent, capable of thinking critically and isn’t corrupt.

[OlderAndWiser]

And that's why you have an extradition hearing here to contest the legitimacy of the charges in the foreign country.

[ADFSDF1996]

Improvements still need to be made in order to prevent innocent people from being wrongly punished.

[OlderAndWiser]

By your philosophy, we should abandon prosecution of crimes until we can guarantee accurate and just outcomes in every trial.

[ADFSDF1996]

Not really, think about it like this.

Many businesses stay open while they are being remodeled.

[Leon_Penn]

I'm glad you brought this point up

[Leon_Penn]

The US has the law in place to ensure a fair trial. In too many places outside the US there are many corrupt judicial systems.

[abc3643]

Do you know what an extradition hearing is?

An extradition hearing is part of a person's frundamental right to due process required by the 5th and 14th Amendments. An extradition hearing is necessary before an extradition occurs. That is where the US citizen can exercise their rights against extradition. Furthermore, the "prosecutor" at an extradition hearing is someone representing the US Federal Government (in court, the Federal Government is referred to as "The United States"); no person from the foreign government requesting the extradition is a party to the hearing.

Bottom line: Extradition is not willy-nilly and the Federal Government is within its rights to extradite persons within the USA, but, like with all judicial procedures, each person has the right to due process.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-603-determination-extraditability

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-612-role-department-state-foreign-extradition-requests

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-614-procedure-district-court

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-619-extradition-hearing

Meanwhile, where did you get this?
"extradite US citizens to countries whom the US has no extradition treaties with, including authoritarian countries."

According to the Federal Government:

"603. DETERMINATION OF EXTRADITABILITY

The following factors are relevant to determining whether an individual is extraditable in a given case. Please be prepared to discuss these questions before telephoning the Office of International Affairs (OIA):

Location: The country in which the fugitive is believed to be located, and his or her address there, if known. As noted above, generally extradition is not available unless there is a treaty in force between the United States and the country where the fugitive is located.

..."

[ADFSDF1996]

@abc3643
Of course I know what extradition hearings are and I also know what kangaroo courts are.

Funny how quite a few countries like Germany, France and Japan don’t extradite their own citizens yet our government still can. Unfortunately the US government has the “right” to extradite but the questions are why does it still have the right to extradite it’s own citizens and should it be revoked in order to protect US citizens from being extradited to countries that are known for human rights violations.

[abc3643]

It doesn't work that way and never did.
It's the same reason that the US government owns your passport and controls your ability to cross borders.
The only thing that the US government cannot do is revoke your citizenship.
Other than that, it has the power of extradition because it is an important part of foreign policy and being a good member of the community of nations.

[abc3643]

That said, if US foreign policy is at odds with what the person is being extradited for, the US can and does refuse extradition.

[ADFSDF1996]

@abc3643
Actually prior to the 1950s the US didn’t extradite it’s own citizens.

[abc3643]

This:

"I never said that a perp committing a crime on foreign soil shouldn’t be punished. Instead that perp should be tried and inprisoned in his or her home country in accordance to his or her home country’s laws. The only way that a perp should be tried in a foreign country is if he or she gets caught while he or she is in that country."

is ridiculous.

Think about it!
Seriously, think more deeply about it.
...
and don't forget this adage:

It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.

[ADFSDF1996]

@abc3643

Oh so you think it’s perfectly fine for a innocent US citizen to be extradited to a foreign country he or she never set foot on based on a misunderstanding. Even here in the US there’s quite a few people who’ve been wrongly imprisoned and when they are proven innocent years later, all they get is a “whoops sorry bout that.” Absolutely disgusting.

“ It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.”

Yeah I think you should listen to that adage.

Funny how you evaded addressing the fact that prior to the 1950s, the US government didn’t extradite it’s own citizens.

[abc3643]

NO, I think you need to understand the fundamental legal concept of JURISDICTION.

It is apparent from your ridiculous comment that you don't understand jurisdiction at all and not understanding jurisdiction and talking about law is like not understanding arithmetic and talking about mathematics.

Consider:
1. Bookmarking this website:
https://lawshelf.com/coursewareview

2. Spend hours reading it and do your due diligence by cross-referencing with other law sites such as Cornell's Legal Information Institute.
For example:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction

[ADFSDF1996]

@abc3643

In other news, water is wet.

If you think the law is so “perfect” as it is, why don’t you bring that narrative to those innocent people who have been wrongly inprisoned. I’m sure they’d be more than pleased to hear you say the law is perfect.

[abc3643]

I am having a very rough time continuing this conversation because you apparently do not understand the fundamentals of law - especially the concept of jurisdiction.

However, for the moment, I am going to assume that I am misunderstanding you in some way...

This is my takeaway as to what you are asserting:

If a US citizen commits an act that is a crime in another nation, then the US should not extradite that citizen to that other country, but should, instead, hold that citizen only to the laws of the USA.

So:
Is my understanding correct?
If so, then, just for clarification purposes so I fully understand you:
1) If the citizen is still in that foreign nation and not in the US and thus not subject to extradition from the US, should that nation's laws still apply to that citizen.
2) If the citizen has returned to the USA before that nation's law enforcement could apprehend that citizen, then that citizen should now only be subject to the laws of the USA and their prior alleged acts in that foreign nation which are considered illegal in that nation should be ignored.

Are these correct?

[ADFSDF1996]

@abc3643
The problem with your narrative is that you aren’t making a single counter argument your are simply explaining the status quo.

“The sky is blue.”

[abc3643]

I can give PLENTY of counter examples.

Here is one:
1. Bob Smith is an American citizen expatriate working overseas for Acme in the country of Elbonia.
2. On the way driving to Acme, Bob speeds and runs through a red light.
3. Bob is not "pulled-over", but caught on camera. He knows that the Elbonian police will come for him.
4. Bob knows that the penalty for speeding in Elbonia is 1 year in prison and running a red light is 2 more years in prison.
5. Looking at 3 years in an Elbonian prison, Bob flees to the US before the Elbonian police apprehend him.
6. Since Bob doesn't actually live in the USA, he stays with his brother who lives in a US state.

