(Bible as source) I have learned that Jesus Christ established His Church on earth by training 12 disciples/apostles. I have also learned that these 12 disciples licensed other disciples (Paul's letters to these disciples he trained).
(Early Church fathers as source) I have learned that His Church has always contained the Truth and the Tradition Christ established through these apostles. Groups of dissenters would pop up once in awhile and Christ's apostolic Church would be sure to clarify that they were heretics and note that they were not truly Christians. The ancient Christian Church was 1st divided by disagreement over the filoque and then there was a new church called Orthodox. In the 1500s, Luther accidentally inspired another new church to be started. Then it got out of control and many new churches started. My Evangelical friend says she is inspired by the Holy Spirit when she reads the Bible and she extracts that there is only one church. Why can't I get her to face reality?|||You should be aware that, from the Orthodox Church's perspective, it was the Roman Catholic Church which broke away from Orthodoxy. After all, the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed did not have a "filioque" clause, nor did the whole ecumenical Church ever agree in council to include the "filioque" in the creed. Rather, the "filioque" was a Roman innovation which the rest of Orthodoxy rejected on account of its theological impact on the equality of the Holy Spirit with the other two persons of the divine Trinity.|||if the church started now not 2000 years ago it will be clased as a cult now run by 12 nutters|||The reality is that the Church is like a Tree.
The Tree started in the Old Testament growing up all the way to the day of Pentecost where the Fruits were manifested.
Then there was a period of darkness which was the Dark Ages. That was when the Seed was planted into the ground again and began to grow up through Polycarp, St. Patrick, Martin Luter, John Wesley, and many early Pentecostal preachers too. The Tree has been growing in knowledge and grace and the Fruits of the Spirit are just about ready to be picked again at the Top of the Tree in another original restoration of the Original gifts that were given at the Upper Room.
It's one Church that God has been building up in various ways and degrees throughout various places in the world.
It started in the east on the eastern people in Jerusalem, came down through Germany with Martin Luter, through England with John Wesley, and
finally here at the western hemisphere of the USA.
"There shall be Light in the evening time"
He doesn't come for a literal building "church"
The one Church is the people themselves who have made themselves ready to be One with Him in His Word.|||Your friend is believing that there is only one church because there is only one church, the people that believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and the original teachings of Jesus Christ.|||As I see it, Christ was into "theonomization" and shared fellowship with in the "body of God's church" on Earth. I don't reall him saying that "Verily,verily I say unot you, Ye all must create a theocracy that rules with an iron fist, in My Name - despite the fact that you all are fallible and veritable goofballs!" Your friend may just be trying to get back to the times of the early Christians predating the first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine|||Stop putting so much effort into trying to change your friend's point of view.|||I think we as people should stop obsessing about how other people practice their beliefs or what denomination they belong to, or how the church was in the past, and look at our own lives as believers.
What it comes down to is this: do we accept or reject Jesus Christ as Lord, fully God and fully human, as the One who died a horrible, brutal death for our sins past, present, and future for all mankind so we could go to heaven...and not hell.|||As the church grew throughout the known world many Local Churches popped up. Paul was commissioned to preach by the church in Epeiphes. The apostles didn't even send him out. The idea that the church has central control outside of Christ himself is in error. A believer is a King and a priest to God. What more authority does one need than that?|||When you consider that "The Church" is the body of Christ, then it is simple. There is one church, one God, one way.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Dont you think parenting should be licensed?
How many of you can relate to this?
New blood joins this earth
and quickly he's subdued
through constant pain disgrace
a young boy learns their rules
with time the child draws in
this whipping boy done wrong
deprived of all his thoughts
the young man struggles on and on he's known
oo a vow onto his own
that never from this day
his will they'll take away
what I've felt
what I've known
never shined through in what I've shown
never be
never see
won't see what might have been
they dedicate their lives
to running all of his
he tries to please them all
this bitter man he is
throughout his life the same
he's battled constantly
this fight he cannot win
a tired man they see no longer cares
the old man then prepares
to die regretfully
that old man it was me|||I think that you should be required to get a license to reproduce. We already have too many people in the world anyway, so we certainly don't need anymore bad ones who were raised by people with poor parenting skills.
