27 Oct 05
Originally posted by catfoodtimyes we are all doomed!! But please dont get your info from the internet; the most unreliable news source. Especially from the bbc of all places, come on man. Try a some what more middle of the road site like www.radicalliberal.com or something.
[b]first of all dna has not even been proven yet to even be able to show that one is succeptible to any illness yet.
[i]
"Insurers in the UK are to be allowed to use genetic test results to identify people with hereditary illnesses.
The government will announce on Friday that insurers will be able to use those results to refuse cover or to pu ...[text shortened]... just paranoia.[/b]
ha!
i think they are out to get us all! you too newdad! you too!
😉[/b]
27 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672sas...i do like you and you offer good debating points, but the aclu is the most radical left outfit in america. Sourcing should be done from a credible source. That goes for everyone.
Kyl and Cornyn both smoke crack. Tomorrow, a few of their buddies will be having this happen to them. And I can't wait. CAN'T WAIT.
27 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672i'm not debating facts but when a radical left source is used as evidence of something it calls into question the info obtained there. In addtion, any conclusions made on such site will be slanted to the agenda of that site.
I don't understand. Two US senators proposed an amendment to a bill which would allow the federal government to collect DNA evidence from people accused of federal felonies. Are you saying that these two guys did not do that?
p.s. i do think such dna evidence should be collected
27 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by newdad27I think you're missing the point there newdad. Legislation is a matter of public record. Those sources were used simply because they were the first three to confirm. They didn't just make that up ya know. I also included USA Today. Are they just another liberal rag too?
i'm not debating facts but when a radical left source is used as evidence of something it calls into question the info obtained there. In addtion, any conclusions made on such site will be slanted to the agenda of that site.
p.s. i do think such dna evidence should be collected
So what's a credible source? Should I call the Senators and ask them personally? 🙂
EDIT: I missed your DNA answer. Yeah, I still don't know. I see the good in it, but I also see all of the bad this can do. Tough to weigh those two against each other for me.
28 Oct 05
Originally posted by wibthe sheep are being led into the slaughterhouse - does it seem a tad convenient - govt saying "we need to take away your liberty because of the scourge of drugs, yeah, thats the ticket - no, violence against women - we cant have that can we? - I mean, terrorism, terrrrrrorism is what must be squelched...." - come on - are you people really being fooled by this nonsense - all the legislation in this post is unconstitutional on its face - but thats no problem for the enemy within our gates (what gates?) - they will do it anyway - Cornyn may well be placed on the US Supreme Court - you heard it here first 🙂
The White House has announced it supports the "DNA Fingerprint Act," a proposed new law that would permit the government to collect and maintain a database of DNA samples of individuals who are arrested or just detained by federal authorities -- even if they are not
convicted, or even charged with a crime.
This latest Big Brother-type proposal was authored ...[text shortened]... Against Women Act (S. 1197). It was
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote.
http://infowars.com
http://sceb.m2ktalk.com:8010/