What US laws apply to Bob?
What US court should try Bob?

[ADFSDF1996]

@abc3643
Counter examples aren’t counter arguments but alright I’ll play your game.

Bob should still be tried by the US Supreme Court. Simple as that.

Say John Doe is an innocent American citizen who lives in the US and never visited another country yet the country of “Slavislavia”(fictional country) requests for John Doe to be extradited for a crime he couldn’t have committed because he never set foot on that country. John Doe gets arrested by the gesta... I mean FBI and gets sent to a federal court. Despite all the evidence in John’s favor, the crooked biased federal Judge still decides to extradite John even though it’s evident that he’s innocent. Who’s going to defend John now? Or are you going to say “tough sh*t” because that’s the kind of attitude you seem to have since you aren’t this John Doe.

[abc3643]

You wrote:
' Bob should still be tried by the US Supreme Court. Simple as that. ”

What US court?

Keep this in mind...
1. Speeding and running red lights are not Federal crimes other than on Federal property not under the jurisdiction of a state.

2. Speeding and running a red light are violations of state laws. Which state did Bob speed in and run a red light? Technically, US, state, or local what laws did Bob violate?

3. What state does Bob even live in? He's an expatriate and doesn't own property in any state.

4. Finally, so, in which court is Bob going to be tried in?

[abc3643]

Bob wouldn't be tried in the US Supreme Court.

Under Article III Section 2, the US Supreme Court would not have original jurisdiction. It could pnly be an appellate court...

====
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[ADFSDF1996]

@abc3643 So you agree that Bob shouldn’t be extradited for that crime?

[abc3643]

Actually, yes and no.

I think that Bob should be extradited BUT I also think that the punishment in Elbonia would be considered a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 8th Amendment. So, in this case, personally, no, Bob should not be extradited because the Elbonian punishments would be considered an 8th Amendment violation by any reasonable American.

This would be discussed at Bob's extradition hearing and Bob's lawyer would bring that up that Elbonia's penalties for Bob's crimes violate the 8th Amendment. So, what would likely happen is that the Federal Government would negotiate with Bob and the Elbonian Government to arrange a punishment that is suitable for all parties. For instance, a large fine for Bob and / or Bob being banned from Elbonia in the future and forfeiture of all his property and possessions in Elbonia. Or, maybe Bob does 6 months to a year in a US prison. I'm not sure what is legally possible here, but this is the sort of thing that would and does happen already.

The bottomline is that the US needs to maintain amicable relations with other countries (such as Elbonia) but also protect its citizens. This balance occurs in extradition hearings which is all part of the due process guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.

[abc3643]

============
For the record, this is the 8th Amendment:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

and this is the 5th Amendment:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---
Both are part of The Bill of Rights which are the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution and enacted in 1791, only 2 years after the current form of the US Federal Government came on-line, so to speak, with the US Constitution in effect.

[abc3643]

By the way, I think you would very much be interested in the Star Trek: The Next Generation 1st season episode "Justice". You can see it on various streaming sites. In this episode, the Enterprise visits a wonderful planet. Wesley ends up playing and falling into a garden that was railed off. The punishment is death. Per the Prime Directive, the Enterprise crew would not intervene with the planet's affairs and Wesley would be humanely executed. However, Wesley, being a minor, this became an issue. Of course, his mother is the ship's doctor and Captain Picard is like an uncle. So, this episode discusses the ethics of extradition really. It's a very good first season episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Mbh0hg4fE

[ADFSDF1996]

@abc3643
I don’t really think you understand the difference between explaining how things are versus arguing for or against the status quo. Then again logic isn’t actually something you commies are familiar with. And you obviously don’t see the many problems that extradition can cause, such as a innocent person getting wrongly extradited to a country they never even set foot on.

[abc3643]

LOL...
Grow-up
I get PAID a shitload of money to know logic because it keeps people alive in the work that I do.

[ADFSDF1996]

@abc3643

Funny coming from a guy who can't tell the difference between explaining how things are versus supporting an argument.

[Yaaten]

"There is absolutely no reason for such an appalling unconstitutional law to be practiced in one of the most developed nations of the world. It’s inhumane and it infringes on just about every right a US citizen has."
This just HAS to be a joke. Right? No reason? Well... what if someone leaves the U. S., commits a crime in the country they visit (like murder, for instance) and then manages to make it back to the U. S?
What about this crime?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/E6N-BzyhU3U

Local laws need to be obeyed. You cannot travel to a South-East Asian nation (ex. Singapore) as a drug trafficker, and think if you get caught you'll be immediately released, for example. When you are in a foreign land you are subject to the rules that apply THERE. What could be simpler to understand?
What you want is priviledge, a special status for U. S. citizens, because... why? They're special or something? Above the law? "Exceptional"?

[ADFSDF1996]

@yaaten
Except for the fact there are quite a few countries that don’t extradite their own citizens. Among them are Germany, Japan, France and quite a few others.

Second of all, I never said the perp shouldn’t be punished. Instead the perp should be tried and sentenced in his or her own country. The only way a US citizen should be tried in a foreign country is if he or she gets caught while he or she is in that country.

And lastly, you sound like one of those ignoramuses with a “guilty until proven innocent” attitude. You do realize that many innocent people frequently get thrown in prison only to be proven innocent years later and all they get from people like yourself is a “whoops sorry bout that”. Absolutely disgusting.