But, in order to make parenting and reproduction a licensable thing, you'd first have to figure out how children should be raised. Everyone has their own idea. Some of them are great, some are terrible. There's no one right way. If there was a licensing program for parenthood, I think it should focus on:
A. Do you have the financial resources to adequately provide for a child?
B. Do you understand how children's mind's work? (Maybe make all people who want to have a kid take a child psychology class or something)|||METALLICA. I wish however unpractical as it may be.|||That would be awesome. You need a license for everything else.|||Parenting should not be licensed because we could not come to an agreement on what standards make good parenting. Parenting should be upgraded through educational efforts in schools and churches.
My simplistic theme to any parental education would be that we need to overcome selfishness. The child's needs are important. Then we get into what the child truly needs..... many will start disagreeing on points here. I will say that the child's primary need is to love God. The parent's job is to slowly help the child decrease a need/dependence for the parents and increase a need/dependence on God.|||Heavens, no - one more thing for the government to screw up. We've seen how well they've done with licensing drivers. And doctors. And licensing marriage.
Start by making them license politicians and see how well that works. Then perhaps licensing prostitution. Then maybe we can talk about licensing reproduction.|||i can relate, but the thing is i have a rebel soul. just like james hetfield - who sings this. all that restrictiveness certainly didn't quelch his ambition to prevail.... and apparently he has! children need a certain level of restriction to learn boundaries - but apparently this song takes the restrictiveness to an extreme. if you think about it, you are suggesting that the government restrict the people when it comes to the choice of becomming a parent. that is ironic, considering what the song is about. we are all dealt a certain hand and it's up to each of us to do the best we can with it. there are some horrible parents out there, but the best we can do is overcome it and vow to do better with our own children.
New blood joins this earth
and quickly he's subdued
through constant pain disgrace
a young boy learns their rules
with time the child draws in
this whipping boy done wrong
deprived of all his thoughts
the young man struggles on and on he's known
oo a vow onto his own
that never from this day
his will they'll take away
what I've felt
what I've known
never shined through in what I've shown
never be
never see
won't see what might have been
they dedicate their lives
to running all of his
he tries to please them all
this bitter man he is
throughout his life the same
he's battled constantly
this fight he cannot win
a tired man they see no longer cares
the old man then prepares
to die regretfully
that old man it was me|||I think that you should be required to get a license to reproduce. We already have too many people in the world anyway, so we certainly don't need anymore bad ones who were raised by people with poor parenting skills.
But, in order to make parenting and reproduction a licensable thing, you'd first have to figure out how children should be raised. Everyone has their own idea. Some of them are great, some are terrible. There's no one right way. If there was a licensing program for parenthood, I think it should focus on:
A. Do you have the financial resources to adequately provide for a child?
B. Do you understand how children's mind's work? (Maybe make all people who want to have a kid take a child psychology class or something)|||METALLICA. I wish however unpractical as it may be.|||That would be awesome. You need a license for everything else.|||Parenting should not be licensed because we could not come to an agreement on what standards make good parenting. Parenting should be upgraded through educational efforts in schools and churches.
My simplistic theme to any parental education would be that we need to overcome selfishness. The child's needs are important. Then we get into what the child truly needs..... many will start disagreeing on points here. I will say that the child's primary need is to love God. The parent's job is to slowly help the child decrease a need/dependence for the parents and increase a need/dependence on God.|||Heavens, no - one more thing for the government to screw up. We've seen how well they've done with licensing drivers. And doctors. And licensing marriage.
Start by making them license politicians and see how well that works. Then perhaps licensing prostitution. Then maybe we can talk about licensing reproduction.|||i can relate, but the thing is i have a rebel soul. just like james hetfield - who sings this. all that restrictiveness certainly didn't quelch his ambition to prevail.... and apparently he has! children need a certain level of restriction to learn boundaries - but apparently this song takes the restrictiveness to an extreme. if you think about it, you are suggesting that the government restrict the people when it comes to the choice of becomming a parent. that is ironic, considering what the song is about. we are all dealt a certain hand and it's up to each of us to do the best we can with it. there are some horrible parents out there, but the best we can do is overcome it and vow to do better with our own children.
Where can i buy a jerboa rodent?
this is a picture of one:
http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/photos/and鈥?/a>
I really want one because they are so cute. If this is an illegal form of trade or you have to have a license to own one please tell me but i think they are the cutest things on earth and i recently lost my pet rabbit so i want one!
thanks guys|||Why don't you just get another pet rabbit?? They are so cute, so much cuter than a jerboa rodent?
if you insist, try this.........I saw a similar question here.........