[Yaaten]

The first point (about other nations not extraditing) is completely irrelevant to the basic argument you've made. The fact that they do this doesn't mean it's right, and doesn't provide you with the excuse that your nation should do the same.
Secondly, it makes zero sense for a person to be tried when they get back home for a crime they committed whilst in another country. As I said (and which you've chosen to completely ignore), whilst you are in a particular nation you are subject to their laws, and their laws alone. What may be legal in your country may not be in another.
Thirdly, I never made the claim that a person was "guilty until proven innocent"! If you cannot discuss subjects like this without being so blatantly dishonest, then I suggest you not bother with GAG at all, and find some other hobby to fill in your time. I don't like being misrepresented, and your 'ad hominem' attack (i. e. "... you sound like one of those ignoramusus...") is petty, childish and stupid.

[ADFSDF1996]

@yaaten
Like every other person on this thread that shares your narrative, you haven’t provided a single valid counter argument. It’s none of your business to be telling those countries what laws to implement. You think they are “wrong” too bad, it’s not your country. It’s not about making citizens be above the law, it’s about protecting innocent people from being wrongly extradited. But it seems you lack the mental capacity to understand that.

The only one who is acting immature here is you since you bring up a bunch of irrelevant drivel.

[Yaaten]

"It’s not about making citizens be above the law, it’s about protecting innocent people from being wrongly extradited."
I see you've changed your tune. That wasn't the argument you presented at the beginning, your opposition to any and all forms of extradition being absolute, regardless of the guilt or innocence of those involved. You can't even be consistent, and yet you accuse me of not having "provided a single valid counter argument".
Your foolish and asinine 'ad hominem' insults don't add anything to your worthless point of view, and merely confirm my beliefs about your ineptitude when it comes to discussing a topic in a mature manner.

[Yaaten]

"It’s not about making citizens be above the law, it’s about protecting innocent people from being wrongly extradited."
The guilt or innocence of the accused should be determined by the legal system of the nation in which the crime has been committed. That is what is just.
"It’s none of your business to be telling those countries what laws to implement."
And yet here you are doing precisely that. Why did you even start this conversation if disagreement with your point of view from others is something you clearly cannot handle? Why did you even ask the damned question?
I understand that the U. S. has a habit of protecting war criminals, going all the way back to the end of World War 2, and that many, if not most, of those criminals were U. S. citizens, and I suspect that is the reason why you are being so unreasonable here about this.

[ADFSDF1996]

@yaaten Yeah keep deluding yourself with your strawman arguments.

If you read my question details you’d see that I didn’t change my tune. Here you are just spouting off your anti American narrative without actually providing any valid counter arguments.

[TinaJo]

To this day, 15 states still have sodomy laws on the books. (Keep in mind, that sodomy is also defined as oral sex, as well as what everyone knows it to be.)

Is this enforced? Hell no, because even the cops do it. Can they enforce it? Hell yes, and it's happened. There was a case where the cops busted down the wrong house door, and realized it wasn't the crack house they were looking for. In order to save face, the cops arrested the husband for performing oral sex on his wife in the living room.

Of course the judge had no choice, but to throw it out, because they didn't have a search warrant. But how retarded is this? Why can't the lazy politicians go back and clean this outdated shit up? Another law on the books is that you can be arrested for spitting on the sidewalk. Really? Are the jails just that full of empty space? Another law is that you can't tie your dog to a tree. Great. Brilliant.

[Emii_69]

I have some family in the state of Georgia, USA. I was told that there still is a state law on the books against sodomy of any kind. If a police officer happened to walk by a house and looked in a window and saw a man receiving a blowjob from his own wife, he could get arrested. I heard this law is not enforced anymore, but the fact that it is a law is insane. The USA has come a long way in getting rid of the prudish mindset of the past, but they still have a very long way to go! The lack of basic sex education is shocking! Just look at some of the simple sexual questions posted on here by people in their 20's and 30's. They should have learned those answers in a sex education class in their first year of middle school.

[dmgstarfleet]

Gee and which political party would HOWL if you tried to do away with Sodomy laws? Hint-it begins with an "R" and while it used to be associated with the color RED that has somehow faded to ORANGE (snark). However, Bowers v. Harwig and progeny (subsequent cases which further define the doctrine) have said that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. However they remain on the books, primarily in Ruby Red Neanderthall states like Mississippi and Alabama, because should the Supreme Court overturn Bowers the those laws are instantly back in effect. That's why these same states keep their anti-abortion laws on the books. The moment the Court overturns Roe then Abortion is INSTANTLY illegal in those states.

[TinaJo]

@dmgstarfleet

Strange that you needed to take a bipartisan comment, and twist it into your own partisan agenda.

[dmgstarfleet]

Partisanship is why the sodomy laws are still on the books. Which party has the prudish element that objects to sodomy hetero or homosexual? Which party thinks its just fine to police your sexuality but not your business practices? Which party pushes Christo-Fascism. Now why would Democrats try to spend political capital to overturn a law which is not enforced? They won't. Too many more important battles to fight to waste capital on an unenforced law. so THAT's why its still on the books. My answer was not partisan-the situation exists because of Partisanship

[TinaJo]

@dmgstarfleet

"Now why would Democrats try to spend political capital to overturn a law which is not enforced?"

You're the only person to make this about Democrats. Why is that?

[dmgstarfleet]

Maybe because I'm the only one to do the proper analysis. I have a masters in History and a Doctorate in Jurisprudence. Accurate analysis is the issue, not agreement.

[TinaJo]

@dmgstarfleet
Most people do on this site.

[Inquisitive3]

I think the sodomy laws were put in place because of the desire to go after same-sex couples. That and spitting laws are very outdated. A law against trying a dog to a tree could be in place because people forget about their dog in hot weather and they die. Also, some dogs become aggressive when tied to a tree as they aren't able to escape. That's my guess but I haven't looked into it.