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind鈥?/a>
good luck|||You might want to read this article first. It says, in part, "During the 1990s, desert jumping rodents called jerboas were imported to Texas from Egypt as pets, according to Alan Green, a wildlife expert. Many new owners fell ill with a strange rash that defied treatment." http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/gener鈥?/a>
That article also states:
"A wild animal will be in the bush, and in less than a week it's in a little girl's bedroom," said Darin Carroll, a disease hunter with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
While exotic pets from Africa, Asia and South America can be cute and fashionable, scientists fear that bacteria and viruses they carry can jump to humans and native animals. Recent statistics raise the alarm.
Zoonotic diseases 鈥?those that jump to humans 鈥?account for three quarters of all emerging infectious threats, the CDC says. Five of the six diseases the agency regards as top threats to national security are zoonotic, and the CDC recently opened a center to better prepare and monitor such diseases.
The Journal of Internal Medicine this month estimated that 50 million people worldwide have been infected with zoonotic diseases since 2000 and as many as 78,000 have died.
U.S. experts don't have complete totals for Americans, but partial numbers paint a serious picture:
Hantavirus, which is carried by rodents and can cause acute respiratory problems or death, has sickened at least 317 Americans and killed at least 93 since 1996.
More than 770 people have been sickened since 2000 with tularemia, a virulent disease that can be contracted from rabbits, hamsters and other rodents. At least three people have died. The plague, another animal-born disease, has sickened at least 22 Americans and killed at least one.
Three transplant patients in New England died last year after receiving organs from a human donor who had been infected with the lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus from a pet hamster. There have been 34 U.S. cases since 1993.
More than 210,000 Americans were sickened between 2000 and 2004 with salmonella, and at least 89 died. Most infections come from contaminated food 鈥?but up to 5 percent have been linked to pets, especially such reptiles as iguanas and turtles. And last year, at least 30 people in 10 states were sickened with a drug-resistant form linked to hamsters and other rodent "pocket pets."
Some of the scariest diseases to emerge since 2001 also have been tied to exotic animals: One of the first times the deadly Asian bird flu reached the West was in eagles smuggled aboard a plane to Europe. Likewise, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, is believed to have jumped to people from caged civet cats in a Chinese market. The cats are believed to have gotten the virus from bats."
I would advise anyone interested in having an exotic pet to consider the risks.|||Margecut, who actually reads those long answers? geez.
Just purchase a rodent that isn't so hard to find.
http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/photos/and鈥?/a>
I really want one because they are so cute. If this is an illegal form of trade or you have to have a license to own one please tell me but i think they are the cutest things on earth and i recently lost my pet rabbit so i want one!
thanks guys|||Why don't you just get another pet rabbit?? They are so cute, so much cuter than a jerboa rodent?
if you insist, try this.........I saw a similar question here.........
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind鈥?/a>
good luck|||You might want to read this article first. It says, in part, "During the 1990s, desert jumping rodents called jerboas were imported to Texas from Egypt as pets, according to Alan Green, a wildlife expert. Many new owners fell ill with a strange rash that defied treatment." http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/gener鈥?/a>
That article also states:
"A wild animal will be in the bush, and in less than a week it's in a little girl's bedroom," said Darin Carroll, a disease hunter with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
While exotic pets from Africa, Asia and South America can be cute and fashionable, scientists fear that bacteria and viruses they carry can jump to humans and native animals. Recent statistics raise the alarm.
Zoonotic diseases 鈥?those that jump to humans 鈥?account for three quarters of all emerging infectious threats, the CDC says. Five of the six diseases the agency regards as top threats to national security are zoonotic, and the CDC recently opened a center to better prepare and monitor such diseases.
The Journal of Internal Medicine this month estimated that 50 million people worldwide have been infected with zoonotic diseases since 2000 and as many as 78,000 have died.
U.S. experts don't have complete totals for Americans, but partial numbers paint a serious picture:
Hantavirus, which is carried by rodents and can cause acute respiratory problems or death, has sickened at least 317 Americans and killed at least 93 since 1996.
More than 770 people have been sickened since 2000 with tularemia, a virulent disease that can be contracted from rabbits, hamsters and other rodents. At least three people have died. The plague, another animal-born disease, has sickened at least 22 Americans and killed at least one.
Three transplant patients in New England died last year after receiving organs from a human donor who had been infected with the lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus from a pet hamster. There have been 34 U.S. cases since 1993.
More than 210,000 Americans were sickened between 2000 and 2004 with salmonella, and at least 89 died. Most infections come from contaminated food 鈥?but up to 5 percent have been linked to pets, especially such reptiles as iguanas and turtles. And last year, at least 30 people in 10 states were sickened with a drug-resistant form linked to hamsters and other rodent "pocket pets."