[Emii_69]

There is a law in he USA called "Eminent domain", which allows the government to seize your property if they want it, provided they pay you for it. You do not have a right to keep it. That law really infringes on your rights.
Here in Japan, I have seen very powerful corporations try to buy land they wanted, but they landowner refused to sell because the land has been in their family for many generations. The corporation and our government is powerless to take the land from them. This is freedom. 😁

[TinaJo]

Another trick they do in the USA, is to just rezone your residential property as commercial property. Now you have to sell, because you can no longer afford the property taxes.

[dmgstarfleet]

@TinaJo Emminent Domain requires that the seizure requires that the project be of public benefit. Why should literally millions of people be disadvantaged when more than sufficient compensation has been tendered. It is rarely used and requires "Just Compensation". You can litigate on whether the amount is "just" which can even include compensation for emotional distress ("But my dear cat Fluffy is buried there and I could not leave her to be covered by a freeway!") but they cannot unreasonably refuse. The needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few.

[TinaJo]

@dmgstarfleet
I know what it is, and I know that a society needs such a law. But it is also abused by politicians in order to get their personal projects going.

[dmgstarfleet]

@TinaJo That's what courts are for. There is really not much overreach here in the US in regards to Eminent Domain

[wilfh1965]

For one thing I am a Marine Veteran and have seen what Americans do and act in those countries and just because we are from America we are not above the law of basic human rights and if we stop extraditing people so will the other countries and America has more people incarcerated than any other country including Russia and China combined and violate and ignore many of our citizens constitutional rights there is such a racial division in the judicial system that makes this country the biggest hipocrites in the world and I am not a liberal anti-American or anything I am a third generation combat veteran from my family and I am a US citizens by right not just birth

[ADFSDF1996]

@wilfh1965

Plenty of other countries don’t extradite it’s own citizens. Germany, Japan and France don’t extradite their own citizens.

What if an innocent US citizen gets wrongly accused and extradited to a country he or she never set foot on based on faulty evidence and incompetence from the authorities. Who is going to defend that US citizen once he or she is in foreign custody?

[Adam1978]

In that case all countries that have similar laws should not send criminals to US for crimes against US citizens. So all cyber criminals should have free roam. And if you commit a crime and manage to get across the border, you are basically a free man. Is that what you want? So a certain whistle blower that lived his life in a embassy for so many years should have been a free man roaming Europe without your country would have any to say about it. These laws exist so criminals can be tracked and caught beyond the jurisdiction of a country. It makes all countries safer aslong as the laws are somewhat in balance.

[ADFSDF1996]

What of the innocent people who are wrongly accused of a crime? Do their lives not matter?

[Adam1978]

The legal system should handle that and you shouldn't have deals with countries that you don't trust to have a fair trial. And I would say that they should share the evidence of the crime before a judgement of a handover should be done. Ie if the criminal wouldn't face judgement in your court, there would be no reason why you would send them to another country.

[ADFSDF1996]

“The legal system should handle that”

Right because the legal system is absolutely perfect.

[Adam1978]

Nothing is perfect but lacking one is worse then one that can be improved.

[ADFSDF1996]

Yeah, well for starters there needs to be more failsafes in order to prevent innocent people from being wrongly punished by the law.

[Adam1978]

If you can find such a failsafe that can't be abused. Go ahead and suggest it. If multiple people can't find a fault in it, take it to the political system and perhaps the media and try to get it implemented.

[ADFSDF1996]

Failsafes aren’t loopholes.

[Adam1978]

They can be if they are badly made. You can simply make every criminal walk by they claiming it. And you now got a laws that drain tax money while not protecting anyone.

[ADFSDF1996]

That’s not exactly a failsafe, that’s incompetence.

Tell me, if you were on the verge of being extradited even though you are innocent. Wouldn’t you want a failsafe to prevent your extradition?

[Adam1978]

But that would void the law. No point in having a law if it never can be enforced. Loopholes and bad laws is made from incompetent or corrupt people.

[ADFSDF1996]

A failsafe law that is designed to protect innocent people from being wrongly punished isn’t a loophole/way of voiding the law.

[Adam1978]

If they are innocent from the laws point of view no failsafe would be needed. The law wouldn't be enforced. That means whatever failsafe you dictate can be used by anyone. Innocent or guilty.

[ADFSDF1996]

If the failsafe isn’t in place, the innocent person runs the risks of being wrongly punished.

[Adam1978]

But you don't know the state and yes it's better to let some criminals go then punish innocent. But any failsafe can be envoked by anyone not just innocent. You still haven't suggested one that could work.

[ADFSDF1996]

That the only way a suspect can be extradited to a foreign country is if there’s abundant evidence that the suspect actually set foot on that country in the first place.

[Adam1978]

Would make sense if the crime requires that you actually are in the country to perform it. Plenty of crimes can be committed remotely.

[ADFSDF1996]

Those are the ones innocent people can be wrongly accused of.

[Adam1978]

Let us run a hypothesis here, we have two mirror universes. In this one I am innocent and have done nothing wrong, in another I am cyber criminal who defraud US citizens from all their savings. But in both cases US law enforcement is tracking down that crime to my location. They file the proper paperwork to get me caught and sent to US. Since neither has been in US you say both of us should go free without a trial or deeper investigation? Because of a failsafe?

[ADFSDF1996]

The hypothetical criminal version of yourself should be tried in your home country, while the hypothetical innocent version of yourself should not be arrested or tried. Both after investigation. Simple as that.

It’s that “guilty until proven innocent” attitude that has put many innocent people in prison.

[Adam1978]

Well I would expect that both the innocent me and the criminal me would have the door broken down, the computer equipment temporarily confiscated and put in the arrest with the charge of defrauding US citizen. The investigation would hopefully find the means the criminal used to seem to originate from my home. I would be innocent in the end but I would still have suffered quite a bit in the process. So even in the best of worlds innocent have to deal with legal systems that aren't perfect since people aren't perfect.