Some of the scariest diseases to emerge since 2001 also have been tied to exotic animals: One of the first times the deadly Asian bird flu reached the West was in eagles smuggled aboard a plane to Europe. Likewise, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, is believed to have jumped to people from caged civet cats in a Chinese market. The cats are believed to have gotten the virus from bats."
I would advise anyone interested in having an exotic pet to consider the risks.|||Margecut, who actually reads those long answers? geez.
Just purchase a rodent that isn't so hard to find.
They say the average person has over 250 numbers associated with their existence on Planet Earth?
(Suddenly looking down at my license and credit cards...OMG!...Mine are all 6's...They're all 6's!...Now screaming in horror...)
Happy Halloween Everyone...How are ya' doin' tonight...?
Welcome to MY world, folks...Welcome to Damn Laid Back's Lair of Evil...(demented laughter)...tonight we well "scare" each other with our "L"oven"...that's...a play on words with "love" and "oven..." Get it? Boo!)
(Looking around now in stunned terror)..
"Well...We're gonna need more booze than this, people..."|||I was kidnapped as a baby. They hid messages in my diapers. I escaped through the bath water.|||happy halloween|||i love my oven. how's that?|||Mine are all 11's.|||Welcome to the Matrix
111000100001010010100101001010
000110010101001010010100010100
010100101001001100010010010010
110011001010110110101001111001
100101010010101001001010010010
101010100100101001000100100100
010100101001001100010010010010
110011001010110110101001111001
100101010010101001001010010010
101010100100101001000100100100
010100101001001100010010010010
110011001010110110101001111001
100101010010101001001010010010
101010100100101001000100100100|||Is that what the matrix looks like Tyler?
Looks like basic computer programming to me.
Happy Halloween|||but are the 6's tattooed on some part of your hot bod ?
i f so,then I'd be scared,and have to go find a sharp wooden stake and mallet,to save us all,nothin personal ya know.|||I'll take mine straight up...
What can I bring?|||Doing well, thanks. Bring that booze over here, will you? Yamster's the devil!|||Yamster's dinner tonight. Hairy rat that he is.|||Added together they still don't
add up to 10.|||I have over 350 people in the address book of my Blackberry. Do you think I have too many, should i start cutting people off?|||you have an issue with 6's??
Damn!
we could always use more booze
I hate you for making me think of number so early in the morn.|||Hey there sexy!
Happy Halloween Everyone...How are ya' doin' tonight...?
Welcome to MY world, folks...Welcome to Damn Laid Back's Lair of Evil...(demented laughter)...tonight we well "scare" each other with our "L"oven"...that's...a play on words with "love" and "oven..." Get it? Boo!)
(Looking around now in stunned terror)..
"Well...We're gonna need more booze than this, people..."|||I was kidnapped as a baby. They hid messages in my diapers. I escaped through the bath water.|||happy halloween|||i love my oven. how's that?|||Mine are all 11's.|||Welcome to the Matrix
111000100001010010100101001010
000110010101001010010100010100
010100101001001100010010010010
110011001010110110101001111001
100101010010101001001010010010
101010100100101001000100100100
010100101001001100010010010010
110011001010110110101001111001
100101010010101001001010010010
101010100100101001000100100100
010100101001001100010010010010
110011001010110110101001111001
100101010010101001001010010010
101010100100101001000100100100|||Is that what the matrix looks like Tyler?
Looks like basic computer programming to me.
Happy Halloween|||but are the 6's tattooed on some part of your hot bod ?
i f so,then I'd be scared,and have to go find a sharp wooden stake and mallet,to save us all,nothin personal ya know.|||I'll take mine straight up...
What can I bring?|||Doing well, thanks. Bring that booze over here, will you? Yamster's the devil!|||Yamster's dinner tonight. Hairy rat that he is.|||Added together they still don't
add up to 10.|||I have over 350 people in the address book of my Blackberry. Do you think I have too many, should i start cutting people off?|||you have an issue with 6's??
Damn!
we could always use more booze
I hate you for making me think of number so early in the morn.|||Hey there sexy!
Is it legal to send/transmit one-way signals to space?