[ADFSDF1996]

On certain occasions the innocent person is cleared of any wrongdoing before that person is arrested.

[dmgstarfleet]

It is possible to make a "smart gun" that would be unfireable except by its authorized user. For some reason the NRA opposes this and their marrionettes in the Republican Party have a ban on the patent or manufacture of a smart gun. Now why do they oppose this? This could change the debate. Your gun could not be taken from you and used against you (which is what happens with most would-be John Waynes) and if your kid found it because you failed to properly secure it (despite your self declared status as "responsible gun owner") then they wouldn't accidently blow a hole in their head or some other kid's head. If they took it to school to get revenge on bullies it wouldn't work. But for some reason the NRA and the Republican Party want these things to continue.

Its important that the gun be able to be shot by anyone that grabs it?

[zollo]

Neve heard about this and while it sounds interesting I'm skeptical in how well it would actually work. What ever the design is that makes it unable to be shot by anyone expect the owner what keep it from being modified? You also have the case where what if someone needs to use the gun for protection but can use it. Like if a teenager is home alone and someone breaks in, he can't defend himself because his fathers gun won't work.

[dmgstarfleet]

@zollo You could have a biometric unlock. My Iphone used to open with a fingerprint-now it opens with a glance. As to the teen, he is not supposed to have access to Dad's deadly weapon. If he is responsible he gets his own weapon or his biometrics could be added to Dad's to unlock. He should have to be trained and inputting the biometrics could be something done by Police to assure the teen has been trained and to keep people from being able to casually add people. But my main question is why the ban-it is explicitly banned in law to spend federal monies either to develop such a weapon or to research their effectiveness. In fact, Federal law forbids spending federal money to even study the effectiveness of ANY gun control legislation upon gun violence, crime and murder. WHY ARE REPUBLICANS OPPOSING EVEN DETERMINING THE FACTS? They CLAIM gun control laws are "ineffective" but ban the study of whether they are effective. I think the answer is fairly obvious.

[zollo]

I still feel like It could be hacked into pretty easily, like what if you boiled the gun? The chip inside might not be able to handle the heat and that would also mean the gun would have to be water tight. But I do agree that testing and research of ways to improve gun control and gun safety would benefit just about everybody except the people being paid to sell or promote guns.

[McKellar]

1. Anyone can join the military without having a great deal amount of requirements & restrictions.
2. A right to bare arms. (No, in my country of Canada, no Canadian can have nor purchase any type of fire arms & even if you did,... let's just say there's a great deal amount of bullshit complications that go along with it)
3. Drop the masks (I will probably get an excessive amount of heated up lecture over the mask topic, but I'm sorry I'm sticking with this choice)
4. Various types of news feeding the media a lot of bullshit, especially in relations to Covid, & they need to drop their false news act, get their heads straight & feed the media truthful type of news without manipulating the people.
5. A new country, political leader, because mine is not qualified for the prime minister position & is an idiot.

[jasco]

I think any law that has anything to do with free speech should be removed. One because the only way your gonna remove hate speech with a law is by having the government listen in on every single conversation that you have and then there's the fact of what is hate speech and who is the person who considers it hate speech? 2nd i feel like if you want something to go away, you should handle it, because the government isn't suppose to baby sit you. It's only job is to make sure the economy goes well, terrorism is gone inside and outside of the country, make sure its police is well train and funded along with making sure everything stays the way it should be. The people are the one's that make the country not the other way around, so why is it that we are complaining to the government to fix our problems when instead we should be protesting to fix them ourselves.

[sweet87]

Sone of these are for other countries but most apply to the UK.
Churches having tax exempt statuses... Yet they have the audacity to pass around collection plates during every service. Being able to keep important information from the general public under the premise of "National Security".
Not being able to wear a suit of armour in the houses of parliment.
Handling a Salmon in "suspicious circumstances" ,(this really is a thing in my country... UK).
It is illegal to be drunk in a pub (UK).

[Bananaman177]

We have to extradite our citizens to foreign countries in order for those countries to abide by the same treaty with us.

Imagine if a child molester or human trafficker could escape justice just by fleeing back to their home country of Israel.

Actually, that's a bad example. Israel doesn't extradite and that's why most child rapists and traffickers end up fleeing there to escape justice. It just so happens that most of them conveniently had Israeli citizenship in the first place.

[StephenCF]

Nothing I can think of yet, but there have been proposals for hate speech laws which I would fight to never see the light of day in this era 🤬🇮🇪 In this snowflake era, we should know by now that “hate speech” will soon become “most speech”, so it would be wise to never be a legality

[jshm2]

You must have your head up your ass for too long.

Extradition is not something done on a whim. there must be solid evidence of a crime for which the suspect is required to stand for. Regardless of what you believe that country to be in comparison to your own, laws are laws.

The US, by far, is worse than any authoritarian country in not only shooting Blacks and miscarriages of justice. But the inept and inadequate court system by which justice exists mainly for the rich or connected.

if anything, the US should be banned from even begin regarded as a modern Western country. Instead be regarded as a 1789 former British colony of hicks with few laws and even less humanity.

[ADFSDF1996]

@jshm2 The next time the Germans come knocking on your doorstep, perhaps we’ll side the Germans instead. In fact we should have sided with the Germans during the Great War.

[hi_it_is_me123]

Restricting/forbidding abortion and birth control. Noone has a right to use someone's organ in this case uterus. So if you want everyone to have the same righs, and think that an embryo is a life being, then an unborn baby should not have special rights That is why i think pro lifers are literallly bunch of hypocrites. How many pro lifers do you also know that adapt any child?

[dreamstar72]

Be interesting to attend a pro lifer rally to see how much money can be collected to support all of these unwanted children. Money for food, shelter, insurance, basic needs, education, list goes on and on. If a unborn baby (1/2 months) is unwanted it is the mother choice to abort not the pro lifers not to. If we did NOT have pro abortion rights then are world would be worst off!

[Dayman343]

So how do you feel about this American woman who killed a British motorcyclist

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-government-won-t-extradite-wife-diplomat-who-killed-n1121756

[ADFSDF1996]

She should have been tried here in the US. If the British authorities caught her before she left the country then they could obviously have tried her.

[Dayman343]

She claimed diplomatic immunity which was a lie.

[ADFSDF1996]

Are you saying her diplomatic immunity is a “lie”?

[Dayman343]

Well that is exactly what I said.
Absolutely shameful, an obnoxious human being who took the life of another. How she can live with herself knowing what she did is beyond me.
www.independent.co.uk/.../...omat-uk-a9153406.html

[ADFSDF1996]

How is it a “lie” if that’s what seems to be preventing her from being extradited?

[Dayman343]

So you haven't even bothered to read the link I sent, you just keep repeating yourself

[Bobjoy92]

I believe it should be well within anyone's rights to terminate the life of someone who burglarizes their home or steals in any form or fashion. No questions asked. No nonsense about use of excessive force. No BS about whether or not the person was attempting to flee. Bottomline: If you get caught someplace you shouldn't be, the owner of that land and/or that property should have full say whether you live or die.

[dreamstar72]

Your personal property (house, car) then yes shoot to kill, but outside property that a maybe

[Guardian45]

Yes, the rules that permit and enable a pathological-lying, narcissistic psychopath to ruin the country, run its economy into the ground, drag down its citizens, and make America a laughing stock around the world 🌎.

And then the rules that permit and enable elected politicians & corrupt officials that run defense for said COVIDIOT, instead of removing him from office.

The entire lot of them should be thrown in prison and the keys lost FOREVER!

[allaboutyou2]

Hey @Guardian45 your hate is showing.
Your opinions are flawed also.

[Shamalien]

The mask mandates are not technically law, but cops are enforcing them as if they are law. Government has got businesses by the balls telling them to enforce this mandate or they will pay. Well guess what? I go to the store maskless every single time, and everyone there loves me. Why? Because I am polite and friendly. So a word to the wise... if you want to disobey unjust laws, be making friends wherever you go :)

[hellacray]

Let's bring back the death penalty to every state.

Makes no sense to me that we're allowing criminals in prison to continue to commit crimes. And sometimes prisoners are able to command what happens on the streets. And then there's some criminals that gets released and end up back in prison.

Let's trim some of the fat and bring back the death penalty. Make people fear going to prison.

[TeeBar]

The so-called "Hate Speech" legislation that abolishes the right of freedom of speech. It was enacted here under the snowflake guidance of Justin Trudeau. He suffers from being a genetic mix-up: he got his father's hair and his mother's hair.

[NorthShoreCalling]

Not sure off the top of my head without really thinking about it. We’re pretty PC here in the UK now. If anything it’s gone a bit too far the other way.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“Wild camping” is illegal.


Camping needs to be done in specific areas and for limited periods of time.


It’s so weird to me that I can’t just walk off into the bush and live off the land in my own country.

[TraceyByrd]

Abortion , I've seen plenty of female whores that are against it which didn't surprise me 😂💯

[TraceyByrd]

Aren't against it *

[zagor]

So you think laws against abortion should be abolished?

[youreanidiot2]

So you've got no problem with someone visiting another country, raping and murdering people, then fleeing back to the US where they'll be immune from extradition and prosecution. Seriously?

[ADFSDF1996]

Plenty of countries don’t extradite their own citizens among them are Germany, Japan and France.

And I never said the perp shouldn’t be punished, instead he or she needs to be punished in the US by US authorities in accordance with US laws. The only way a US citizen should be tried by foreign authorities is if he or she gets caught in that foreign country. It’s that simple, not hard to understand.

[zagor]

Why should someone be tried in their own country for a crime that happened in another? How would you feel if your sister was murdered by her husband and he then fled to a country where spousal homicide is winked at?

[rjroy3]

Any law or order that provides exemptions to politicians

[msc545]

In these cases, where is the alleged crime committed? In the US, or in the foreign country? If it was committed in the same foreign country that the person is extradited to, the extradition makes more sense.

[slatyb]

The US had extradition treaties with many other countries that allow their citizens to be extradited here for breaking US law.

[BloJo]

Abolish the that takes money from my check. Institute a tax on all purchases. (Excluding food, uncarbonated nonalcoholic beverages, hygiene products, clothing, and maybe a few other essential items.)

[Missycloak]

The only law I hate is the one permitting abortion.

We also should have a fat tax/sugar tax.

[Rangers]

The National Firearms Act, nobody should have to register their personal items with a government held bent on confiscation.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

If that was the case then couldn't people buy guns legally from stores and then sell them to people who wouldn't pass a background check at an inflated price without the fear that the gun could be traced back to them?

[rachedimran]

There's this law that inorder to be involved in sexual intercourse for two consenting individuals, they have to get married first. A man and a woman can not have any kind of relationship other than marriage which is quite absurd for me.

[scorpy04]

Laws are important only infringe on the guilty I had a search for offensive weapon as my relation had a record didn't bothe nevani had nothing to hide

[OddBeMe]

Age of consent laws or parental consent for child marriage. Should 18 across the board. No religious bullshit.

[allaboutyou2]

@OddBeMe "No religious bullshit" is an infringement on peoples rights and liberties.

[OddBeMe]

@allaboutyou2 not when you marry children to old fucks.

[allaboutyou2]

I'm not talking about who should marry who.
I'm saying the statement " No religious bullshit " infringes on peoples rights and liberties.
I can agree that children shouldn't be getting married but one can't be telling others that they can't freely worship how they believe.
Religious freedom is one of the few things that Americans are actually entitled to.

[OddBeMe]

@allaboutyou2 stop wanting to marry children, then we’ll talk.