Before you tell me about how all Radio,TV, satellite transmissions/signals are unwittingly sent (leaked) to space as well, let me clarify my question. ... What I am asking is: Can you "legally" transmit signals to deep space without them being meant to be picked up on Earth by a receiver (i.e. a TV, a radio, a satellite, etc.)? Or is there a law against a one-way transmission to space? ... Also, do you need an FCC license of sorts to transmit signals to deep space? Serious answers only please. In other words, kindly refrain from cute, "ET call home" commentaries :-)|||The radio spectrum is shared among nations of the world and there are certain frequency allocations agreed to by all the countries. Subsequently, each country allocates those frequencies to their people based on the initial shared agreements across the world.
In the US, the frequencies are allocated to users via FCC licensing. To do any transmitting here, you need a valid license except for some experimenters bands around 1750 kHz (limit .1 watts) plus a few others and of course for personal communications devices like portable phones and cell phones and some hobbies but once again the power is very limited there...
The FCC doesn't care where you think you're transmitting energy. It's the frequency they worry about and even with the most sophisticated of antennas, you will always leak radio signals in every direction. If they catch you transmitting (they have a pretty broad monitoring system) they may warn you or if you're interfering with commercial or emergency communications they may go straight for litigation and impose fine up to tens of thousands of dollars.and possible jail sentence if you lose the case.
Anyways to get any decent signal out, you need a few million watts, and an array of dish antennas and even if you have a sophisticated receiver on the other end, your signal will be corrupted by galactic noises and signal attenuation and the only way someone can pull your signal out of the noise it to know exactly what pattern you are sending and precisely on what frequency.|||yes ,and some people use light as well, and all and all people do it all the time and some trying to here somethink back the big ear that was in ohio did some of this, you way go on line and look up .|||If you transmit from a normal transmitter its going to be picked up on earth. How much of earth will pick it up depends on the strenght of your signal. Any transmitter from a ham radio on up you need a liscense from the FCC. Aside from that if you find a transmitter strong enough and get a liscense to transmit on a specific frequency then yes you can legally transmit. No law against trying to send a message. Ive thought about trying to do that myself. Going to be expensive though. A 100k watt radio station has a limited range.|||It would depend what part of the radio frequency spectrum you use in the U.S. Most of it is regulated by the FCC; an unlicensed operator or one who is in violation of FCC regulations is at some risk of having his transmitter confiscated IF he interferes with the authorized use of band on which he's transmitting. That being said, lots of "ham" operators are into "moon-bounce" transmissions, where they literally use the earth's moon as their communications satellite (it takes a LOT of power). Ham operators are generally limited to 1500 watts of power. That may not sound like much, but my own handheld tranceiver only requires 5 watts of power, so 1500 can be a lot. It's not a question of whether you intend the signals to be received, but whether you interfere with the legally-assigned usage of the frequency you've chosen that really matters, and most transmissions of any real power do require some sort of license to produce, except in an emergency situation.
I'm including a link to the FCC's frequency allocation chart to give you a better idea of what's going on out there in the "ether" ;-)|||That redio waves are of some special type and huge such that satellites or tv do not catch it. ( they are huge) if it is catched by any satellite, it ignores it bcoz there are no settings in that satellite where to transmit that wave....
the radio waves cannot reach at any specific place because of dark matter..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dark matter|||Its illegal.|||Its so way legal.
In the US, the frequencies are allocated to users via FCC licensing. To do any transmitting here, you need a valid license except for some experimenters bands around 1750 kHz (limit .1 watts) plus a few others and of course for personal communications devices like portable phones and cell phones and some hobbies but once again the power is very limited there...
The FCC doesn't care where you think you're transmitting energy. It's the frequency they worry about and even with the most sophisticated of antennas, you will always leak radio signals in every direction. If they catch you transmitting (they have a pretty broad monitoring system) they may warn you or if you're interfering with commercial or emergency communications they may go straight for litigation and impose fine up to tens of thousands of dollars.and possible jail sentence if you lose the case.