[allaboutyou2]

I have just stated that I don't agree with children getting married.
So don't put words in my mouth.
You obviously have very little substance to the argument on many subjects because we have debated a few and every one you are accusing me of saying things that I don't say or accusing me of believing what I don't believe.

[dmgstarfleet]

@allaboutyou2 yeah-that should be revisited. That and the 2d Amendment.

[AmeerX]

Cybercrime law let's government to surveillance and also charge you for something you wrote online

[Smaishen]

Bruh , something you wrote online?
Isn't it freedom of speech

[AmeerX]

@Smaishen I am serious. It has been happening since the new law in my country @Smaishen

[Smaishen]

Okay :(

[AmeerX]

@adfsdf1996 if a person is caught in foreign soil committing a crime he should be left at the mercy of that countries' laws

[ADFSDF1996]

@ameerx
Only if they actually were physically present in that country.

[AmeerX]

Of course otherwise many people would be screwed

[monkeynutts]

I think it only applies to members of drug cartels, so who cares about their rights. Fuck em. They don’t care about you.

[JKingOff]

Discrimination against criminal background for employment.

[tHISpLACEiSbONKERZ]

The one where I have to pay 23% tax for anything I buy at the store. Like really? Almost 1/4 of the price for getting to buy a thing? Like WTF?

[BazookaTrouper]

Duty to Retreat, Duty to Care, Duty to Rescue, and Excessive Force (in self defense).

[theBigLoser]

One law i would like overturned is the fact if your turning left in a traffic accident it is automatically your fault

[Agape93]

Restrictions on abortion and birth control.

[allaboutyou2]

Restrictions on abortion are very neccessary but I'm not aware of any restrictions on birth control, most people can get birth control from their high schools or Planned Parenthood.

[Agape93]

Most, not all. Some areas require a parents permission, some simply make it more expensive or less available.

And no, they really aren’t. It’s a method for the government and its people to control a woman’s body. Ones right to control what happens with their body is a fundamental human right. How would you feel if the government had full say in what you did with your own body, because of a medical condition that you’re trying to be cured of, using what would a few weeks prior be considered perfectly acceptable?

[allaboutyou2]

An abortion tips apart a body and it's not "her" body.
The time for a woman to be in full control of her body is before she conceives, afterwards there is more than just her body.
That argument holds no water. Terminating a life because it is "not wanted or not planned " is wrong, if we are permitted to terminate life on convenience then what happens to those in comas or those infirm in nursing homes?
It would be a public outcry if we started killing anyone who might be a "burden " to us or society.
No one would be safe, not the homeless, the old, the disabled.

[Agape93]

It’s inside her body, without her permission. So yes it has to do with removing something from HER body SHE doesn’t want.

It’s not wrong just because you don’t like it. Your morality isn’t the morality of anyone but yourself. I think it’s immoral to birth those that are unwanted and unloved, but you don’t see me trying to push that onto you.

So no, our right to control our bodies doesn’t stop at conception. Also I love how you dodged my question. Answer it.

[allaboutyou2]

There are approximately 2 million families in America waiting to adopt, that baby would be wanted and loved.
I find it humorous that you say my morality shouldn't determine what is acceptable but then go on to say that because you feel it is okay then it should be that way?
The argument that ones beliefs shouldn't say determine what is right or wrong holds no water either because you argue that its acceptable because you think it is right.
So to recap
1,, my body my choice (when it isn't her body being torn apart)
2, child won't be loved and wanted ( 2 million families wanting to show the child more love)
3, my beliefs and values shouldn't dictate what is acceptable but yours should.
Hmm, you see the irony of all the talking points for abortion?

[Agape93]

Sorry for the late reply.

You say that but dozens of thousands each and every year go unadopted, with a fair amount aging out of orphanages each year. So why aren’t those millions getting them?

Correct. Everyone has their own morality, at least mine doesn’t remove someone’s rights to control their own bodies. And before you say that I’m removing a fetuses rights, don’t bother. They have no rights to life until the third trimester.

1. If you’re inside someone without permission, regardless of circumstances, you have no right to live. You can be legally removed with lethal force.

2. Yet many thousands are never adopted each year.

3. It’s better than yours. I’m not after turning half the population into broodmares

[allaboutyou2]

Abortion removes the rights of the unborn over their body. If you say no one should have a control over someone else's body how do you justify a procedure that results in a torn apart body that isn't hers?

[Agape93]

Except they have no rights, especially no right to occupy someone’s body without permission. Just like with literally anything and anyone else, occupying someone’s body without their permission is grounds for them to be removed by lethal force.

[allaboutyou2]

Then if they have no rights please explain how many people have been convicted of double homicide when they have killed a pregnant woman?
They obviously do have rights or it wouldn't be a double homicide.

[Agape93]

Simple. That occurs when the woman is in the third trimester, when the fetus is externally viable. That’s also when abortion is not performed.

Even still, they still have no right to occupy someone else’s body. They can be removed for medical emergencies anyways at that stage.

[allaboutyou2]

Inconvenience is not a medical emergency

[Agape93]

I never said it was. Inconvenience is covered during the first two trimesters.

[allaboutyou2]

So you are saying that it is acceptable to take a life because it is inconvenient?
Another fact, babies born in the second trimester have survived and grown to be productive human beings, so the argument that the baby is only viable in the third trimester is miss guided at best and a big lie at worse.

[Agape93]

Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. There’s other motivations to do it, but I’m just using it as a placeholder.

Also just because it can doesn’t mean a thing. It’s called premature for a reason. Also it is irrelevant as it is still not legally externally viable in the second trimester. So it still has no rights and no rights to occupy someone’s body without their permission. Literally nobody has that right.

[Agape93]

Look I get it, you don’t like abortion. That’s your right. But just because it upsets your sensibilities doesn’t mean a damn thing to anyone else.