Anyways to get any decent signal out, you need a few million watts, and an array of dish antennas and even if you have a sophisticated receiver on the other end, your signal will be corrupted by galactic noises and signal attenuation and the only way someone can pull your signal out of the noise it to know exactly what pattern you are sending and precisely on what frequency.|||yes ,and some people use light as well, and all and all people do it all the time and some trying to here somethink back the big ear that was in ohio did some of this, you way go on line and look up .|||If you transmit from a normal transmitter its going to be picked up on earth. How much of earth will pick it up depends on the strenght of your signal. Any transmitter from a ham radio on up you need a liscense from the FCC. Aside from that if you find a transmitter strong enough and get a liscense to transmit on a specific frequency then yes you can legally transmit. No law against trying to send a message. Ive thought about trying to do that myself. Going to be expensive though. A 100k watt radio station has a limited range.|||It would depend what part of the radio frequency spectrum you use in the U.S. Most of it is regulated by the FCC; an unlicensed operator or one who is in violation of FCC regulations is at some risk of having his transmitter confiscated IF he interferes with the authorized use of band on which he's transmitting. That being said, lots of "ham" operators are into "moon-bounce" transmissions, where they literally use the earth's moon as their communications satellite (it takes a LOT of power). Ham operators are generally limited to 1500 watts of power. That may not sound like much, but my own handheld tranceiver only requires 5 watts of power, so 1500 can be a lot. It's not a question of whether you intend the signals to be received, but whether you interfere with the legally-assigned usage of the frequency you've chosen that really matters, and most transmissions of any real power do require some sort of license to produce, except in an emergency situation.
I'm including a link to the FCC's frequency allocation chart to give you a better idea of what's going on out there in the "ether" ;-)|||That redio waves are of some special type and huge such that satellites or tv do not catch it. ( they are huge) if it is catched by any satellite, it ignores it bcoz there are no settings in that satellite where to transmit that wave....
the radio waves cannot reach at any specific place because of dark matter..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dark matter|||Its illegal.|||Its so way legal.
What would you have penalties be for DUI"S?
Ok, in the world where I am Earth Czar this is what I think might happen with DUI offenders.
1st offence (No wreck involved): fine and community service working with police like ride alongs or with people who have been hit by drunk drivers
1st offence (Wreck) bigger fine, lose of driving privledges for 6 months with 6 months of ride alongs/community service
1st offence (death) lose of license. You most continue to work/ and live at a shelter, you must pay to live at shelter You have visitation with family but nothing except work and shelter. You are basically on house arrest just not in your house. You work so you continue to provide for your family but you also have to give a percentage to a fund that pays families funeral expenses and helps families devatstated by DUI. If you choose not to work and be in the house you go to jail for 20 years. NO chances
This is just a short outline not a complete thought but people are tired of multiply DUI's and noone caring Thoughts/Idea|||1ST offense - Fine, loss of license for 6 monthes
2ND offense - Fine, Jail Time, loss of license for 1 year
3RD offense - Fine, jail time, loss of license indefinitely
*The length of time between offenses should NOT matter. 3 strikes and you're out, period.|||1st offense, 30 days in jail with Hillary naked
2nd offense 90 days in jail with Ruth Bader Ginsburgh Naked
There would be no 3rd offenses, no body is that much of
an alcoholic .|||1st offense-go directly to jail-no if's and's or but's-for 3 months solid. right on the spot u go 2 jail
2nd offense-go 2 jail for 3 years-no reduced sentence, good behavior, or any of that crap.(this is assuming u did not kill anyone when u got the dui)
I know a guy who is finally now going to jail after his 4TH DUI!!!!!! 4TH! and only sentenced 2 years-he will b out in 9 months! he'll probably do it again only this time kill a family in a minivan or something. god love our court systems. if he would have been caught with pot though he'd be locked up for 15 years. what the hell is wrong with our government?|||take away there car and give them a bus pass blacklisting them from purchasing a car or renting a car for a year and punish those willing to loan them the use of thier car with heavy fines|||First offense, your driven 20 miles from your car and ordered to walk back to it, works in Turkey.|||1st Offense - 20 lashes with a whip across the back.
2nd Offense - Pistol Whipping by arresting officer and any other available officers they can call.
3rd Offense - Pretty much death, if you have not learned your lesson by now.
Make it publicly well known what the penalty is, and bad, will cut bad on it.|||1st , 2 nd , 3 rd Offense...... 1 year in Jail and lost of lic.
3 years in jail and lost of lic..
LIFE|||1st offense, Life in prison.|||Simple... if you drink and drive the first offense (over the legal BAC limit because you willfully and with afore thought consumed enough alcohol to place you over the limit and you were driving impaired) penalty should be instant withdrawal of your driving privileges (total ban - not just a "restricted license" which allows you to drive to work) for 6 months. If you drive during this period your driving privileges should be suspended for a further six months.
If you re-offend you should receive a driving ban of ten years plus 6 month jail term. If during either the first or any subsequent offenses, an injury or wreck is the result then Instant 10 year ban plus 5 years jail time and pay restitution to any victims.