[allaboutyou2]

So where do you draw the line of taking an inconvenient life?
A person in a coma, people on ventilators and life support?
Homeless people?
People who are a drain ok n society by taking long term assistance from the government with no intention to contribute to the community?
Old people needing to be in a nursing home?
People with disabilities?
All of the above could be considered an inconvenience by some people. What determines the value of a life? Who determines the value of a life?

[Agape93]

When the life is no longer inside someone without that persons permission. That’s where I draw my line.

Hon, humans have no inherent value. We have lived on this earth for 250,000 years. In that time we have had approximately 100,000,000,000 humans born and died. We aren’t special. We aren’t valuable. We are animals that use tools. Hell chimps use tools and recently orangutans officially entered the Stone Age.

[allaboutyou2]

It's sad that you think that you have no value, very sad.
I'm glad I have a higher opinion on the value of your life than you do of yourself. I think every life is valuable, so does every rational caring individual.

[Agape93]

I said no inherent value. The value we have is what we give to others and ourselves. That’s it.

That’s good, I’m glad you embrace your beliefs on the matter :) one does not need to agree in order to be respectful

[allaboutyou2]

" The value we have is what we give to others and ourselves. That’s it."
The statement you made contradicts yourself, babies give unconditional love to their caregivers, give incomparable joy and pride if given a chance.
Ask yourself this, what if the person who would develop the cure for cancer has been aborted?
No one can predict what the aborted child could have accomplished to change the world and make it a better place.

[Agape93]

No it doesn’t :/ I said we have no INHERENT value, I never said we had no value at all.

Oh lord the cancer crap again. Oh well. Statistically more likely to be a murderer. So how would you feel if I aborted the next Ed gein or Edmund kemper?
But you’re right, we have no way to know. Oh well.

[Agape93]

Just as a heads up, sentimentalism doesn’t work on me. I don’t have the best track record with empathy.

[allaboutyou2]

Murderers are created by society while geniuses are born. So that argument is redundant.

[allaboutyou2]

I'm not trying to be sentimental, I'm being rational.

[Agape93]

That’s why I said we have no way to know.

No you’re not. Sometimes, with that cancer cure bit and that part about babies giving unconditional love is sent. That is called casuistry, which relies on emotional stimulation to make an argument. So I was letting you know it doesn’t work on me so you don’t waste your time.

[allaboutyou2]

I never waste my time. I don't rely on emotions for anything I debate, I use rationality and common sense, rationality and common sense is constant while emotions are inconsistent at best.

[Agape93]

Then why are you trying to appeal to emotions with the cancer cure argument and bringing up babies giving love? That isn’t based in rationalism.

[Agape93]

But if you want to continue as you have, do as thou wilt.

[allaboutyou2]

The cancer cure has nothing to do with emotions, if emotions could help cure cancer we wouldn't still be trying to cure it, rational people question actions and common sense dictates that with around 600,000 abortions each year, that is millions of people over a decade, the chances of a person out of millions being the one that could be the one that could discover the cure for cancer and other issues facing our world, is a definite possibility.

[Agape93]

It does because it is supposed to elicit reactions of “oh shit what if I killed the one who could save millions?”. It plays on guilt and fear.

True. And imagine how many potential serial killers, drug addicts, rapists and joe schmos are aborted each year.
Genius means nothing. Edmund kemper had a wickedly high IQ, and he was a serial killer. So did Ted Bundy. Or Josef mengele. Or Herman goerring. Or lavrentiy Beria. The chances, whilst real, that he could be a curer of cancer, it’s slim at most.

[allaboutyou2]

All above were not "born" rapists, murderers etc. The society they grew up in created it. So a murder can't be aborted because babies aren't born murderers. On the other hand society could reduce murderers by not being broken or not caring. Murder and rape are results of dysfunction. Society can stop dysfunction.

[spartan55]

How often does that actually happen though?

[ADFSDF1996]

It’s very rare but unfortunately still possible for the US government to do that.

[spartan55]

I agree.

[Titanic1912]

Abortion should be made illegal!

[Cat_Frank]

What makes you say that?

[Titanic1912]

@Cat_Frank because abortion is murder.

[Liam_Hayden]

Every victimless crime should be abolished.

[Pete671]

UK - ban on handguns,,,

[Iron_Man]

I don’t like same sex marriage

[Dchrls78104]

Neither do I.

[Iron_Man]

Good

[Iron_Man]

What about girl on girl porn some blue anon guy like 8 weeks ago told me he likes that but never in real life in a question

[Dchrls78104]

@IronMan another disgusting and degenerate practice, this time involving female homos.

[Iron_Man]

Those are fake people putting on a fake front it's not real life. The do it to please men porn watchers. But of course they are disgusting filthy

[ManHater]

Islam

[TwoToTooTutu2]

Roe V Wade.

[dmgstarfleet]

How about we enforce separation of church and state instead? Almost ALL the anti-abortion crowd are religious fanatics.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

Well separation of Church and State is enforced, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion denies the Constitutional right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness to millions of people each year.

[dmgstarfleet]

said the religous fanatic-we athiest don't see ANY attempt at separation of church and state, especially among Republicans where the evangelicals have become Christo-Fascists

[TwoToTooTutu2]

You don't even know if I have any religion. You're just acting like a Nazi straight up. Go zeig heil your way to the loser's corner. Because both the Ruskis and Jerries lost the war.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

I guarantee you don't understand what separation means. You probably think that Chinese forced secularism is the only way to separate Church and State.

[dmgstarfleet]

You’re a moron. Even if the right wing hacks appointed to the Supreme Court overturns it Abortion will be protected by legislation-70% want Abortion Rights protected; only the Christo-Fascist minority want it overturned.

[pizzalovershouse]

can't say

[jakesow]

Prostitution.

[grega239]

Gender quotas.

[Jltakk]

The Patriot Act.

[legalboxers]

wtf...