If the penalties are stiff enough then maybe idiots won't drink and drive.|||hey CHRIS, don't really care if anything happens to YOU if you drive drunk, but i do care about innocent people,,,by the way until you have a family member killed by a drunk driver (like myself and countless others), i believe you will remain an a**hole|||I've got a great punishment for drunk drivers: Civic Service.
Make them spend their weekend nights giving free rides to all the other drunks that are out partying. Have them check in with the police officer in the area and do a breathalyzer (to jail if they fail.)
It reduces drunk driving by keeping *new* drunks out from behind the wheel and the guy already caught has to put up with a bunch of drunks.
Saves a bunch of lives, but probably wouldn't bring in as much revenue. Taxi companies would probably protest as well.|||Well DUI just means driving under the influence.
Hence, nobody was drunk. If they were they would be DWI.
I think for a DUI the cop should pour out the beer or whatever on the side of the road and give the empty trash back to the driver.
It's really not that big of a deal. Many people can handle A beer.
Think about how many times you drank 1 beer and were just fine on the road. It's not big deal. It's just blown out of proportion.|||There should be no penalties for DUI. If people want to drink a few and get behind the wheel then that's their own business you nazi.
1st offence (No wreck involved): fine and community service working with police like ride alongs or with people who have been hit by drunk drivers
1st offence (Wreck) bigger fine, lose of driving privledges for 6 months with 6 months of ride alongs/community service
1st offence (death) lose of license. You most continue to work/ and live at a shelter, you must pay to live at shelter You have visitation with family but nothing except work and shelter. You are basically on house arrest just not in your house. You work so you continue to provide for your family but you also have to give a percentage to a fund that pays families funeral expenses and helps families devatstated by DUI. If you choose not to work and be in the house you go to jail for 20 years. NO chances
This is just a short outline not a complete thought but people are tired of multiply DUI's and noone caring Thoughts/Idea|||1ST offense - Fine, loss of license for 6 monthes
2ND offense - Fine, Jail Time, loss of license for 1 year
3RD offense - Fine, jail time, loss of license indefinitely
*The length of time between offenses should NOT matter. 3 strikes and you're out, period.|||1st offense, 30 days in jail with Hillary naked
2nd offense 90 days in jail with Ruth Bader Ginsburgh Naked
There would be no 3rd offenses, no body is that much of
an alcoholic .|||1st offense-go directly to jail-no if's and's or but's-for 3 months solid. right on the spot u go 2 jail
2nd offense-go 2 jail for 3 years-no reduced sentence, good behavior, or any of that crap.(this is assuming u did not kill anyone when u got the dui)
I know a guy who is finally now going to jail after his 4TH DUI!!!!!! 4TH! and only sentenced 2 years-he will b out in 9 months! he'll probably do it again only this time kill a family in a minivan or something. god love our court systems. if he would have been caught with pot though he'd be locked up for 15 years. what the hell is wrong with our government?|||take away there car and give them a bus pass blacklisting them from purchasing a car or renting a car for a year and punish those willing to loan them the use of thier car with heavy fines|||First offense, your driven 20 miles from your car and ordered to walk back to it, works in Turkey.|||1st Offense - 20 lashes with a whip across the back.
2nd Offense - Pistol Whipping by arresting officer and any other available officers they can call.
3rd Offense - Pretty much death, if you have not learned your lesson by now.
Make it publicly well known what the penalty is, and bad, will cut bad on it.|||1st , 2 nd , 3 rd Offense...... 1 year in Jail and lost of lic.
3 years in jail and lost of lic..
LIFE|||1st offense, Life in prison.|||Simple... if you drink and drive the first offense (over the legal BAC limit because you willfully and with afore thought consumed enough alcohol to place you over the limit and you were driving impaired) penalty should be instant withdrawal of your driving privileges (total ban - not just a "restricted license" which allows you to drive to work) for 6 months. If you drive during this period your driving privileges should be suspended for a further six months.
If you re-offend you should receive a driving ban of ten years plus 6 month jail term. If during either the first or any subsequent offenses, an injury or wreck is the result then Instant 10 year ban plus 5 years jail time and pay restitution to any victims.
If the penalties are stiff enough then maybe idiots won't drink and drive.|||hey CHRIS, don't really care if anything happens to YOU if you drive drunk, but i do care about innocent people,,,by the way until you have a family member killed by a drunk driver (like myself and countless others), i believe you will remain an a**hole|||I've got a great punishment for drunk drivers: Civic Service.
Make them spend their weekend nights giving free rides to all the other drunks that are out partying. Have them check in with the police officer in the area and do a breathalyzer (to jail if they fail.)
It reduces drunk driving by keeping *new* drunks out from behind the wheel and the guy already caught has to put up with a bunch of drunks.
Saves a bunch of lives, but probably wouldn't bring in as much revenue. Taxi companies would probably protest as well.|||Well DUI just means driving under the influence.
Hence, nobody was drunk. If they were they would be DWI.
I think for a DUI the cop should pour out the beer or whatever on the side of the road and give the empty trash back to the driver.
It's really not that big of a deal. Many people can handle A beer.
Think about how many times you drank 1 beer and were just fine on the road. It's not big deal. It's just blown out of proportion.|||There should be no penalties for DUI. If people want to drink a few and get behind the wheel then that's their own business you nazi.
Can the U.S. government use satellites or other surveillance to watch anybody at any time inside their home?
What is the best map service available to the public online? Google earth, mapquest, etc???? Can you read license plates and see faces and go back to specific days??|||No. No one can see through walls and roofs, even with a satellite.
They would have to be on the ground and can only identify heat sources and shapes, with special equipment. They would have to place mini cameras inside of your home to watch you, and make an absolute identity.
Google Earth is by far the best so far of all of the mapping software. Some of the satellite photos are over three years old and do not reflect the current landscapes, do to changes from construction.
No one can spy on you from a satellite inside of your home. They have the capability to take photos of your home and the surroundings but that is all. It is possible that you might be visible if you were outside and stayed outside for a while. This way they could transmit your image while you were outside, but never inside of your home.
Remember that the satellites move in orbit around the earth and the earth also spins. This is why sometimes the signals of satellite television are lost for a while and the equipment has to be rotated or adjusted. It would be astronomically expensive to dedicate a satellite to watch one person and their home.
This is a simplistic description but you can get the idea.|||There is a limit to what satellite surveillance can do. It cannot see inside people's homes. You'd have to be an object of the most intense interest for the government to want to track your movements closely. Photos published in _The New York Times_ detail the secret Iranian nuclear facility near Qom in astonishing detail; they obviously came from a satellite.
I doubt that you can get access to anything better than Google earth. You can't go back to specific days, but you can see property, land, and people's houses and sometimes see rather astonishing sights. I was washing my car when it was parked on the street in front of my house, and I found out later from someone who looked up my address that Google had been taking photos that day; there I am, in filthy T shirt, with a sponge, scrubbing away. However, that was just chance.|||A little tidbit of info regarding US spy satellites - they are so powerful that they can pick up a softball as clear as day on a field and you can even see the shadow of the softball on the grass. (assuming it is a sunny day)|||If you are rich anything is possible, let me know when you get rich, im curious too.
They would have to be on the ground and can only identify heat sources and shapes, with special equipment. They would have to place mini cameras inside of your home to watch you, and make an absolute identity.
Google Earth is by far the best so far of all of the mapping software. Some of the satellite photos are over three years old and do not reflect the current landscapes, do to changes from construction.
No one can spy on you from a satellite inside of your home. They have the capability to take photos of your home and the surroundings but that is all. It is possible that you might be visible if you were outside and stayed outside for a while. This way they could transmit your image while you were outside, but never inside of your home.
Remember that the satellites move in orbit around the earth and the earth also spins. This is why sometimes the signals of satellite television are lost for a while and the equipment has to be rotated or adjusted. It would be astronomically expensive to dedicate a satellite to watch one person and their home.
This is a simplistic description but you can get the idea.|||There is a limit to what satellite surveillance can do. It cannot see inside people's homes. You'd have to be an object of the most intense interest for the government to want to track your movements closely. Photos published in _The New York Times_ detail the secret Iranian nuclear facility near Qom in astonishing detail; they obviously came from a satellite.
I doubt that you can get access to anything better than Google earth. You can't go back to specific days, but you can see property, land, and people's houses and sometimes see rather astonishing sights. I was washing my car when it was parked on the street in front of my house, and I found out later from someone who looked up my address that Google had been taking photos that day; there I am, in filthy T shirt, with a sponge, scrubbing away. However, that was just chance.|||A little tidbit of info regarding US spy satellites - they are so powerful that they can pick up a softball as clear as day on a field and you can even see the shadow of the softball on the grass. (assuming it is a sunny day)|||If you are rich anything is possible, let me know when you get rich, im curious too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)